#he's most powerful as a minister to actually bring change to his society..why give that up and go back..to echo Dr Holford

[deliciousnutcomputer]

SK is trying hard to save and redeem Tommy for the past 3 seasons. He's not going to kill him certainly in a "heroic death" ending. Tommy doesn't need a heroic death, he is already doing good being a minister where he has the most power to do good - free hospital care for the poor, shelter for children, affordable housing plans, research into illness, SK also said he put it in S5 script that Tommy even started a facility for shell shocked soldiers after seeing the condition Barney is kept - if Tommy wants the parliament to listen to him, he must lead by example.

Him working and reporting on Mosley despite the toll its taking on him and his family (sealing Mosleys fate) is the ultimate good isn't it? Coming out guns blazing (I guess this is what heroic means) to save someone/cause and dies and then sees his dead where he is at peace is as cringe as they come.

[mgsapphire]

Ethics and morality... and how they're not the same...

Weird title, and I don't even know if I'll properly approach this one with all the topics I wish to this discuss in today's The Devil Judge essay, because a lot of things peaked my interest, I was debating on doing a separate post for each subject, but I'll do them all in here:

Starting simple

I know we're only 4 episodes in, but I want to break down the things that I often look for in a new show:

Cinematography

Soundtrack

Character building

Plot devices

Social commentary (sometimes)

Of course, these are things most people would consider basics, but I find that a lot of TV shows don't have enough balance in them. Also, cinematography and soundtrack are pretty up there for me because when a plot gets slow, or something like that, I stay for those two (biggest example: King Eternal Monarch).

The soundtrack in The Devil Judge is amazing and the cinematography can be a character of its own. They really get me hooked and are used as tools to properly tell a story. And I'll get into that further down this post.

The onlooker will never understand the actor

Experience is your best friend not only applies to job hunting, but it's true in the real world too. You can't truly weigh in on something unless you've experienced it yourself, you can give it your judgment and everything, but when bad things happen to someone, you'll never truly understand their pain. Am I bringing up because of the difference of mind in Judge Kang and Judge Kim's opinions? On how the public treated the minister's son? No. I'm talking about a very specific scene, where the cinematography told me to think that way and not the dialogue (it's that easy for my mind to be swayed). In episode 3, when the rich are about to dine right after the foundation's commercial for a better future, we see this aerial shot:

What's interesting about this? The seclusion and the enclosed feeling it conveys as a counterpart to the poverty shots we were just shown. Yet, these are the people making ads for a better future, what do they know?

They live comfortably behind concrete walls with no windows to see what goes on apart from the bubble they live in. This idea is further enforced at the party in episode 4, where they're not even a part of the donations, and watch and mock from afar as spectators. Yet, these people call the shots. They even call it commenting, as if they were watching the pain of others on TV.

The intriguing personality and the duality it encites

Now, this was a costume and wardrobe decision, but it was also very well thought of:

Judge Kim wears white and Judge Kang wears black. One is morally perceived by viewers of the show as morally good and the other is perceived as morally dubious at best. However, besides the costume and wardrobe thought put into this, we also have to think about the delivery of this scene and how it may further affect my detailing of this section. Judge Kang brings down the coats, and hangs over the coat to Judge Kim, he's the one who is making that annotation: You're pure, I'm tainted. This can have one of two interpretations:

Either Judge Kang believes Judge Kim to be pure and innocent due to his status as a rookie in the field

Or he believes Judge Kim to be morally white and himself morally black as he's looking at his brother's face and not at Judge Kim's heart.

Because most of the back story we're unveiling is through Judge Kim's perception, there's also an inherit bias we're having as well, because in Judge Kim narrative, he believes he's doing what's right and believes Judge Kang to be evil. In being served information about Judge Kang through Judge Kim's eyes, our bias is inherently skewed.

Another thing is that, when they put on the coat, they're standing in front of the other, as if the producers of this series are telling us they're two sides of the same coin.

The duality is made in more deceitful ways, which include:

A difference of classes that implies one has suffered while the other has not.

A difference of experience that implies one is more tainted while the other is pure.

A difference of age that implies one is a sly fox while the other one is is bunny about to be eaten.

A difference of temper that makes one erratic and the other logical.

Power dynamics

This one, in this one I could make a whole thesis based on just a couple of scenes in the drama. And you know I have to mention it: director Jung being the puppeteer.

It may not be as unexpected at first, nevertheless it brings forward a lot of things I've wished to touch upon for quite some time now. A woman being a puppeteer of an old man in the portrayed dystopia that The Devil Judge is painting makes much more sense than more common demonstrations of these dynamics where it's either a:

A man of power being controlled by a bigger man of power.

A man of power being controlled by a seemingly man of a lower status.

A woman being controlled by a man of power.

Although, there's nothing wrong with those power dynamics, and if they were to be used, a message could also be conveyed, this one in particular works as a megaphone.

A subversion of power in such a way can be interpreted as a true indication of the weak overcoming the powerful. Why? It is not that woman are naturally weaker than men, but that in society, patriarchy has been a big factor in taking voice away from women in order to give it to men.

In order for Director Jung to achieve her purposes, it's smarter for her to do it under the pretense that an old rich man in power is the one calling the shots.

This is better exemplified by her stance when the old man tries to excuse his behavior, and what her moral compass is. I'm not saying I agree with her unethical conduct, but that her morality is directly impacted by the perception of the public of her as a weak woman:

Just because a dog bites a human does the person get dirty?

This is telling on how she perceives the actions of the old man in gropping the waitress. She didn't do anything wrong, even if you touched her, you are the dirty one.

While she's evil, it's a refreshing and deep evil.

The public's opinion and how there's actually logic in the show's portrayal

The public opinion can make or break a person, even if it's not on a public trial like this. While "cancel culture" barely works in today's society, a person's reputation is forever tainted. The show does tell that, but it also exhibits the scary downside of it, by showing how easily it was to make people accept flaggelation as a fitting punishment.

There are many experiments that have tried to test the effect of societal pressure on an individual's decision and the effect of the authority's enforcement of power in the outcome of these decisions. Furthermore, theories based on analysis of human behavior not necessarily relying on experiments can also help break this down. What do I mean? Here's a small attempt at explaining:

Milgram Experiment on Authority: which measured the individual willingness to carry out actions that go against their conscience due to an authority's approval.

Argument from Authority; The idea that people are more likely to use an authority's opinion on something as an argument for their reason. This is often seen in science, where trusted authorities have done the research and offer it to the public. In here, authority bias also plays a role, as we often believe, at first, that an authority must be right.

Moral disengagement: basically speaking, because this is evil or bad, I'm not part of it and I most probably am not actively participating in it. One may disengage by moral justification, which means that before engaging in something that has been previously perceived as immoral, I'm changing my stance on it based on what I tell myself to be logical arguments. This particular form of moral disengagement is very effective in changing the public opinion. I'll be touching on another form further down this post.

Other factors played a part, but these ones in particular came to mind when public flagelation as a form of corporeal punishment was wildly accepted. First, an authority is the one telling them it's correct, to go ahead. Secondly, another authority (the minister) had previously shown approval to such unusual punishment. Thirdly, they are not the ones to be engaging directly in the act, and even if they were, it would be acceptable because an authority has told them so. They may even believe the punishment to be a necessary evil for the greater good.

In fact, the minister's son was actually correct when pleading his case, they were accepting it because it wouldn't affect them directly.

Regarding the cinematographic descent of the public opinion regarding the situation can better be exemplified by the old man we've seen through the episodes.

Does suffering justify misdeeds?

Today I came along the difference between excuse and reason. You may give a reason for your behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.

Not because I've suffered through shit, means I have to make you suffer too.

I may explain myself, but it's on the other side to excuse me.

Why I hate the unreliable narrator and why I love it so much

This story has been told mostly through the eyes of Judge Kim and what he hears and sees regarding Judge Kang, if anything, the narrative is very close to that of the narrative we've seen in The Great Gatsby. An enigmatic man is being narrated to us from the eye of a man who hasn't known him for a long time.

How is that an unreliable narrator? The narrator has their own set of bias and moral standards which function as lenses through which they see the world.

Another way of putting it would be the way teenage romances are often written in a first person narrative where either of the two teenagers is the narrator, so the author can sell to us something as simple as offering a pack of gum as the most romantic act on earth. We're perceiving interactions through rose tainted glasses.

In this case, we're seeing the interactions through Judge Kim's eyes who doesn't trust Judge Kang from the get go due to his own preset bias.

The narrative becomes even more unreliable as we're not exactly sure if what Judge Kang disclosed himself is a fact.

The reason why I love this narrative is because it leaves a lot of space to make simple plot twists to a narrative and make them seem grand, and can elongate a story without making it obvious.

The reason why I hate it is because sometimes, in tv shows mostly, we as viewers can see the other side of the story and grow increasingly frustrated with the main character's prejudice and misunderstandings (I'm looking at you my beloved Beyond Evil).

Also, because I have to wait for a long time before I actually have a clear picture of it.

[tres-spades-hotel]

The Adventures of Avaline

Chapter 1 – A Star Crossed Myth

I remember the last moments of my life. I was walking the streets of Tokyo, a city that I had recently called home. For 2 years, the hustle and bustle of life in the city was no different to my home in England. Anywhere and everywhere was something new and something big. All the time. You could never really get a break in a world expecting you to be obedient and loud.

Introverted as I was, I never found a place I could call home. A real home. I was too shy, too quiet, too little, too… me. My name was Olivia, it means an olive tree oddly enough. A caring, mature woman who didn’t take risks because she didn’t want to get hurt. I had many chances to do something meaningful with my life, to help the world be a better place, to help people, to help humans, and I blew it. Literally.

That day, I was walking without knowing that my life would end. Two cars were out of control. Drunk drivers I guess… or maybe it was all preordained. Two red cars were speeding from opposite directions. One of them was in the wrong lane, that’s how they both crashed.

She was a small girl though. Couldn’t have been more than 5 years old. I have never done anything in my life that meant I would be remembered but I suppose in my last few minutes, I really did do something good.

Crossing the street, she followed her mother slowly who was too engrossed in her phone conversation and the baby sibling in the buggy. That girl was in danger and I acted. I don’t know what came over me but the next thing I knew, I had dropped my bag and ran for her. I screamed something and the girl turned around at the maniac scrambling towards her. I twisted my ankle because of my heels but I was able to push her backwards just in time.

Her eyes held fear and confusion. But she was also curious. I may never see those eyes again. The cars crashed, destroying the bonnets and my skull was smashed to smithereens.

What could I do but think that she will live on, remembering what it is that I had died for. Her survival in a cut-throat world where cars are the animals and money is the meat that you fight for. It will be a very long time before I see that society again.

*

…

……..

…………………

What?

Where am I?

A blinding light cuts through the darkness like a knife slicing through butter. My eyelids flutter open. A beautiful golden palace stands before me with pillars and statues and a large staircase up to the entrance. But why does it look so familiar?

A thin river slithers across the ground in front of the building. Gorgeous flowers and grass and insects live freely in the warm sun. It’s not too hot and it’s not too cold, it is just the right temperature to stand and soak in the sunlight. I would love to live here if I could.

Wait.

Wait, hold on a second!

Isn’t that…?

This palace couldn’t be the one from Star Crossed Myth… could it? It looks just like the CG whenever the MC or the gods came to the….

Am I in the Heavens?

But that’s impossible! For one, I died. I remember that clearly. And two, SCM is just a visual novel. A game to read and make choices and fall in love with the characters. It’s a fantasy story which doesn’t exist.

Does it?

I try to take a step forward, but my foot accidently pulls the hem of a material. Looking down, I see a golden cream dress with a lace bodice and three-quarter sleeves. My hands wear golden accessories. My fingers feel my ears which are adorned with large earrings and they make their way to my silky soft black hair tied back in a braided crown. Even my skin feels flawlessly smooth.

My  body seems to have changed too. I’ve become thinner and more curvy, although my chest is still as large as ever. But my back and shoulders aren’t aching because of the weight. My bum’s a little bit rounder and my legs are close to being twigs. That’s probably why I feel taller. On my feet are high heels but I stand perfectly on the dirt.

What the heck is going on? Who am I? Am I still me? Was I… reborn?

Well, if I remember correctly, the MC was reborn too but that was only because Huedhaut was the one who sacrificed the stars in his eyes to recycle her soul. And she was a goddess to begin with. But there’s no way that happened to me. I don’t know any gods. I’m not a goddess.

Looking at the palace, it no longer seems beautiful but a mysterious building with answers to questions I have yet to discover. I take a deep breath and head towards the Palace of the Heavens.

*

Inside, the hallways are exactly as they are in SCM. Everything is connected with doors and corners. The windows are really amazing, just about bringing together the ceiling and the floor. The hallways are also very, very, very wide. So many people… oh I mean gods…. in one hallway at once.

As I walk through the Palace, I start to hear murmurs and whispers of the gods who pass me.

‘Who is that?’

‘I don’t know but she is beautiful.’

Some goddess’ pass by and I hear more whispers.

‘I thought it was Lord Leon but it’s a goddess.’

‘She does seem very powerful, who is she?’ Shamelessly gossiping about a woman they’ve never seen before is rude, no? And did they say Lord Leon? And did they just call me powerful? There’s no way that’s true though. I still don’t know what I look like yet, so I have no idea if I look even remotely ‘beautiful’.

Ignoring them, I notice that many of them wear uniforms, most of which are Wishes and Punishments but there are some that I do not recognise. Some which have never been mentioned in the stories of Star Crossed Myth.

I wonder how many of the twelve zodiac gods are here in the palace at the moment. Has The Dark King waged his war on the Heavens? Did Leon become King? Has the MC been reborn? Is Clotho, the Goddess of Fate, even alive right now? So many questions and the only being in this world who I can ask is the King of the Heavens. I really hope he exists here.

Upon turning a corner, however, I stop when I hear a voice.

‘Lord Leon, are you going somewhere? May I accompany you?’

‘Sorry, I’d like to be alone.’

I slowly peek around the corner and see the one and only Wild Lion of the Heavens strolling through a jungle of babbling gods. My breath hitches in my throat as I contain my cough. Leon, the God of Leo, stops for no one at all, only passing by and rejecting the advances of the goddess’ around him. That’s right, in Leon’s Musings on Love, he showed the MC his past. A very lonely past. Gods and goddess’ spoke freely about Leon as if he were an object, like he was invisible to them. But because he doesn’t say anything, they continue to do so and fill the hallways with gossip and rumour. The MC felt bad for him and I do too. He’s loved and hated by all, feared and respected by all, but who knows his heart? Who knows his mind? Who knows his fears? His thoughts?

As he comes around the corner, I hide behind a god in front of me. Somehow, Leon passes by without taking notice of me. Maybe he’s too immersed in his thoughts to see me.

But…

Even though his back and shoulders seem so strong, they also look so alone to me. I can’t help myself. I’m going to follow him. I know where he’s going anyway.

*

The church. The door is left slightly ajar, so I press my ear against it.

‘… A divine minister, huh? Me… as powerful as the king…?’ His whispers are carried to me by a silent messenger of the air. To have so much responsibility and expectations put on him, Leon had no one to confine in.

I try to sneak in undetected, but it doesn’t work. The door sends a creek into the hollow church which echoes far more dramatically than it should. Sitting on a bench at the front, the auburn hair whips around at the sudden sound. I tumble out and awkwardly stand as Leon rises, the confusion evident on his face. He seems pretty young, so he looks a lot cuter and more adorable. I smile naturally at the thought but that makes Leon glare at me.

‘What are you doing here?’ His words sting as they bounce towards me and I flinch. His voice is deep and strong and straight to the point. No beating around the bush.

Oh.

Maybe he thinks I follo- wait I did follow him. What am I saying? I did follow him but not for what he is thinking. Maybe he thinks I am going to come onto him or something. I walk a little closer so that we can see each other clearer. His uniform is just like his sprite in the title and his facial features are perfect. But when I look into his eyes, I’m awe-struck. The stars in his eyes are beautiful. They’re in the shape of the Leo star sign. The stars shine bright in his copper eyes and now it’s hard to look away. I’ve always found it difficult to keep eye contact with anyone but with him, it feels so natural.

His eyes suddenly widen. He looks surprised and more confused somehow. I wonder what he is thinking. What should I say though? He wasn’t expecting anyone, and this never happened in the story so what do I do?! Should I introduce myself? Tell him I was mistaken and that I’ll leave?

The longer the silence surrounds us, the more nervous I feel. He’s not saying anything, and I never answered his question. What am I doing here? 

Actually. 

I have an idea.

My heels click-clack quickly on the marbled floor of the church. Before I know it, I’ve crossed the distance between us. My arms encircle his torso and I hug him for dear life. His body tenses under my touch and I can tell his arms are hovering in the air. Leon’s body feels muscular underneath the clothes he wears, and his warmth encapsulates me completely. My head rests perfectly over his chest. The sound of his heartbeat thunders in my ears as I take in the sweet scent of flowers radiating from him. I hug him a little bit tighter as I try to take all the warmth that I can. I’ve never been so intimate with a man, let alone a god, before so this affection that I give Leon is surprising to me too.

I loosen my death grip ever so slightly and look up at him. He looks down with his eyes narrowed.

‘You know, it’s said that if you hug someone for 30 seconds, they begin to feel better.’ Leon’s confusion grows but I think he knows what I mean.

‘That’s ridiculous, how can a simple hug make someone feel better?’ His words seem harsh, but I feel his arms embrace me. I smile into his chest, happy to know that he’s not completely heartless.

‘I don’t really know how to explain it in a way that you will understand but you seemed… sad, for lack of a better word, so I wanted to help.’ I hug him again tighter than before. His body relaxes a bit after my semi-explanation.

I hear him mumble something, but I don’t catch it in time.

Thirty seconds seems far too short. I should have said thirty minutes! Reluctantly, I let go of Leon fully and put a few feet of distance between us. The cool air in the church fill in the gaps and I feel cold without him.

‘If you ever feel lonely or need a hug to feel better, then I am here for you. You don’t have to bear everything on your own, Leon.’ I accidently say his name more casually than I should in this world so I give a quick smile and a wave and dash out as quickly as I can.

I hope he believes me.

*

I need to see the King right away. Now that I know what part of the SCM timeline I am in, I now know that Zyglavis must also be here in the Palace. Although, if I come across him I might clam up. What should I say? I don’t know who I am, what I am, why I am here. If I’m a goddess, what am I the goddess of? What’s my special ability? How do I-

‘Ah!’ I bump into a god who is almost double my height and I immediately recognise who he is. Zyglavis stands tall, very tall in fact, in front of me and the nerves take over.

‘Please watch where you are going, the hallways can be very busy at this time.’ His stern attitude makes me stand up a little straighter. I almost salute to him military style.

‘Um, I’m sorry. I am looking for the throne room.’ He raises his eyebrows.

‘Oh, and for what purpose?’ Wait, what should I say now?

‘I, uh, I have… an urgent matter to speak with the King.’ I say but he doesn’t seem convinced.

‘What kind of urgent matter?’

‘I-It’s for the King’s ears only…’ I reply and he narrows his eyes at me. He is truly terrifying when being questioned.

‘Very well, I will take you to His Highness. Follow me.’ Zyglavis turns quickly and I scramble to obey. Even rushing behind him, I feel his powerful aura.

Hard to believe that right now, he’s the Vice Minister of Punishments. And he’s right, everybody seems pretty busy. I wonder if it’s a holiday or something on Earth, maybe that’s why they’re rushing around.

‘Um…’ I start to say but then it hits me that I don’t have a name to give. I can’t give my human name in case I already have one.

‘What?’

‘Oh, um, what is your name?’ I hurry to walk beside him, and I hear him sigh.

‘My name is Zyglavis, the God of Libra and the Vice Minister of the Department of Punishments.’

‘That… sounds like a big responsibility.’

‘It is, but I am glad to have it if it means protecting the humans on Earth.’

‘You must really love the humans. I’m sure they’re very lucky to have you as their protector.’ I compliment him but I do mean it. Once he’s promoted, he’ll do a lot more good things.

He doesn’t say anything, so I look up, but he is already looking at me. I notice the stars in his eyes look just like the Libra star sign. They look equally as beautiful as Leon’s.

‘Are you new here?’ He asks.

‘Well, yes. I need to speak to the King… about which Department I’ll be joining…’ I say hesitantly.

‘Then why didn’t you say that before?’

‘Well, I’m still struggling to believe that I’m here, you know?’

‘I understand. The Palace can be a busy place, so I suggest you take care not to become entangled in gossip. Make sure to work hard at your best.’

‘I will… Lord Zyglavis.’ I smile up and he continues walking.

Eventually, we reach a hallway that’s different to the others in the Palace. There are large pillars and images are etched into the surfaces.

‘What are these images? Are they of the past?’ I ask, pointing to one of a man holding up the sun.

‘In a way, yes. Now come, the King must be waiting for you.’

‘Ah, okay!’ I hurry to follow but make a mental note to come back and study the pictures some more.

The double doors open to the throne room. A long red carpet leads all the way to the throne where the King of the Heavens sits. I stop myself from smiling out of nervousness.

‘Your Highness, this young goddess is here to work under your guidance.’ Zyglavis says, bowing. I quickly follow his lead and hear a voice reverberate in the quiet room.

‘Thank you Zyglavis for bringing her to me. You may leave.’

‘I understand.’ He bows again, looks at me and leaves. I smile again at him before turning to the King. He is as beautiful in person as he is in the stories. His overwhelming power fills the throne room even though he is only sitting in his throne lazily.

‘Um, your Highness…’ I begin but he holds up his hand to stop me.

‘Do not worry, I know of your situation, Olivia.’ OMG.

‘Seriously?! You know that I-‘

‘Come with me, we must speak privately.’ The King snaps his fingers, and a flash of light blinds me. The next thing I know, I’m in the King’s private chambers.

‘Oh wow!’ A large bed looks as if its suspended in animation. Stars cover my entire vision as if I’m in space. There is no floor, but I am definitely standing on something.

‘Sit down, please.’

‘Oh, okay.’ I sit down beside the King, positioning myself so that I am facing him. His power is immense. I feel even more anxious just being beside him. The King smiles at me.

‘There is no need to be nervous. I know that you have been through a lot. Can you tell me how you died?’

‘Well, it will be hard to explain since I believe the Earth here is not caught up in certain technology yet…’

‘That is fine, tell me how you remember it.’

I recount my last memories and tell the King how I died, while attempting to describe the car accident and leaving out any modern concepts.

‘The cars must have crushed my skull upon impact and killed me. I hope that the girl is safe though. That I didn’t die for nothing.’

‘She has told me that the girl lived. You have nothing to fear.’

‘She?’ I ask.

‘I assume you know much about our world.’

‘That’s one way to put it I guess. I know that there are Departments here and that you are the King of the Heavens who is the most powerful and omnipresent being in the universe and-‘ His chuckle stops me from continuing.

‘It is true that I am the most powerful god to the knowledge of those living here in the Heavens. However,’ he looks away.

‘There is someone far more magnificent than me.’

‘Seriously? You mean that there is actually somebody out there who is even more powerful than you?’

‘Yes, but she will reveal herself to you when the time is right.’

‘What!? Why all the build-up if you weren’t going to tell me?’ I huff. He laughs at my childishness.

‘You will understand in time. She brought you here for a special reason. But for now, reacquaint yourself with the act of living. You have been reborn as a goddess after all.’

‘Really? How is that possible though?’

‘To put it simply, you have been reborn into a different dimension. This world that you see before does not exist in your world.’ Wow, so I’m not even in the same dimension as the Earth that I know.

‘Do you know what my name is? What powers I have?’ I ask eagerly.

‘Your name is Avaline, the Goddess of Destiny.’

‘Avaline. Of destiny?’ I repeat back.

‘You have the ability to know the destiny of any god or human. And the ability allows you to change it to whatever you wish.’

‘That sounds… like a big responsibility though.’

‘She assures me that you are worthy of such a power. But there is another.’

‘I have two abilities?!’ He nods.

‘Avaline, you have the ability to copy the abilities of others.’

‘… Um, what?’

‘I will give an example: Zyglavis has the ability to manipulate shadows, detach his own shadow and see through his shadow. Simply seeing the ability and knowing how it works will allow you to copy it. However, the ability will not be the exact identical as it is when Zyglavis uses it.’ I nod then shake my head.

‘I’m lost.’

‘You have unlimited use of your ability to use others, but the ability will change to suit you.’

‘That’s insane. Are you sure I really have this power?’ He chuckles at me and nods, but then he frowns.

‘There is something else. This ability of use comes at a cost.’

‘Of course it does.’ I sigh.

‘Do you know of the reflecting pools?’

‘Yes, they’re fountains filled with pure water which show reflections of Earth. Like a mirror.’

‘Exactly so. The pure water in the reflecting pools cannot be consumed because of their purity. However, you will need to.’

‘Really? Why?’

‘The more abilities you acquire, the more the power inside of you becomes imbalanced. Drinking the water of the reflecting pools will correct the balance.’

‘An unlimited quantity of power only to become disastrous to the one who uses them.’ I conclude.

‘Do not be mistaken. You can use the abilities whenever you wish. Gods do not get sick like humans but if you fail to drink the water daily then your life will be in danger.’

‘That’s not at all daunting.’

‘It is a power that has been chosen for you, Avaline.’

‘Avaline, huh. For some reason, it feels weird hearing you say this name.’

‘You will get used it in time. Now for your position here at the Palace.’ I sit up straighter.

‘You will work in the Department of Souls.’ I slump down in confusion.

‘Souls?’

‘Your Department Minister is Evelyn, and she will show you what to do. For now, a room has been created for you, go and rest.’

‘Okay, thank you, Your Highness.’ I stand up and bow in gratitude. I turn to leave and turn around again to him.

‘I have a question. How much of the future do you know?’

He only gives me a knowing smile.

‘I know that you will do great things for us here in the Heavens. Remember: you have been given tremendous powers, use them wisely.’ He leaves me with a smile. Suddenly, a blinding light transports me back to the throne room.

[narutsuart]

Edelgard’s backstory and why she blames Crests/Church(Spoilers Obviously):

So I’ve noticed that some people were a bit confused about El’s backstory and why she’d ultimately blame the church for her tragedy and the state of the world. Understandably so, because as much as I love this game they don’t do a great job in explaining it outright. That being said there is enough lore and suplimentary lore, to read in between the lines.

Note: this is NOT a write up on whether she’s right or wrong, it’s purpose is simply to clear up some muddy details in the lore and help explain Edelgard’s motivation and perspective.

Ok so here’s where actual spoilers roll in...

Insurrection of the Seven and the Tragedy of Enbarr:

Those who have played Black Eagles route will know that Edelgard’s tragic past involved the experimentation of her and her 10 siblings. In her C+ support with Byleth she says that the one responsible was the prime minister Duke Aegir, (Ferdinand’s father). Now anyone that was paying attention will know that Thales and those who slither in the dark were the ones that performed the experimentation on Edelgard. When we see the Flame Emperor(later revealed as Edelgard), and Thales speaking, he calls the Flame Emperor “their greatest weapon” and mentions imbuing the Flame Emperor with the blood of the “defiled beast” aka the goddess. Then we get confirmation in the part two: Crimson Flower from Hubert they are indeed responsible for the expiramentation. So did she lie about the prime minister?

Well no, not quite, you see in part one of Black Eagles Edelgard hints her true intentions several times in the story because more than anything she wants her allies and professor to walk her path with her. Of course she has to worry about blowing her cover so she did have to resort to half truths throughout part one. While it’s true that she and her family were experimented on by Thales(the leader of those who slither in the dark), in order to endow them with the Crest of Flames and in-turn become a powerful weapon. It’s exactly as Edelgard says it was ultimately the “prime minister and his gaggle of nobles” that allowed for her to do so. When Thales conducted the expiraments on Edelgard it was when he was under the guise of Volkhard von Arundel, brother of Edelgard’s mother Patricia von Arundel. Due to Patricia being wed to Emperor Ionius IX( Edelgard’s father) Volkhard was granted power as well as the title of lord. He comes to simply be known as “Lord Arundel”. With Volkhard’s new station and power he was able to play a big role in instigating an event known as the “lnsurrection of the Seven”. A soft coup that occurred within the Adrestian Empire in Imperial Year 1171. Duke Aegir, backed by a cadre of other corrupt imperial nobles. The nobles being: Count Bergliez, Duke Girth, Count Hevring, Count Varley, Marquise Vestra, and of course Volkhard von Arundel. They in-turned stripped Emperor Ionius IX of much of his power, relegating him to a mere figurehead while Duke Aegir became the true authority behind the throne. Remember that Thales under the guise of Volkhard von Arundel and used his position to manipulate the prime minister and the other nobles into the experimentation on the Hresevelg royal family as well as various other unsuspecting victims( Lysithea and her family) in order create “a powerful heir for the Empire” (while Thales real objective is to make a champion to destroy the church and children of the goddess.) All of the expiramentation was conducted in secret, implied to be imprisoned underneath the castle grounds of the Adrestian Empire.

Important Note: I want to clarify the expiramentation does not take place in Shambhala it’s heavily implied Edelgard has never been to Shambhala and seen those who slither in the dark at large. We know this because in Hubert’s posthumous note sharing the directions to Shambhala, says he was only able to detect it’s location due the Javelins of Light. The reason why those who slither in the dark use them sparingly is because they can be traced back to their domain.

The reasons why this all comes back to Rhea/Seiros and the church is because had she not lied about the true nature of the Crests, Saints and Elites and created an elitist nobility system where those without crests are screwed, and those with them rise to power, then Fodlan wouldn’t be led by a bunch of corrupt power hungry nobles who seek to further their power by any means necessary. You see regardless of intentions Seiros essentially creates a rift in society, by saying the Crests are a gift of the goddess passed down through nobility she allows the nobility of Fódlan to develop an abnormal sense entitlement as they believe their Crests are blessings from goddess herself. This system is what allowed corrupt nobles like Duke Aegir to rise to power, and ultimately diminish Ionius’s power making him helpless to stop the experimentation and consequential murder of his children. It also allowed Volkhard aka Thales to slip into the Imperial nobility and keep the empire under his thumb and gain influence over a decent portion of the Adrestian Empire. Thales would’ve never been able to accomplish all he did if the nobility system wasn’t so corrupt. The issue of corrupt nobility becomes even worse in the current era as it’s noted that Crests are starting to diminish and noble houses are desperately trying to keep their power. Even still despite the current system failing its still perpetuated by Rhea and the church’s teachings and due to the vast influence the church has it keeps things the way they are, as nobles can justify their rise to power as simply fullfilling the goddess will.

Fódlan’s History:

Now one of the biggest criticism towards Edelgard is her lack of understanding of Fódlan’s true history, but to be fair though it’s not like it’s her fault. Throughout her life she’s had a far more accurate understanding of Fódlan’s history than most characters in the game. I think it’s important to see this from her perspective. Ever since she was young she had been privy to important knowledge that had been intentionally hidden for thousands of years by Seiros and the church. Some things that were hidden like how the Ten Elites created the Heroes Relics, that the story about Nemesis Seiros was heavily altered, and more importantly that Fódlan had been secretly been led by The Immaculate One and her fellow children of the goddess. All that she knows is this monstrous creature in human skin had secretly been leading the world, altering history and stagnating humanity for over a thousand years with the Crest and nobility system and using the church as a front to do so. While Edelgard’s suspicions of why Rhea uses the church are wrong she is ultimately correct that Rhea was using the church as a front(she admits to such in her S support). Even as her time as Seiros she was trying to facilitate the rebirth of the Sothis which led her to conduct her “questionable” experiments to do so. I digress, a misconception is that Edelgard’s understanding of the history of Fodlan came from those who slither in the dark or that she was flat out lying to Byleth. It’s not either of those, Edelgard isn’t dumb enough to simply believe those who slither in the dark after all once she no longer needs their power she seeks to crush them, and after choosing Edelgard she’s always sincere about everything to Byleth. The real reason she is missing details is because her ancestor Wilhelm I (Wilhelm Paul Hresvelg) who had been allied with Seiros in the War of Heroes, passed down the true history of Fodlan to his successor and it went from emperor to emperor, so all sorts of details became lost due to practically being a huge game of telephone. Due to it being passed emperor to emperor it can be assumed that she received her information from her father. Considering her love for her father it’s no surprise she’d believe him and have no reason not to. Edelgard thinks she knows the true story of Fódlan already so it at least makes sense that she wouldn’t risk asking Rhea for the truth, considering she’s been hiding the truth for over a thousand years. Regardless of whether Edelgard is getting an A+ in history class, the thing she seeks to change is the Crest and nobility system as well as take down the corrupt Church of Seiros. By the end of every route these are all things that either get completely abolished, or revised in some way or form.

(I don’t imagine a hypothetical scenario where Edelgard confronts Rhea about the truth going well, Rhea always waited to the last possible moment to give the lore dump and in Golden Deer she’s rather hesitant to tell the truth despite the danger knocking on Fódlan’s door. I would not be suprised if she branded Edelgard a heretic)

Hopes for the world and Views on the Faith of the Goddess:

Edelgard wants to create a world of opportunity. One where people can rise to their position because they are best person for the job. One where all aspects of a person is taken into account instead of simply their status or whether they have a crest. As she says a world where people can rise, and fall by their own merits. A lot of character’s problems in the game has to do with their status as nobility, their crest and the misfortune it brings or the struggles they endure due to a lack of a crest. In Edelgard’s Fódlan people are free to pick their lot in life, if settle mediocrity so be it, and if they aim high they must be prepared to work tirelessly to achieve it. Edelgard simply believes in power of humanity. A lot of the characters in the game have this misconception that Edelgard seeks to create a world where only the strong survive, and a world without faith in the goddess. They have this believe that just because Edelgard seeks to crush the Church of Seiros, that she also seeks to get rid of the faith the goddess as well. That some people need their faith in of the goddess in order to get by and she’s essentially trampling over all those people. While it’s not exactly clear how she’d handle the faith in other routes as she ultimately is unsuccessful, in Edelgard’s route she makes it abundantly clear that she’s simply an enemy of the current church and not the faith. She even says this practically word for word against Rhea in Chapter 11 of Black Eagles.

Edelgard is what we call a Nay-theist. A fictional character in a fictional setting that has real gods and simply doesn’t believe that they need them. Edelgard is well aware that the goddess and children of the goddess existed and that she essentially established Fódlan, but she also believes that people shouldn’t put blind faith in that the goddess will take care of them. She thinks that people should take charge of their own lives. That being said she doesn’t seek to enforce this on people as recruited characters of devout faith like Mercedes and Marianne will comment on how Edelgard doesn’t discourage the prayer to the goddess. Her support with Manuela also shows that she is not above understanding the perspective of those who believe in the goddess.

Alliance with Thales:

(Check my reblog pls!!)

[yes-crisitunity]

Coronavirus and other things

Bart: Cheer up Homer Homer: Can't Bart: Okay! Marge: What if you pretended this couch were a bar? Then you could spend more nights at home with us, eh! Homer: I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. Lisa: Look on the bright side, Dad. Did you know that the Chinese use the same word for "crisis" as they do for "opportunity"? Homer: Yes! Crisitunity! 

The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 11 - Fear of Flying 

Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister announced that we should never see our friends again and live in a constant hazy mix of anxiety and mania. 

Skip 24 hours forward in bizarro-hell world, and Boris' "thick neck and broad, Germanic forehead" was joined by everyone's least favourite A-Level Economics student, Rishi Sunak. (Also present was the ex-President of GlaxoSmithKline, and current Chief Scientific Officer, Sir Patrick Vallance). Rishi proceeded to spit some absolute fire from the AQA AS Economics textbook about "fixed costs" and, at one point, I even thought he was going to tell us the individual components of aggregate demand. 

He also said that this was "not a time for ideology". A sentence, which if ever uttered tends to precede utter bullshit, that even those unfamiliar with Slavoj Zizek would be able to call out as "pure ideology itself". Which brings us on to the support package of "£330 billion". As I know many others have explained (and in great detail), the package of measures were completely targeted at satiating capital, and did practically nothing for labour.

Now why would we expect anything different? Rishi, after all, used to work for Goldman Sachs, and then the incredibly creepily named "Children's Investment Fund Management". I'll call it CIFM for ease. Now CIFM is a British hedge fund, founded in 2003. Interestingly, it is owned by a holding company based in the notably tax compliant Cayman Islands. It's not really clear what CFIM actually do, apart from funnel dark money to arseholes, but I can tell you what they don't do, and that's invest in a better future for children. Rishi's ex-boss at CIFM, Sir (oh he's a knight, I wonder why) Chris Hohn, paid himself over £200 million in both 2017 and 2019 (he probably did it more but I only checked the first page of google results).

You might think, where is this going, are you just rambling, have you been driven crazy by the less than one day of isolation? The answers are: somewhere, yes and yes. 

But, that somewhere is climate change. 

So, Chris likes to think of himself as a bit of an "activist investor" - a term that makes me physically sick. In late 2019, during the extended Extinction Rebellion protests, Chris and CIFM donated £50,000 and £150,000, respectively, to XR. What’s a guy like this, absolute piece of shit, to the bone capitalist, giving £200,000 to a group which is, ostensibly, anti-establishment. Seems a bit odd, no? 

XR push the exact same line that our big special boy the chancellor did in today's briefing on the coronavirus, that being they proclaim climate change is an issue "Beyond Politics". How asinine. Ultimately, this all points to a much larger screed, which has been well pointed out by many others, that being the neoliberal consensus. 

But the bit I want to examine in this is the crisis aspect of it. In his seminal (both definitions of the word) text Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman remarks that “Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change.” His quote tends to chime with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a way of understanding policy change which originated from evolutionary science. It portrays policy as, appearing to be, largely stable for long periods of time, only to be punctuated by a quick and dramatic change. 

It's fairly simple, some might even consider it "common sense". Basically, periods which exhibit stability in policy over time can be explained by stable interactions between legislators and special interest groups, and drastic change is as a result of a shift in the agenda.

Of course, as one of the most notable figures of neoliberalism, it is only logical that this would be Friedman’s view on the impact of crises on policy change. But, to my mind, crises are, in fact, neither the sole nor most important reason for policy change, rather they can be a contributing factor toward change in some instances. AKA it depends. 

Although policy change is a phenomenon in and of itself, it may be best understood through its relationship to periods of stability. This requires us to question just what we mean when we discuss change, or the lack thereof.

So, what am I getting at again?

None of this is a change in government policy, both with regard to the coronavirus, and climate change. The coronavirus has offered an opportunity for the Government to implement a wide ranging package of tax cuts and support to capital, whilst continuing to punish and alienate labour. So nothing’s fundamentally changed in their approach, its just been ramped up. 

Likewise, climate change. Groups like XR have, admirably, managed to expand the general discourse to include climate. Sadly, all they've done is make it another "political football" that just needs to be sorted out by some sensible people. They fundamentally do not identify any of the malefactors in our society who are responsible, and as such have no possible solution to the problem. It's all well and good saying "tell the truth" and "act now", but what does that actually mean? A quote which sticks out in my mind regarding XR comes from Chomsky: "power knows the truth already, and is busy concealing it".

So, how to tie this neatly in a bow?

Well I could just say this is an experimental and ground breaking new format of writing where I just do whatever I want and call it art, and you must respect it by the way, or I could put in the effort and properly conclude this.

ENDS

[crimethinc]

Yellow Vests for May Day Can Macron Pacify France Before May Day 2019? Probably Not.

Last week, concluding a national initiative aimed at drawing the general population into “dialogue” with the authorities, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a handful of minor reforms intended to placate participants in the yellow vest movement. It’s far from certain that this strategy will succeed.

The situation in France is the culmination of years of strife between protest movements and the state. At the height of the so-called “refugee crisis” in 2015, the French government used the opportunity provided by the November 13 terror attacks to declare a state of emergency intended to suppress all protest activity. Instead, a massive student revolt against the Loi Travail erupted in 2016, defying the state of emergency, and simmering unrest continued through the 2017 elections and the 2018 eviction of the ZAD. The clashes of May Day 2018 showed that the movement had reached an impasse: thousands of people were prepared to fight the police and engage in property destruction, but the authorities were still able to keep the contagion of rebellion quarantined inside a particular space.

Starting in November 2018, the Yellow Vest movement upended this precarious balance, drawing a much wider swathe of the population into the streets. In response, Macron organized a “National Debate” in a classic attempt at appeasement and pacification. The outcome of the National Debate and the May Day demonstrations will tell us a lot about the prospects of social movements elsewhere around the world: what forms of pressure mass movements can bring to bear on the authorities, what kind of demands neoliberal governments are (and are not) able to grant today, and what sort of longterm gains movements for revolutionary liberation can hope to make in the course of such waves of unrest.

Accordingly, in the following update, we explore the concessions Macron offered and conclude with the prospects for May Day 2019 in France.

Paris, April 20, inside the kettle at Place de la République.

Macron’s Intervention

Having postponed his announcement due to the fire that destroyed part of Notre-Dame cathedral on the evening of April 15, President Emmanuel Macron finally presented the results of the National Debate on Thursday, April 25, in a press conference broadcast live on French television.

The government launched this “democratic” political tool three months earlier, on January 15, 2019, to answer the thirst for a more “direct democracy” verbalized by a large part of yellow vest movement—especially through calls for a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum (RIC). Macron’s goal, of course, was to reestablish political stability in France while making as few changes as possible.

President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe in front of Notre-Dame. This has not been a particularly easy time to head the French government.

In the days preceding the press conference, several elements of his plan were leaked to the press, which diminished the surprise effect that the government aimed to create with this event. But unlike members of the current government, Macron’s supporters, and some corporate journalists, none of us were waiting impatiently for the president’s intervention, nor expecting that anything positive or surprising would come out of this political spectacle.

For more than five months now, yellow vesters have learned the hard way that dialogue with the government is meaningless—the state is prepared to take ever more authoritarian measures in order to maintain its hegemony and preserve the status quo. In the outcome of the “National Debate,” we see again why democracy has not served as a bulwark against fascism, but rather as a means to legitimize state power. Those who control the state are always careful to make sure that while elections, referendums, and discussions can serve to create the impression that the government has a mandate to represent the general population, they never actually threaten the institutions of state power.

The Government Responds to the Yellow Vests

Those interested who wish to see two and half hours of political doublespeak can watch Macron’s press conference in full here. Our goal here is simply to analyze some of the major decisions taken by the French government.

In the opening statement, Macron explained that he had learned a lot from the National Debate and emerged “transformed.” According to him, this three-month political experience highlighted that there is a deeply rooted feeling of fiscal, territorial, and social injustice among the population, alongside a perceived lack of consideration on the part of the elite. Therefore, the government has decided to present “a more human and fair” political project.

However, after these conventional words intended to create the illusion of empathy from the government towards yellow vesters and everyone else struggling on a daily basis as a consequence of the policies implemented by successive governments, Macron lifted the veil, adding:

“Does this mean that everything that has been done in the past two years should be stopped? I believe quite the opposite. We must continue the transformations. The orientations taken have been good and fair. The fundamentals of the first two years must be preserved, pursued, and intensified. The economic growth is greater than that of our neighboring countries.”

President Macron at the official press conference to present the results of the National Debate.

If some people still hesitated to believe that the National Debate was just a political farce, here is the ultimate proof. For months, people expressed their frustrations in the streets and traffic circles. Facing this unprecedented and uncontrollable situation, the authorities answered by saying that in a democracy, dialogue must not be established through “violence,” therefore offering the National Debate as an alternative in order to pacify the situation—while increasing police repression against demonstrators in the meantime.

After three months of National Debate—which fortunately failed to stop the movement—those who trusted the good intentions of the government saw their efforts and demands dismissed. In effect, Macron was telling everyone, “Thanks a lot for taking part of this debate, we heard you, but in the end, we decided to pursue our political agenda and continue the liberalization of the capitalist economy.”

So the long-awaited conclusion of the National Debate was simply a mix of old promises, a few adjustments to show the goodwill of the government, and new reforms to accelerate the transformation and liberalization of society.

Over five months later, yellow vest protesters are still in the streets.

First, Macron rejected some of the biggest demands of the yellow vest movement. The government will not officially recognize “blank votes” as a form of opposition during elections (so far, those votes are counted but they are not taken into account in the final results and in the total number of vote cast). Then, he refused to reverse the decision to reduce taxes on the income of the super-rich—one of the issues that had provoked the emergence of the yellow vest movement in the first place.

Furthermore, the government also opposed the idea of creating the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum (RIC). Instead, they want to develop an already existing alternative¬—the Referendum of Shared Initiative—by simplifying its rules. From now on, instead of requiring 4.7 million signatures to be discussed at the Assemblée Nationale, a petition will only need one million signatures and the approval of at least a fifth of the total number of deputies. If the National Assembly refuses to discuss the issue, a referendum can be held. Macron also mentioned his desire to reinforce the right to petition at a local scale.

A yellow vest protester holding a sign calling for the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum, one of the most popular demands among the movement. From our perspective, efforts to make the French government more “directly democratic” will be ineffectual at best and at worst will legitimize reactionary and repressive state policies as “representing the will of the people.”

Even with the proposal to simplify this participatory political platform, it is easy to see that the government is taking very few risks with this alternative. The idea is to give people the impression that they have more leverage within the democratic system, as they can address petitions to their representatives. But in the end, who will have the final word on these issues? Politicians motivated by self-interest, power, and careerism. There is very little probability that the deputies will validate any petition that could threaten the status quo. As in any other political system, this democratic game is obviously rigged: even if you play by the rules, you always lose!

Then, Macron repeated and clarified some reforms that were already present in his electoral program of 2017: limiting the number of terms for politicians (though he did not specify how many would be allowed); reducing the number of parliamentarians by 25% or 30%; increasing the degree of proportional representation in legislative elections (which will likely give more power to the National Front in French political institutions).1

Members of the Anti-Criminality Brigade in action during Act 22 in Toulouse.

After presenting what the government is planning to do to include more elements of participatory democracy in the French political system, Macron expressed his desire to undertake a “profound reform of the French administration” and of its public service. To do so, the government intends to put an end to the National School of Administration (ENA)—symbol of republican elitism and opportunism—in order to create a new institution that “works better.” Moreover, in May, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has been mandated to officially present a government plan to put more civil servants in the field so they can help the authorities find solutions to people’s problems at a local scale. Therefore, the government has abandoned its previous objective of abolishing 120,000 posts of civil servants—but this doesn’t mean that the government has abandoned the idea of cutting jobs.

To fight against the steady reduction of public services in the countryside and in some provinces—such as post offices and deliveries, health insurance, and unemployment agencies—the government aims to establish buildings that would concentrate all these rudimentary public services in one location. Such initiative already exists, in fact, but is suffering from critical underfunding.

Then, Macron stated that no further hospital or school will close until 2022—the end of his presidential term—without the agreement of the Mayor of the Commune they are located in. For years, successive governments have underfunded hospitals and schools, increasing the precarious aspect of working conditions. The main question is—what will happen after 2022? Regarding the education issue, Macron agreed to limit the number of students per class to 24 from kindergarten to second grade and to duplicate classes if necessary, as is already stipulated in some priority education areas—read poor districts. This is an interesting focus for Macron when in the meantime, government policies are worsening the educational system as a whole, especially via reforms targeting high schools and universities.

Concerning economic policies, Macron explained that he wants to “significantly reduce” the amount of income tax demanded from the middle class. However, to do so while balancing the loss of tax revenue, Macron is asking everyone to “work more.” The meaning behind this statement remains quite obscure, as Macron offered no further explanation. So far, we know that the government doesn’t want to change the legal age of retirement nor to cancel holidays. However, Macron is not opposed to the idea of increasing the number of working hours per week. The government also aims to reach its objective of “full employment” by 2025, without explaining how this might take place. In order to compensate for the tax cuts for the middle class, the government also aims to suppress some specific fiscal niches used by large companies, but Macron said nothing about the various strategies of tax evasion utilized by the super-rich.

Macron also explained his wish to increase the minimum amount of retirement pensions from today’s approximately €650 per month up to €1000. Moreover, Macron also reconsidered his previous policy regarding retirement and confirmed that pensions under €2000 would be re-indexed to account for inflation starting January 2020. Finally, the government wants to create some sort of mechanism to guarantee the payment of child support to families in need.

Starting in June, Macron wants to create a “citizen’s convention composed of one hundred and fifty people with the mission to work on significant measures for the planet.” In addition, he wants to establish a Council of Ecological Defense to address climate change. This council would involve the Prime Minister as well as the main Ministers in charge of this transition in order to take “strategic choices and to put this climate change at the very core of our policies.” This is not a measure to address the ecological crisis so much as yet another step in the development of the same French bureaucracy that sparked the yellow vest movement in the first place. Our governments and the systems that put them in power in the first place continue to lead us towards darker futures.

Riot police charging demonstrators at Place de la République on Saturday, April 20.

Finally, and most ominously, Macron presented his plan to “rebuild the immigration policy” of France. “Europe needs to rethink its cooperation with Africa in order to limit the endured immigration and has to reinforce its borders, even if this means having a Schengen area with less countries,” he proclaimed. “I deeply believe in asylum, but we must strengthen the fight against those who abuse it.” This will likely be the premise of a new step in the development of fortress Europe. And, of course, whatever authoritarian measures are developed to target migrants will also be used to target poor people and rebellious elements within France itself. In this regard, we can see that it has been self-destructive as well as racist and xenophobic that some yellow vesters have demanded more immigration controls.

As May Day Approaches

Following this press conference, the government hoped that its official announcements would finally take the life out of the yellow vest movement, defusing the social tension that has built up. However, in the hours following Macron’s speech, several well-known yellow vest figures expressed their dissatisfaction with his proposals, calling for further demonstrations. In the end, even if some yellow vesters were sidetracked by Macron’s announcement, it was difficult to predict whether people would massively take the streets for the 24th act of the yellow vest movement.

For Act 24 of the movement, yellow vest protesters made an international call to gather in the streets of Strasbourg. The banner reads “Coordination of the Yellow Vesters from the East.”

On Saturday, April 27, about 23,600 yellow vesters demonstrated in France. For this new day of action, the epicenter of the movement was the city of Strasbourg. As the European elections will occur in a month, an “international call” was made to gather and march towards the European Parliament. Some Belgians, Germans, Italians, Swiss, and Luxembourgers participated as well. About 3000 demonstrators walked through the streets of Strasbourg, confronting police and engaging in property destruction. In the end, 42 people were arrested and at least 7 injured—three police officers, three demonstrators, and one passerby.

At the same time, two demonstrations took place in Paris. The first, organized by trade unions, drew about 5500 demonstrators, among them 2000 in yellow vests, while the other, mostly composed of several hundreds of yellow vesters, did a tour of all the major corporate media headquarters to ask for “impartial media coverage.” Other gatherings also took place in Lyons, Toulouse, Cambrai, and elsewhere in France. (All of the figures provided here are from the French authorities.)

Street confrontations in Strasbourg on Saturday, April 27.

If we compare the total number of participants in this 24th act to the other national days of action, it is undeniable that it attracted fewer participants. Does that mean that the government has finally gained the upper hand over the movement? It’s unclear. It is possible that some yellow vesters stayed home from the 24th act in order to prepare for May Day.

Last year, the intensity of property destruction and confrontations with police during the May Day mobilization of anarchists and other autonomous rebels compelled the government to cancel the entire traditional trade union march. In view of the tense social and political situation in France today, who knows what May Day 2019 could bring?

If the government attempts to cancel or repress demonstrations in Paris this May Day, the situation could become explosive. Not only because the police have adopted aggressive new law enforcement strategies over the past few weeks, but also because several calls have been made for yellow vesters to join autonomous rebels at the front of the traditional Parisian afternoon procession for the “ultimate act.” The objective is set: Paris is to become the capital city of rioting.

The world on fire, Paris in the middle.

Here is an English adaptation of one of the calls, entitled Pour un 1er mai jaune et noir:

For a yellow and black May Day!

“When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties.”

-Article 35 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1793)

Macron’s government has decided to crush the current social protest by force, reaching a level of repression never seen before: prohibitions of demonstrations, deployment of soldiers, the use of armored vehicles, the use of chemical markers and weapons of war against protesters, jail sentences in spades, hands torn off, blinded protesters…

During the demonstration of May Day 2018, the Prefecture of Police counted 14,500 demonstrators “on the sidelines of the trade union procession” (almost as much as in the traditional procession) including 1200 “radical individuals.” On March 16, at the time of act 18, it was 1500 “ultra violent” ones who were present among the 7000 demonstrators, according to the figures of this same police.

Today, what frightens the state is not the rioters themselves, but the adhesion and understanding they arouse among the rest of the population. And this despite the calls, week after week, for everyone to dissociate themselves from the “breakers.”

If there is one group that currently strikes France with all its violence, it is not the “Black Bloc,” nor the yellow vests; it is rather the government itself.

We are calling on all revolutionaries in France and elsewhere, all those who want this to change, to come and form a determined and combative march. Because if repression falls on everyone, our response must be common and united. Against Macron and his world, let’s take the street together to revive the convergence of anger and hope. Let’s get ready, let’s equip ourselves, lets organize ourselves to overthrow him and drag him through a day in hell.

War has been declared!

Let’s see that flag burn too.

For those who attend to join the May Day festivities in Paris, here are some important links and information:

List of different May Day actions

Information and contacts courtesy of the Legal Team in French, English, and Italian.

Further Reading

We have been publishing updates and analysis on the Yellow Vest movement since it first got underway. You can view all our articles here.

“Proportional representation” would mean that if, for example, 30% of voters vote for the Green Party, then members of that party would receive 30% of the total number of seats. So far, legislative elections offer no proportional representation—even if a party receives a large percentage of votes, it might not gain many seats at the assembly. People have been complaining about this “unfair process,” so now the government is willing to increase proportional representation in elections. Unfortunately, for several years now, the National Front has usually received around 20-25% of votes but only currently holds 6 seats out of the 577 in the Assemblée Nationale. Increasing proportional representation will give them more power in the decision-making—although, of course, it’s not clear to what extent Macron will actually follow through on his promises.

Of course, there is no option for people who have grown disillusioned with government itself: that perspective will never be “proportionately represented.” This is why the government refused outright to recognized blank votes. ↩

[androgyne-acolyte]

The Radical Queer Gospel

(My first try at a sermon, for Pride Sunday 2019. You can also listen on Soundcloud.)

Why do we need a Pride Sunday? Especially in June? [Note: our local Pride festival is held in July.]

Because there is still a great lie that queer people — LGBTQ+ people — and Christians can’t get along.

I’ve had people on the internet tell me that my decision to go into ministry as a genderqueer person is worthless, because “the belief system of some two-thousand-year-old desert tribe didn’t care about being nice to gay people”. We routinely get messages telling us our church sign is wrong.

Anyone can spout talking points about this; but wisdom is vindicated by her deeds. [cf. Matthew 11:19]

I’m going to tell you about Jesus today; how he lived, and what he taught. For me, there is something powerfully relatable about the shape of Jesus’ life; not just as a person of faith, but as a queer person. I want to talk about how Jesus’ story resembles, in many ways, nothing so much as a queer life — with all the upheaval, scandal, and confounding of expectations that implies.

I’m certainly not saying that Jesus was gay, or trans, or intersex. Queer is a more expansive term than that, and is a much more immediately transgressive term; it’s a term, quite honestly, that is still very much connected to its origins as a term of abuse. While it can refer to anyone who experiences homophobia or transphobia, it carries with it a connotation of a way of being that goes against the grain; a state of being not quite one thing and not quite another.

But, fair warning: its use is sometimes quite contentious, even discouraged, within the wider LGBTQ+ community, especially when used by people who would not consider themselves “queer”. I’m using it today, however, because I’m speaking from my own point of view.

Jesus is born as an ordinary peasant, the son of a teenage mother and a carpenter — you know the story. He lives under military occupation by the Roman Empire, which has annexed all the best land; demands punitive taxes to build palaces in fortified seaport towns; has taken over the Jerusalem Temple, hiring and firing high priests at will, and doesn’t hesitate to violently crush any sign of dissent.

But as Jesus grows up, he starts to realize that he is called to be something different, something that will disturb the very fabric of the society that he lives in. He finds community through John the Baptist, a strange, wild figure who has quite a following, mostly among the more downtrodden parts of society — and through John he gets initiated into a new kind of life, a new way of being.

Then, Jesus begins to get noticed. Imagine the young Jesus, certainly no older than I am now, speaking in the synagogues all across the countryside of Galilee. And when he gets to his hometown of Nazareth, he stands in front of all his family and friends and begins to read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives … to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” … The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:18-21)

This reads, to me, like a coming-out narrative. Because Jesus immediately follows up this seemingly empowering message with a bunch of uncomfortable truths that they don’t want to hear — namely, by citing the story of the prophet Elijah to make the point that God works from the margins of society, and plants the seeds of prophecy and change from the bottom up. “No prophet is accepted in their own country,” declares Jesus — and the congregation who had just minutes before said “Wow! This kid is going places! Joseph, isn’t this your son?” turn around and try to run him out of town.

There is something else here that the gospels aren’t quite obvious about. Jesus is giving up his place in the family structure that bound Judean culture together; striking out on his own, all the way to the raggedy edge — to share his message of healing and justice and resilience in the face of Roman occupation with those whom his people would have considered foreigners and outcasts.

It’s almost certain that Joseph assumed that Jesus would come of age and take on his father’s trade, inheriting his tools and going to work as a day labourer in Roman construction projects. All of a sudden, that’s not going to happen — because Jesus has fallen in with a very strange crowd; he’s been influenced by these people, and has come back home full of uncanny zeal and radical ideas.

I can imagine all too well the sight of Mary grieving for the image of the son she loved, who she assumed would grow up, settle down, and have children of his own — but all of a sudden he’s someone different; someone or something that can’t quite be contained. I can imagine this all too well because my own mother, my own father, have both gone through this.

But as it turns out, Jesus had discovered — he had understood, had even begun to embody — a kind of love that had never been thought possible; a kind of love that was so radical and so powerful that a lot of folks outright rejected it. The people in power certainly weren’t into it.

This is a kind of story that should absolutely resonate with queer folks like me, because we have a very similar experience — with and through each other. The dawning realization that we are meant for a different kind of life; something which not everyone can understand, but which we suddenly realize is beautiful. That moment when you see someone else, in person or in the media, who embodies an indescribable feeling that you have kept tucked away inside of you for your entire life.

Isn’t it possible that those ordinary semi-literate fishermen, Peter and Andrew and James and John, had a similar experience — seeing something in Jesus that was so powerful, so compelling, that they couldn’t help but respond when he said “follow me”?

We queer people know a kind of love that wrenches us out of the closet and into the sunlight; a kind of love that makes us feel beautiful and strong and valued in a way that no other love has before; a love that opens our hearts to weep at the injustices done to our queer siblings, our trans siblings, our Two-Spirit siblings throughout history;

A love that can make us fearless, so that no catcalling, no misgendering, no homophobic preaching, no gay-bashing, no parental rejection can dissuade us from living out the kind of love to which we are called; the ways of being that upset cultural assumptions and power structures that most of us take as fact.

The love that took root in Jesus’ movement was one that breached walls and broke down borders; that reached across ancient religious schisms — such as the one between the Judeans and the Samaritans, who wouldn’t even speak to each other; that uplifted and empowered women; that extended all the way to the Ethiopian eunuch in the book of Acts — who would have been considered not only foreign, but ritually unacceptable as a person! — to heal and unify and plant the seeds of distributive justice through small, beautiful, subversive actions. And it didn’t stop there.

Near the end of the Gospel of Matthew, some of the Roman-backed chief priests and elders come up to Jesus and start questioning him. But he takes the wind out of their sails by telling them a parable:

“What do you think? A man had two sons [keep in mind that in a lot of Bible stories, the second son is the underdog who comes out on top]; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the [sex workers] are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.” (Matthew 21:28-31)

(Look at it this way; at least no one can accuse me of not being Bible-based.)

That passage is a proverbial smoking gun; of all the sayings in the Gospels, it’s the one that is still immediately subversive to us today. But it’s true, Jesus explains, because there’s one thing that the most stigmatized, most down-and-out people in society have that the respectable folks who actually obey the traffic laws and run the Temple don’t — and that is, a thirst for hope and meaning and healing, and a reason to imagine that another world is possible.

So, I’ll say it right now: I am not going into ministry to uphold the stability of the mainline church in its current form. I am going into ministry in the hope that I can help make the church into a refuge, where everyone has the opportunity and the tools to heal and thrive and care for one another; where this transformative divine love is as present and as accessible as the air we breathe.

I believe that I am called, among other things, to be a minister to and for my queer and trans siblings, for my radical siblings; to be an instrument of disorientation and reorientation and renewal and healing for the wounds that the church at large has inflicted by confusing white heteronormative Western social conventions with the actual, radical teachings of christianity.

Because how many queer and transgender children have been turned away, just like Jesus was run out of his hometown, by parents and communities and churches who don’t understand them?

I think what Jesus says to his own people later on in the Gospel of Matthew is something he might say to my radical queer siblings, and to the church that has historically rejected them, today:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children [— your queer and trans and non-binary children —] together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you, desolate.” (Matthew 23:37-38)

Because the great tragedy here is that that vital, transcendent love should have been the church’s stock in trade all along. We, the church, have the capacity and the knowledge to reach back to our radical, counter-cultural roots and throw people a lifeline of meaning and hope and healing in a tempest-tossed world — but in the eyes of far too many, we are still at best a bastion of the status quo.

I’ve connected with some wonderful radical theological people through the internet; one particular person, by the name of Jane Nichols — a remarkable lesbian trans woman who just completed her master’s degree in theology — says it better than I ever could:

[O]ur stance towards exclusionary theology should not be ‘well, actually, if we look in the Bible, we can see that it never actually forbids being gay,’ but instead, ‘how dare [we] presume to limit God’s love? What blasphemous arrogance could have possibly led [us] to where [we ended up]? When did [we] start worshipping [our] own image in place of the Divine?’ (Jane Nichols, Tumblr post, May 2019)

Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.

Where I have found the Holy Spirit alive and well and pushing the envelope is on the margins of almost every sphere. Most immediately, I encounter it in the deep insight and vulnerability of the women clergy members in my life — and most recently, I have seen it spring to life in the passion and brilliance and vision of the lesbian and queer women clergy with whom I was privileged to commune on the sidelines of the former Maritime Conference.

By the way — Jesus’ story is hardly the only one that’s relatable to queer and trans people like us. The Bible is replete with stories of transformation, of coming into new identity and purpose, even gender-ambiguity, if you know where — and how — to look.

Yes, queer people — LGBTQ+ people — and Christians, followers of Jesus, can and should get along. Yes, queer people can be Christian, and Christians can be queer; and yes, we can and should learn from one another!

Because we have a remarkable common ground — a remarkable birthright:

We are called to go against the grain; to challenge the basic patterns in which our societies operate, and to embrace a new and powerful kind of love;

a love that reshapes the way we think about ourselves, a love that beckons us to healing and renewal, a love that calls us to take action and cry out for justice, a love that is itself a radical way of being; a love that is potentially more beautiful and more life-giving than the power structures of this world are ready to understand.

Amen.

June 2, 2019 — St. Andrew’s United Church, Halifax

[script-a-world]

Is it honestly actually possible that bad people run most of the galaxy or several galaxies? Or at least even just an entire planet? It's done in sci fi a lot. However in real life that obviously has never happened. I'm not sure how to well, begin, create the circumstances that will give them that kind of vast power and not be defeated before. Even if they are the good guys, still, can't see how they can run everything either.

Bina: Totally possible since “bad” is relative depending on you who ask. If they have a believable facade of being “good” (or if they ARE doing good....... to just the right people (such as, politicians or powerful allies who will back them up)), and if they have a lot of supporters who think they’re the good guys, then it’s super feasible that they can take control of the majority of the galaxy with very little opposition.

Heck they can even get away with people just not thinking badly of them. They don’t necessarily need supporters who think they’re the right people to have in charge. Having people be neutral towards them can also be also good enough for them to take control without anyone complaining. All they need is people not caring. People supporting them is bonus, but apathy from the common man also goes a long long way in helping bad people come into power. 

In the end it’s all about controlling their narrative and their own publicity. They can be totally truly evil, but if they cover their tracks with enough propaganda and efforts to appear like they’re doing nothing wrong, or even that they’re doing things for the benefit of the people (or that they’re beneficial for powerful people who have more sway than the average person and can thus override the wills and desires of the common people), then the baddies can take power and the common man would either take no issue with it or be unable to do anything about it. 

Tex: The thing about leadership is that morality doesn't really calculate into it - they're two separate areas with very little overlap, especially if a leader is a successful one. The longevity of a leader's reign has more to do with their bureaucratic competency, organizational skills, competency to set and achieve certain goals that benefit those whom they rule (in some form), and ability to manipulate people. And, I hate to break it to you, but both "good" and "bad" people are manipulative, just for different reasons.

Al Capone is a classic example of how "bad" people can do good things that legitimately benefit others. He was a gangster that directly or indirectly had a hand in killing a great deal of people - but he was incredibly influential in making sure milk had expirations dates, among other things (Atlas Obscura). It could be argued that running bootleg alcohol at all was a good thing, given that a significant portion of the US population did exactly the same thing (to various degrees) during Prohibition. Is profiting off civil disobedience in such a manner against the mores of altruism? Murder or no murder, Capone straddles the line of "good" and "bad", depending on your point of view.

Martin Luther King, Jr, while on the surface might look like a paragon of virtue, did purposefully break laws with specific goals in mind - while his civil disobedience resulted in drastically fewer deaths than Capone's, he did still break the law. There are some schools of thought that believe adherence to the law is virtuous, and thus moral (and thus, "good"). Is MLK virtuous in this regard? Does his position as a minister of his faith grant him more morality than the average person, who isn't an official representative of a codified set of beliefs?

Both MLK and Capone caused immense upheaval in their respective eras and societies. Is this necessarily good? Is upheaval - change - bad? I'm sure there are proponents regarding both of them that can see the advantages and disadvantages of their respective actions. One is classically referred to as a "bad" person, and the other a "good" person. Why? And through whose lens are these judgements being made? Is the perspective itself moral?

Let me bring some fictional examples into this.

Emperor Palpatine, of Star Wars, is coded to be a distillation of evil - the evil, a scourge upon the galaxy. And yet, when he rose to power and declared himself emperor of a new empire, he was lauded as an incredible unifier. General evil-doer he may be, but his grip upon his own galaxy was ironclad, and his background as a senator and then chancellor shows that he was canny, able to organize his political agenda in influential ways that effected significant change upon the political and even economic landscapes of the respective eras of his life.

He was respected - yes, even by the Jedi - for his affable demeanour and bureaucratic acumen. His death, depending on the canon you subscribe to, did not end the vast reach of his influence, with post-mortem orders that were followed with the same fervent veneration as in life. Palpatine's opinion was trusted, and regardless of his moral compass, trust is still something that needs earning. What perceptions his followers are predisposed to, well- that's certainly another topic.

Aragorn II, son of Arathorn, of Lord of the Rings fame, ruled over the reunited kingdom of Arnor and Gondor after the war against Sauron. He is typically coded as the exact opposite of someone like Palpatine - generous, compassionate, wise. A unifier that began an unequivocal era of peace. However, his death toll is proportionally similar to Palpatine's during the war that secured his place upon the throne, and he had eschewed his responsibility as blood heir to the throne for a great deal of his life, a time during which there was famine, suffering, and death from Sauron's own influence. Are his reasons for obscuring his identity and being a Ranger good enough to justify the expansion of Sauron's reign through his relative inaction, his non-acceptance of leadership? Does the end of the war justify the means that Aragorn took to get there?

Is Aragorn more moral, more good than Palpatine, because his reign was brought about through total bloodshed? Palpatine's was wrought through the genocide of the Jedi, and yet his own reign brought a stability to his empire. It can be argued that the inaction on Aragorn's part, and the action on Palptine's part, during their respective wars pre-coronation, were a manipulation of the masses. They both chose to guise themselves for who they really were - the son of Arathorn II and the Lord descendant of Bane's line - only to unveil themselves at an opportune moment hastened on by their own actions to claim, and unify, these warring factions.

All four of these individuals, be the real or fictional, share something in common - the ability to be a successful leader. Their morality did not, in the end, impede them from swaying the masses to their opinions and leveraging the influence that they had - through argument, through force, through lineage - to assemble under a common goal. They all enacted dramatic, sweeping changes upon the society in which they lived, and utilized the power granted to them through their public's opinion to direct society in a direction that they wanted. They were good leaders, but that doesn't mean they had to be good people. 

Saphira: In my novel, I am working with two different rulers. One is an Empress and the other a Tyrant. I'll see what I can glean from each of these two to provide more context in a fictional setting.

The Empress has a positive perspective from her people, as he is backed by her Goddess and her long family line of rule. She has  well developed court, council and structure set by both the Goddess and generations of Empresses before her. (Yes, it's an all female-ruling lineage because they're Elephants and the species is largely Matriarchal, but I digress.) She uses generations of Faith-based morality and ideology  to cultivate the values and perspectives of her subjects. Her choices are just because the Goddess has told her to do it, and our Goddess is Benevolent for all. Behold, she has given us life and freedom beyond our bestial origins. She makes her decisions and rules her people using rigid methods and strict guidelines to keep the common life consistent and rational. Whether she is aware of it or not, it is not so much the faith or the prestige of her rule that is powerful, but that selfsame consistency and rationality of her people.

What I mean is this: because the way of life is consistent, it feels rational. Any good or bad that she does is ruled by the same beliefs as those before her. That makes it easy for her subjects to accept her decisions because it makes sense in the context of their everyday lives. Of course she is going to hoard all the 'non-essential' food in storehouses for the war, because we, the entirety of our people, have been preparing for the war that dominates over other races since our inception. Of course we will put finances into the arts, because we are the great race that will take over the planet and arts show how sophisticated and glorious we are. All of the laws that control, govern and guide her people tether to the same principles, and that makes her powerful. There is minimal resistance, because to resist is to change their daily life and core philosophies.

The Tyrant, on the other hand, has by definition stolen the power for himself by force, and that leaves him with a radically different set of tools to stay in power and rule his territories.

First is the Legacy. The narrative of his glorious victory, his noble war that dominated over the nations to protect the underdogs, helps give him some positive influence, but force is force. He is still dealing with those who will be able to mentally reject or object to his power. He could have taken one of two simple routes: A. Quell or crush any rebellion, or B. Wield that rebellion and outcry as a tool for positive change. A sometimes needs to be done, but his ideal is B. This helps create a positive influence over the territories to help reinforce his Coming to Power Narrative, and also fixes problems in the nation that allows him to turn his focus to other problems. Fun stuff.

His true power is that he is cheating. He is using his arcane ability (which won him the war in the first place) to A. live far longer than anyone has any right to, and B. give the overall impression that he can snap his enemies with the thought of snapping a matchstick. This makes his greatest tools Benevolence and Fear. Or, rather, Love and Fear. This gives the people two reasons to hesitate against him: "I don't want to because he does a decent job most of the time," followed by "also I just like being alive in general." 

Where he lacks in 'legitimate rule' with a long lineage, he has made  up for in a single, long lifespan. The current generation has never lived outside of his rule. Their parents were under his rule. Their great grandparents were under his rule. This also introduces a fear of change, and the fear of change is the greatest tool of all. If there is no great and colossal reason why something should be different (like, I dunno, a lot of people dying) then things tend to stay as they are.  

So what it comes down to are three factors, for staying in power. 

1. The populace thinking it's honestly not that bad, or it could be worse. 

2. Fear of change, or that this thing that claims to be better, isn't. 

3. The consequences of change are too dire. This person can murder me, my family and if they die the economy dies with them.

The moral strength of the character may be a direct influence over these factors. That moral compass might be completely irrelevant. That depends on the characters you want to write and what the narrative needs to present your ideas xor experience. Either way, it's how the ruler handles these factors, ether with skill or great lacking, that determines the strength and distance of their power. 

Constablewrites: Cracked just had an article about this from the perspective of the citizens: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-normal-people-allow-evil-rulers-to-thrive/ It's got some good links to sources discussing real-world regimes and historical examples.  

[thevividgreenmoss]

...Anyone who knew Eqbal in conditions of struggle knew subliminally that his loyalty and solidarity were unquestionable. He was a genius at sympathy. When he used the pronoun "we," you knew that he spoke and acted as one of us, but never at the expense either of his honesty or of his critical faculties, which reigned supreme. This is why Eqbal came as close to being a really free man as anyone can be. 

This isn't to say that he was indifferent to the problems of others, or blessed in that he didn't have problems of his own. This was very far from true. But he did give one the impression that he was always his own man, always able to think and act clearly for himself and, if asked, for others. His subcontinental origins in Bihar and Lahore steeped him both in the travails of empire and in the many wasteful tragedies of decolonization, of which sectarian hatred and violence, plus separatism and partition, are among the worst. 

Yet retrospective bitterness at what the white man wrought and at what his fellow Indians and Pakistanis did were never part of Eqbal's response. He was always more interested in creativity than in vindictiveness, in originality of spirit and method than in mere radicalism, in generosity and complexity of analysis over the tight neatness of his fellow political scientists. The title of one of his most spirited essays, on Regis Debray, was entitled "Radical but Wrong." 

When I dedicated my book Culture and Imperialism to him, it was because in his activity, life, and thinking Eqbal embodied not just the politics of empire but that whole fabric of experience expressed in human life itself, rather than in economic rules and reductive formulas. What Eqbal understood about the experience of empire was the domination of empire in all its forms, but also the creativity, originality, and vision created in resistance to it. Those words-" creativity, " "originality," "vision"-were central to his attitudes on politics and history.

Among Eqbal's earliest writings on Vietnam was a series of papers on revolutionary warfare which was intended as a refutation of standard American doctrine on the subject. U.S. counterinsurgency experts see in Vietnamese resistance a sort of conspiratorial, technically adept, communist and terrorist uprising, which can be defeated with superior weapons, clear-cut pragmatic doctrines, and the relentless deployment of overwhelming military force. What Eqbal suggested was a different paradigm: the revolutionary guerrilla as someone with a real commitment to justice who has the support of her or his people, and who is willing to sacrifice for the sake of a cause or ideology that has mobilized people. What counterinsurgency doctrine cannot admit is that the native elites whose interests are congruent not with their country's but with those of the United States are not the people to win a revolutionary war. In confronting the arch-theorist of this benighted view-none other than Samuel Huntington-Eqbal. Put it this way:

In underdeveloped countries the quiescence which followed independence is giving way to new disappointments and new demands which are unlikely to be satisfied by a politics of boundary management and selective cooptation-a fact which the United States, much like our ruling elites, is yet unable or unwilling to perceive. There is an increasingly perceptible gap between our need for social transformation and America's insistence on stability, between our impatience for change and America's obsession with order, our move toward revolution and America's belief in the plausibility of achieving reforms under the robber barons of the "third world," our longing for absolute national sovereignty and America's preference for pliable allies, our desire to see our national soil freed of foreign occupation and America's alleged need for military bases.... As the gap widens between our sorrow and America's contentment, so will, perhaps, these dichotomies of our perspectives and our priorities. Unless there is a fundamental redefinition of American interests and goals, our confrontations with the United States will be increasingly antagonistic. In the client states of Asia and Latin America it may even be tragic. In this sense Vietnam may not be so unique. It may be a warning of things to come.

What emerges in these writings is the opposition between conventional and unconventional thought and of course the even deeper opposition between justice and injustice. In his preference for what the unconventional and the just can bring peoples by way of liberation, invigorated culture, and well-being, Eqbal was firm and uncompromising. His distrust for standing armies, frozen bureaucracies, persistent oligarchies allowed no exceptions. Yet at the same time, as he showed in his great essay on Debray, it is not enough to be unconventional if that means having no regard for tradition, for the goods that women and men enjoy, for the great stabilities of human life. Eqbal was shrewd and illusionless enough to realize that overturning societies for the sake of revolution only, without sufficient attention to the fact that human beings also love and create and celebrate and commemorate, is a callous, merely destructive practice that may be radical but is profoundly wrong. 

...No one has more trenchantly summarized the various pathologies of power in the third world than Eqbal in the three summary essays he wrote for Arab Studies Quarterly in 1980 and 1981.9 Once again, unlike many of the second-thoughters and post-Marxists who populate the academic and liberal journals today, Eqbal remained true to the ideals of revolution and truer yet to its unfulfilled promise. To have heard him lecture over the years, passionately and sternly, about militarism in the Arab world, in Pakistan, in Algeria and elsewhere, was to have known the high moral position he took on matters having to do with the sanctity and potential dignity of human life either squandered or abused by strutting dictators or co-opted intellectuals. Creativity, vision, and originality of the kind appreciated by Eqbal in his great friend the Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz are the measure for political life, not the trappings of honor guards, fancy limousines, and enormously bloated and all-powerful bureaucracies. 

The measure is the human being, not the abstract law or the amoral power.

I think it must have been difficult to hold on to such ideals and principles. Most of Eqbal's written work, and indeed his activism, took place in dark times. Not only did he take full stock of the devastations of imperialism and injustice all over the globe, but in particular he more eloquently than anyone else inventoried the particular sadness and low points reached by Islamic cultures and states. Yet even then he managed to remind us that what he mourned is no mere religious or cultural fanaticism, as it is usually misrepresented in the West, but a widespread ecumenical movement. Moreover, though not an Arab himself, Eqbal reminded Arabs that Arabism, far from being a narrow-based nationalism, is quite unique in the history of nationalisms because it tried to connect itself beyond boundaries. It came close to imagining a universal community linked by word and sentiment alone. Anyone who is an Arab in his feelings, in his language and his culture, is an Arab. So a Jew is an Arab. A Christian is an Arab. A Muslim is an Arab. A Kurd is an Arab. I know of no national movement which defined itself so broadly. 

In such a situation and with such a heritage, Eqbal saw the degradation of ideas and values that grip Arabs and Muslims alike. Let me quote him again. This is in the aftermath of the Gulf Way in 1993:

We live in scoundrel times. This is the dark age of Muslim history, the age of surrender and collaboration, punctuated by madness. The decline of our civilization began in the eighteenth century when, in the intellectual embrace of orthodoxy, we skipped the age of enlightenment and the scientific revolution. In the second half of the twentieth century, it has fallen. I have been a lifelong witness to surrender, and imagined so many times-as a boy in 1948, a young man in 1967 ... and approaching middle age in 1982-that finally we have hit rock bottom, that the next time even if we go down we would manage to do so with a modicum of dignity. Fortunately, I did not entertain even so modest an illusion from Saddam Hussein's loudly proclaimed 'mother of battles."

This on the one hand and on the other the multiple degradations of what he once called the fascism and separatis clearly identifiable, seemingly hostile but symbiotically linked trends, in his Pakistan. Former Pakistani prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his family, former president General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, and their coteries plundered the land, demoralized the population. They tried to subdue the country I s insurrectionary constituent cultures and failed, but at the price of more blood and treasure. And everywhere, as throughout the Muslim world, they provoked, if they did not actually cause, the rise of Islamism, which as a secularist Eqbal always deplored. 

But ever the fighter and activist, he did not submit in resignation. He wrote more and more in earnest and in 1994 undertook his grand project of founding a new university in Pakistan-Khaldunia, aptly named after the great Arab historian and founder of sociology, Ibn Khaldun. In this project and his enthusiasm for it, Eqbal was no Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, but like Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, he took as his motto "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. This was part of the man's rareness, knowing how to rescue the' best available in a tradition without illusion or melodramatic self-dramatization. For him, Islam, Arabism, and American idealism were treasures to be tapped, despite tyrants like Zia ul-Haq and Henry Kissinger, whose manipulations and cold-blooded policies debase and bring down everything they touch.

Edward Said, Introduction to Eqbal Ahmad’s Confronting Empire

[thejokertalks]

WHY DO YOU MAKE INAPPROPRIATE JOKES, ASSHOLE?

You know I have reached a stage where sometimes I joke about things so that people roll their eyes, get a little shocked, taken aback and then after a few more thumps get used to the fact that it's ok to joke about everything and bring those conversations, no wait.. bring conversations to people’s living rooms.

We have been brought up in manner where we have been taught that there are things you can say, things that are acceptable and you must only say those and stick to those and if you have inappropriate thoughts / jokes you should keep them to yourselves. There is an old saying "If you don't have anything good to say don't say it". This is the first step to censorship and an individualistic avtar of what has resulted in a culmination of 3 billion people choosing right winged governments who are methodically and stepwise deconstructing and demolishing the sheer institutions of democracy and making a mockery of free speech which we as people are watching without realizing.

The need to be liked, the need to be accepted though evolutionary has brought us to a stage where we have accepted that it's ok to not speak our minds and we are infact scared of speaking our minds. What if we are made fun of? What if someone bullies us into submission? being disliked. We are concerned about these at a micro level. At a macro level, we are busy thinking "aah but he's from my caste. Oh but I am not gay why does it matter to me? So what if he beat his wife? I don't beat my wife that's my contribution. That's enough. That’s my contribution" No it's not enough. It's never enough. From Nirbhaya's rape to the blatantly visible glass ceiling which we choose to ignore, from mental health to impotency, from standing up to your parents and answering back when you believe you are right without the fear of being disrespectful and / or getting slapped to law and order situations. The problem in my opinion is not actually the wrongdoing but the inability to hold a conversation, the inability to speak, the inability to listen, the inability to debate and the inability accept and adapt.

2019 elections are here. Everyone is talking about things which they believe are the most important plots in the elections-Political advertisements spend, Mamata Bannerjee jokes, Raga being what he is, modi being what he is, bhakts, aaptards, EVM tampering, air pollution, caste based politics, special status to Andhra/Telangana, reservation, rafale deal etc. These are all important, no doubt but they are all sub plots. The real problem is the autocracy of one man, the systematic disintegration of constitutional powers, the judiciary and most importantly the 4th estate-the media. Not that the Congress was much better when it setup NAC as an advisory council which was basically a shadow parliament with a questionable prime minister. But right now that's not the problem. Unfortunately, no one is talking about or worrying about the right to dissent, the right to speak because it doesn't affect us at a level where we can see a visible difference, unless ofcourse we are going to jail for sharing cartoons or memes.

Yes, we are evolving as humans at a rapid pace but as a society, as a culture though evolving we are doing it at a much slower pace, if at all. We had reformers and scientists centuries ago who we read about even today but are unable to follow them and their teachings. Moreover, right now our times, even with much easier modes of communication are unable to provide reformers and work that can be put at the same level as the greats of yesteryears. Why is that I wonder? Surely we are smarter than people back in the day. Could it be that we are too busy creating clones who need to think and think again before talking? It is a possibility. Anyhow I digress, in a line, if I have to summarise the scenario it would be “We can reach Mars but we can't talk about their being 0 women and 20 male dignitaries on stage at a lit fest.”

By the way this in no way means that people can say anything and that the right to free speech is absolute. No. The basic rights, innocent unless proven guilty and not otherwise, social media trials, vigilante justice etc is all wrong. However, my point is that people should be allowed to say anything they want and then face the consequences of the same. You make a defamatory statement you get sued, you cheat someone you get sent to jail.  Even in case of defamation no one sends 10 goons to hit you they take you to court or in case of a different point of view they argue it out passionately. In case of children you help them understand the necessity of reading and then taking a decision and urge them to argue and talk. Yes there may be certain amount of censorship to take care of kids but that is possibly the only time when censorship should be allowed. Adults should not and must not be censored. Give them time to learn and censor themselves when required. DO NOT CENSOR ADULTS. DO NOT STOP DISSENT. DO NOT STOP CONVERSATION. TALK.

Personally, I myself am guilty of putting people down and shutting them up maybe even bullying them just like I have been guilty of not speaking my mind and of body shaming, fat shaming people, blatantly sexist remarks and many other social evils but I am now more aware and though I cannot change all of it and will make major mistakes in the future as well because of how I have been brought up and what I have seen but atleast i can try to normalise these stigmatic conversations wherever possible. People won't listen to sermons and I am not going to make them because well.. I don’t have the brains for that and nor do I have the qualities to make people listen to me, what I believe I am good at is that I can make jokes just like I can take jokes and if thanks to me 5 people can make and take jokes of all kinds then that's going to be my contribution. If thanks to me today people get uncomfortable listening to me making glass ceiling jokes and then questioning the matter in their office or make jokes on CASHD which makes people think about it and realise what might be wrong and question it and talk about it, the victims who would have faced certain problems not having that mental stigma of not being able to talk being able to talk even slightly more openly and normalising, humanising and talking about everything under the sun I believe I would evolve from being just a meme vigilante to a happy man, a JOKER.

[ianxfalcon]

You should not vote for the Sweden Democrats.

The Swedish election is just a little over a week away. I’m pretty sure most people are already decided, and I’m pretty sure that if you have decided you want to vote for the Sweden Democrats, nothing I say is going to change your mind - because after everything they’ve done and said, if you still want them to rule this country, you’re clearly okay with it.

But I’m doing this anyway, because I need to say it. You should not fucking vote for the Sweden Democrats. They are Sweden’s answer to Trump, only there are more of them.

Let’s start with the most concerning question, namely, their idea of “Swedish identity”. Which they, in their manifesto, claim the right to define for you, as well as the right to revoke if you don’t fit into their idea of “Swedish”. (To quote the manifesto: “ På samma sätt som den som är född in i en annan nation senare i livet kan bli en del av den svenska nationen menar vi också att man även som infödd svensk kan upphöra att vara en del av den svenska nationen genom att byta lojalitet, språk, identitet eller kultur.” [In the same way a person born in another nation can later in life be a part of the Swedish nation we also mean that a native Swedish person can cease to be a part of the Swedish nation by changing loyalty, language, identity or culture.]) So if you’re not “loyal” enough to Sweden for them, they want to revoke your right to call yourself Swedish, and presumably your right to be Swedish. Because, yeah, that’s right - they also want to change the Swedish constitution to be allowed to revoke citizenships. If the citizen in question came by the citizenship by illegal means, they say, but with what I mentioned above, what is “criminal” might be easily changed. If they want to change the constitution, what else would they want to change? Oh yeah, they are also against dual citizenships, meaning that if you apply for a Swedish citizenship you will have to give up your earlier one, which in turns mean that if you lose that Swedish citizenship, you are stateless.

And wait! There’s more! They also have a very narrow definiton for who is Swedish to begin with. Sami people and Jewish people, for example, are not Swedish, according to former party secretary Björn Söder. Muslims are also not Swedish in their view, and in fact the Sweden Democrats want to restrict religious freedom for Muslims. Meanwhile, they want the Swedish state to be less secular and not “religiously neutral”, which should be worrying to anyone who isn’t a Christian. Then there’s the whole infamous “inherited essence” thing, which is also in the manifesto. According to Sweden Democrats, all humans have an inherited essence: “Delar av denna essens är gemensam för de flesta människor och annat är unikt för vissa grupper av människor eller för den enskilde individen.” [Parts of this essence is mutual for most people and others are unique for certain groups of people or for the individual.] In another part of the manifesto, they rather blatantly hint that criminality is “culturally” conditioned (”culture” is a less questionable word for “race”). They also want to cut all fundings for any cultural project that is not “Swedish” culture, but can’t define exactly what Swedish culture is other than “Christian”. (This, too, is in the manifesto. If you want to vote SD, you should read their manifesto.) They want to separate Swedish people and “non-Swedish people”. They suggested creating a “B-prison” with lower standards for asylum seekers who commit crimes (this is based on their theory that people come to Sweden only to commit crimes because Swedish prisons are nicer - this is kind of a weird statement to make because most asylum seekers who commit crimes are deported, either before or after the prison sentence). They also want to be able to deport people to countries where they risk the death penalty, which is illegal per the Swedish law. (Oh, yeah, and some representatives have themselves stated a willingness to bring back the death penalty, so there’s that too.) And they want to make it illegal to hide asylum seekers who run the risk of being deported. Now, where have we heard that before...? A lot of their representatives have expressed blatant racism and nazism. Like, a lot. Usually, when one is discovered, they are expelled from the party - but not always, it depends on who the person is. Despite the fact that they expel most of the open racists who are revealed to be open racists, there never seem to be any less of them. Each week, basically, a new one is uncovered. You would think that if it was just a few “bad eggs”, as they claim, there would at some point not be any more of them. And keep in mind that these are only the ones that are discovered. It’s fair to assume that there are a lot more who are smart enough to not say out loud that they want to murder Muslims and shoot migrants with an automatic rifle (yes, someone did say this; her name was Gunilla Schmidt, look it up!). Why does this party attract these people? Hmmmmm. Of course, not that this would change anything for the voters. Back in 2012, it was revealed that three of the party’s head honchos - Kent Ekeroth, Erik Almqvist and Christian Westling - had spent a night in Stokcholm running around drunk, shouting racist and sexist slurs at people, assaulting a woman, and armed themselves with iron pipes. They filmed it all, and that film ended up in the hands of the newspaper Expressen, who naturally posted it on their website. Not only did two of the people involved stay in the party afterwards, this also didn’t seem to affect their numbers in the last election, which was their most successful one so far. Another thing that didn’t affect their numbers? Party leader Jimmie Åkesson being recorded singing a song that celebrated the murder of former prime minister Olof Palme. Yes, this happened in 2009, but still. (Hell, if SD insist on bringing up how the Social Democrats were involved in eugenics in he 40s, then I can bring up how SD’s current leader sang Nazi songs ten years ago.) They are also homophobic and sexist. They are against same-sex couples’ right to adopt (and also single parents), and Björn Söder (yep, him again!) compared homsexuality to bestality once. He’s still in the party, by the way.         They recently demanded a library that is used as a voting station remove all their Pride flags because the flags are “too political”. What else? Oh, yeah. They want to limit abortion rights, and they campaign for the right of healthcare personel to refuse to perform abortions (in Sweden, refusing to perform abortions is reason for discharge). They spread a lot of anti abortion propaganda. On top of that, they want to outlaw burkas, because limiting women’s rights goes hand in hand with racism. And they believe women have different roles in society than men (manifesto again). Oh, and when female representatives within the party report sexual harassment or sexism, they are not only kicked out, but also harassed some more, often with added threats of rape and violence. SD are anti-union. They want to reduce striking rights and believe that labour unions need to reach a “compromise” with the employers. They used to be against privatising and monetary gains for the public sector, like healthcare, but they changed their minds after increased contact with private contractors. Oh, and they don’t want Labour Day to be a holiday anymore, because it’s not religious in nature. They want to control the free press. They have at several points expressed a willingness to shut down press that criticises them, including state-run TV company SVT and, very recently, the radio channel P3 (the latter was because they roasted Jimmie Åkesson on a show specifically aimed at roasting the party leaders). Like, the moment a political party says that they think the press should be controlled, we have a problem, okay? They also don’t believe in global warming; Jimmie Åkesson called it “propaganda” concocted by SMHI (the Swedish meteorological institute). Coincidentally, they’re also the only Swedish party to vote against the Paris agreement. And they want more nuclear power plants in Sweden. They are also dipshits. Like the woman claiming that 400 000 euro equals - hold on to your hats - forty thousand billion Swedish crowns (one euro is worth around 10 Swedish crowns), creating a meme in the process. Or the man who carved a swastika into his own forehead and claimed that he had been assaulted by a bunch of “non-European left wing extremists”, apparently completely unaware that medical professionals can tell when a wound is self-inflicted. Or the local group who copied their budget proposition from another local group and only changed the names, leading to their propositon expressing a lot of concern for the countryside 700 miles south of them and suggesting taking money from a project that did not exist in their county. Or that time a few of them ran around in Stockholm hurling abuse at people and filming themselves and then somehow leaking the video to one of the largest newspapers in the country. Also, apparently nobody ever tells Jimmie Åkesson anything because every time he is questioned about anything, his response is always “I don’t know.” Oh, and since a lot of their representatives have been kicked out (some went on to join the even worse party AfS), they have left a lot of vacant chairs both in parliament and in local councils all over the country, meaning their voters aren’t getting the representation they voted for. Also, many of the still sitting representatives never show up in parliament or in the municipal councils they’ve been elected for. This basically means we pay taxes for them to not do anything. As a follow up to that, in some municipals they couldn’t find any actual representatives willing to sit in the council, meaning their voters don’t get the representation they voted for at all, just vacant spots that the tax payers fund.  And actual Nazis have taken advantage of that by getting themselves voted into council on an SD mandate, and then leaving the party – or never being a member in the first place, since SD allowed voters to write any name on their ballots – so they can impel their own politics. Of course, since a lot of SD representatives have been seen hanging with actual Nazis, this probably doesn’t bother them, but it should bother you. Because fucking Nazis.

SD were openly Nazis when they started out in the 80′s. A lot of the people who were members back then are still there. Don’t you ever forget that.

In short: don’t vote for SD. Also, don’t vote for the Moderate Party, because they have said they are willing to work with SD. And don’t vote for the Christian Democrats, because they are like SD, only more religious and slightly less racist.

[hetamavi]

Did England Raise America?

It’s widely accepted in this fandom that England raised America. If you’ve ever seen or, unfortunately, got caught up in a shipping war concerning UsUk, it’s an argument I can guarantee you’ve seen be thrown around.  

However, that argument is one I want to call into question. Because, the thing is...England DIDN’T raise America.

Throughout this analysis, I will cover why the two don’t qualify as an adopted family relationship. Both Hetalia canon and historical information will be used. I will also use this perspective to analyze the two as separate characters. All translated images used here are from hetarchive and hetascanlations.

One more thing! This analysis is not intended to convince you of anything as far as shipping is concerned. Whether England raised America and whether the UsUk relationship is romantic are two distinct topics. I have many motivations for writing this analysis. Trying to tell you what to ship is not one of them.

LOOKING AT IT HISTORICALLY

The first American colony was established in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. The American Revolution started in 1775 and ended in 1783. If we were to say the American colonies were still considered colonies until the very end of the war, this would mean that Great Britain and the United States had a colony-colonizer relationship for 176 years. A relatively very short time period for a society to be established and then grow until finally declaring and winning Independence. So.  

How did this happen so quickly?

The answer lies in the fact that, from nearly beginning to end, the British left the colonies to take care of themselves. Which makes sense logically when you think about it. Britain had its own regional issues and the distance provided by the Atlantic Ocean wasn’t making governing the American colonies any easier. So, Britain neglected to do so. The biggest British presence in the colonies came in the form of Royal Governors, but even their power was more theoretical than actual thanks to the power over the purse assemblies (which consisted of colonial elected officials rather than anyone appointed by the King) wielded over these governors. If a Royal Governor didn’t comply with the needs and wants of the those in the colonies, their paychecks were cut short. In they were compliant, they would get bonuses. This power over the Royal Governors only increased as time went on until the Assemblies were the main governing power in the colonies. (Source) (Source)

The most significant attempt at having any form of British policy came in the form of the Navigation Acts which were passed in the later part of the 17th century. The Navigation Acts were an attempt to regulate colonial trade, but what can I say other than they were very poorly enforced policies that failed on every level? Again, due to issues such as distance, it would have been more trouble than what it was worth to actually enforce the Navigation Acts so smuggling became a pretty common thing in the American colonies. (Source) (Source)

Unintentional neglect evolved into a degree of intentional neglect starting in the 1720s with the appropriately termed period of “Salutary Neglect” (though Great Britain started to loosen up its control even more than it already had starting back in the 1690s). Edmund Burke, who served as a member of British parliament, can be credited with naming this unofficial policy:

“That I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection; when I reflect upon these effects, when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivances melt, and die away within me.”

Starting in the 1720s with Robert Walpole’s (Great Britain’s unofficial first Prime Minister) rise to power, Great Britain intentionally started to turn a blind eye to colonial activity, particularly the already mentioned smuggling. The idea was that if the colonies were left alone to flourish, Great Britain would profit. This “let them do whatever” mentality lasted until the end of the French and Indian/Seven Years’ War, when heavy taxation started to take place in the colonies to pay for the war. And, thanks to the poor reception (to say the least) of the heavier taxes, Great Britain, for the first time since the colonies were first established, made more serious attempts to have a prominent presence in Colonial America (with things such as the “Intolerable Acts” and more taxation). This heavier presence combined with the previous long-time neglect is what led to the American Revolution that kicked off only 168 years after the first colony was established. (Source) (Source) (Source)

To sum this all up, Great Britain had a glaring lack of presence in its American colonies that led to a strong sense of autonomy. This sense of autonomy led to the American Revolution.

SO WHAT ABOUT HETALIA?

Now that it’s been established the notion of England raising America doesn’t make much sense from a historical perspective, it’s time to move on to Hetalia itself. After all, Hetalia doesn’t always perfectly match up with history so I can’t just end this on nothing but historical facts.

So, what about Hetalia then? What is the pre-Revolution relationship shared between America and England?

It’s one of absence and rapid growth. Let’s start from the beginning.

Here’s something from one of the earliest canon portrayals of colonial America. The strip starts out with England thinking of all the responsibilities he’d have to take on as America’s guardian. But the strip ends with England coming to the realization America is perfectly fine by himself, alluding to how the real-life colonies were self-sufficient without any British supervision. It’s a quick reference to colonial history, but one telling of what’s to come.

Here’s something a bit more telling. England leaves America and returns to find he’s developed into an adult or almost adult physical appearance. The first thing I want to talk about is young America’s reaction to England leaving him. While it’s not abnormal for a child to be upset when left alone, America is upset to the point of sobbing and begging England not to leave. Is that the type of reaction a child would normally have to being left by someone who was constantly around? No. Because normally the adult figure would return very shortly. But that’s not the case here. America is upset because he knows that once England is gone, he’s not going to stop by again any time soon.

Moving on to the second part of the strip, my first point seems to be proven right. Even with America’s quick physical growth, England must have been gone at least for a few years for such a dramatic physical change to have taken place. Speaking of, there’s that rapid colonial growth I was talking about earlier! We’ll get to see more of that later.

Now we move on to the Davie strip. The comic starts in Davie’s childhood and ends after his death. While I can’t say for sure, I’d guess this was a time span of 60-70 years and, judging by America’s appearance, took place during the earlier colonial years. Which leads me to suspect America’s growth started to REALLY speed up starting in the late 17th century, early 18th- around the time when Salutary Neglect was most prominent. Not long after the likely time Davie passed away.

So, 60-70 years. And America was a colony for only 176 years (less if you want to end at the beginning of the Revolution). And England has only two brief appearances, with each being many years apart going by Davie’s changing physical appearance. I think that information makes this comic the most telling in how often England was around colonial America.

It also makes thing a bit more tragic doesn’t it? The America I see here is that of a very lonely child who craves attention and company. So, he latches onto Davie, who is unfortunately a human that quickly passes away.

Moving on, we get a strip that shows America’s unusually fast growth. By the time he has a teenage body, Canada is still around toddler age. Also, worth mentioning is that America is seen with a book in both latter two panels and Canada’s way of approaching America and his wording in the very last one implies America is constantly busy. This is the diligent America I needed to see to completely match him up with colonial America in reality.

Here we do NOT see England holding his hand throughout this learning process. America is shown taking on the task of learning politics on his own and of his own free will. This is where the “England raised him” argument becomes extremely frustrating to me. Combine this strip with the one with the buffalo from earlier, and we get to see a hard-working, self-sufficient America that brought upon his own quick growth in the absence of his colonizer. A reminder not to take his modern obnoxious personality at face value. He is, in fact, VERY competent.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

And with that, it’s time to talk about the American Revolution. I want to bring attention to the “I’m no longer your brother” line. This dialogue if often disregarded, since you can’t actually cut off familial relationships with words. However, I don’t that gives the full picture of what he means here. This is NOT a declaration of a sudden, immediate change.  

Think back to everything I’ve talked about up to this point. America showing a capability of handling himself at a young age, England’s absence throughout his growth, America growing up extremely quickly, the diligence and dedication he showed in teaching himself throughout that speedy growth…

Again, he is not making any sudden declaration of cutting familiar ties. He’s acknowledging something that has already happened. America has proven he’s more than capable of being fully independent by raising himself up into someone capable of taking a stand against England in under the time span of 200 years. The child England found is gone and England needs to acknowledge that.

With that said, let’s talk about England for a moment. Particularly his state of mind throughout all of this.

In Europe, England had NOBODY. He was the black sheep, the guy with no friends. So, he turned to America, or rather the idea of America, as a source of comfort.

America became his emotional crutch. But, besides such a thing being unhealthy, his relationship with America was, for the most part, not something represented in reality. He liked the IDEA of there being someone there for him. Once you get attached to at least the idea of a person always being there for you, you don’t NEED to constantly be there with them. As long as America is there waiting for him when he does have the time to stop by, his imagination can do the rest with sugarcoating reality. This is an accurate take on the different perspectives of the British and the colonies, with more emotional investment thrown in to make England seem more sympathetic and human. The British thought of the colonies as an entity completely subordinate and loyal to Great Britain. But the colonists didn’t really see things in that way. All the time they had spent left to their own devices had built up a spirit of autonomy.

When the Revolution breaks out, he reacts to the possibility of abandonment violently. Of course, there’s practical reasons to not want to lose the American colonies. But in England’s case, he seems to be driven by his emotional investment and reliance on America. Everything builds up until England finally breaks down in the end.

It’s not the cutting of familial ties that makes this scene so tragic. It’s seeing reality catch up to England. It’s seeing his loneliness and fear of abandonment completely exposed. It’s seeing that he kept fighting even when he had no Army behind him (possibly because everyone else had already given up). It’s seeing even some of America’s soldiers giving England looks of pity. It’s seeing America looking down on him and commenting on his fallen image.

As sad as this is, it needed to happen. Being under another nation’s rule was becoming a hinderance to America’s further growth, and England had become unhealthily attacked to something that amounts only to a fantasy. The bond was a toxic one.

MODERN TIMES AND CONCLUSION

Keeping this section brief, I’ll end this analysis on this scene.

America says he’s jealous of the kids specifically. Because, these kids have something America himself didn’t get the chance to have: a fulfilling childhood loaded with consistent affection.

America didn’t have an affectionate childhood, he was mostly alone. Or put more accurately, he didn’t have much of a childhood AT ALL. His early days weren’t anything you can attach much familial love to. He was more like an orphan than someone under the loving care of a father/brother figure. He was alone, so he had to grow up and raise himself (in this case, that happened on a more literal and physical level).

Saying England “raised him” is a dramatic misrepresentation of what happened and it’s a dramatic misrepresentation of the depth both characters have.

England wasn’t upset over losing a son. He was upset over losing an emotional crutch that he rarely even got to see. He broke down, because of insecurities that were an issue far before the Revolution happened. His miserable appearance during the Revolution wasn’t just apart of some isolated event. It was a look into England’s very troubled and lonely mind.

America wasn’t just some kid who decided to rebel against daddy. He was someone who had thrown away his own childhood, so he could raise himself. Nobody was there to help him. What he accomplished was through his own hard work and he, understandably, wanted that to be recognized.

And to those of you who are still put off by the title “brother” being used in America’s colonial days, remember that it’s a title that’s used very loosely in the series with the biggest perpetrator being “big brother France”. In this way, having a “big brother” indicates having a friendly relationship with an older male, especially one in a higher position of power. Another example of non-related characters using “brother” to describe each other are Norway and Denmark (with Denmark also addressing Iceland as such and overall thinking of himself as a “big bro”).

[shakespeares-globe-blog]

The double self: Doctor Aldersen & Mr. Robot, the false myth of progress and the overthrowing of the capitalistic pattern through divided personalities.

Mr. Robot, the much acclaimed American drama thriller, is a television series created by Sam Esmail and aired for the first time in 2015.

Plot

The series revolves around the miserable and lonely life of Elliot Alderson, a young security engineer, who works for one of the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, the E-Corp, through his own point of view, which is heavily influenced by his social anxiety and his chronic paranoia. One day, he is recruited by a mysterious anarchist known as Mr. Robot and joins his team of hacktivists known as fsociety. They plan to cancel consumer debt by destroying the data of the E-Corp (which Elliot calls “Evil Corp”) and to inspire a revolution that will ultimately lead to an equal distribuition of wealth and to the downfall of the capitalistic pattern.

A double first-person narrator

The story of the revolution is told through a first-person narrator, which is Elliot himself, and through his thinking process. Elliot, however, has serious dissociative disorder, anxiety and paranoia, resulting in each episode being one big paranoid delirium, and the viewer shuffles from reality to illusion, not knowing what actually happen and what was just product of Elliot’s mind. Nonetheless, Elliot perceives the viewer as a product of his mind, talking to him and talking to himself at the same time, so that the narrator and the viewer are one and the same, two parts of the same mind.

Although Elliot's mind and his imaginary confidant is already a division of his mind, this is not the only way his personality gets split up. In fact, later in the series, after finding out Mr. Robot is his (supposedly) dead father, his sister Darlene and his friend Angela see him talking frantically to apparently no one, bleeding and severely hurt. When asked what he was doing, he admits he was talking to Mr. Robot, his father, whom he pushed out of a window in a rage tantrum - as his conscience comes back, he finds out Mr. Robot is no one but himself, and that he threw himself out of a window during one of his manic episodes. So, Mr. Robot is Elliot's alter-ego: he's the unconscious, instinctive part of his soul, taking over his mind to make up for Elliot's inadequacy and introversion; unlike Elliot, Mr. Robot is bold, irreverent, loud, a born leader. A modern Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde scenario, where Elliot hadn't known he'd been the one to plot the downfall of capitalism out of interiorized spite and disdain for the utilitarian society.

Mr. Robot can be cold-blooded, tyrannical, hateful, harsh; he hurts Elliot and the people he loves. Not unusually Elliot shows his willingness to free himself from his alter-ego, resorting to morphine and several other expedients, and even to the strict regimen of prison (calling himself guilty of hacking and privacy violation), ignoring him when he appears, not letting him take control. However, Mr. Robot is controlling and an undeniable part of him, as cruel and destructive as he is, and he can never get rid of him.

Although Mr. Robot, with his merciless and fierce behaviour, represents Elliot’s opposite, he is still part of him. Not to mention, Elliot perceives Mr. Robot as his dead father, whom he deeply loved and cared for - Elliot relies on him and never actually shuts him down. Mr. Robot saved him on several episodes, and Elliot loves him, as twisted as their relationship is.

Other characters

Even though they’re not clinical cases, every character in Mr. Robot needs to be mentioned, even if briefly, in this article, because of their divided selves. As a matter of fact, characters in Mr. Robot don’t change - they’re anything but dynamic - but as the story goes on - so, as Elliot progressively understands what is going on around him - they reveal their real personalities, and their real intentions, which might be the complete opposites of what the viewer thought at the beginning of the series. The clearest example might be Tyrell Wellick, Elliot’s “rival”, who in the first two episodes shows his cold, detatched manners. When you first see him, you might think he’s the typical ambitious and merciless villain, all perfect and with a heart of stone.

In reality, as the story goes on, his façade falls, and he reveals his extremely emotional and moody personality, levelling this impassible, god-like villain to a simple, flawed human being.

Another example is Whiterose: professional, calm Chinese Prime Minister of State Security by day, fierce and fearless leader of one of the most powerful hacker groups in the world at night.

The real illusion: the false myth of progress

Elliot: You’re not real. Mr. Robot: Is any of it real? I mean, look at this, look at it! A world built on fantasy! Synthetic emotions in the form of pills! Psychological warfare in the form of advertising! Mind altering chemicals in the form of food! Brainwashing seminars in the form of media! Controlled isolated bubbles in the form of social networks. Real? You want to talk about reality? We haven't lived in anything remotely close to it since the turn of the century! We turned it off, took out the batteries, snacked on a bag of GMOs, while we tossed the remnants into the ever expanding dumpster of the human condition. We live in branded houses, trademarked by corporations, built on bipolar numbers, jumping up and down on digital displays, hypnotizing us into the biggest slumber mankind has ever seen. You'd have to dig pretty deep, kiddo, before you can find anything real. We live in a kingdom of bullsh*t, that even you have lived in for far too long. So don't tell me about not being real: I'm no less real than the f*cking beef patty in your Big Mac. As far as you’re concerned, Elliot, I am very real.

One can argue that one purpose of the TV drama is that of showing how Elliot’s mind is no more messed up than the society he lives in: Elliot’s delirium blends in so well with modern society that the viewer is not sure of the dividing line between the two. He always expresses his disappointment and dissatisfaction of our unjust, contemporary society; the way we’re being controlled, the way we’re not even conscious of our enslavement, the fact that progress and materialism have made us nothing but brainwashed lapdogs, the fact that only a small percentage of the population can actually call themselves rich, the fact that money overcomes relationships. And at the same time, it’s the same reality that allows us safety and control. Our society is divided as well.

The representation of the Middle Eastern world in Mr. Robot

In a show that clearly shows today's multi-faceted Western world, it is impossible not to show the very different Middle Eastern reality, and talk about it. The main character, although born and grown-up in America, is of mixed race, and his feelings and problems are based on the creator's very own experiences growing up as a Muslim immigrant.

The best representation, however, is given off by two other characters: Sunil and Shama, two hacktivists of fsociety fighting to destroy the Western system that continuously discriminates them, to avenge the failing American Dream their families wanted to pursue but failed because of America’s interiorized racism. Many developments this season were extremely direct critiques of President Trump and his supporters. In an episode, Shama and Sunil, on the run, are framed by the Chinese as Iranian terrorists and used as scapegoats to cover their evil actions. Elliot knows the two of them weren't part of any terrorist plan, but what he doesn't know is that the Chinese set them up to divert attention from their leader's political plans and drumming up public support for the unlikely candidate she is backing in the upcoming presidential election in an effort to sow chaos and discord: Donald J. Trump. And the worst thing is Elliot knows he's powerless, since the medias are already targeting them as terrorists and people will unlikely question it, helplessly falling into the propaganda hole. Nearly through the end of the season, Elliot finds the courage to visit Shama and Sunil's families to give out his condolences. The episode is one of the most sentimental and meaningful of the whole serie. “This country now blames Muslims for everything,” says Shama's father as he sorts through their belongings, as they're about to move out. “There’s no room for us here anymore.” But later on, as Elliot decides to kill himself by the shore, he meets Mohammed, Shama's little brother, who asks for a trip to the movies. While there, Elliot recreates with Mohammed the same memories he once had with his own father, but the movies are his memory lane, not Mohammed's. The boy runs away, and Elliot finds him praying in the mosque, the happy place he and his sister grew in. There, they have a meaningful conversation — Mohammed calls Elliot out on his suicidal tendencies and on the Western society’s individualistic pattern (”Why do you always talk about yourself?”), and Elliot understands he has something to live for. Maybe for the first time, we don't see a place of indoctrination, but a loving place to go to find hope —and so Mohammed says: “Did you know I could be President of the United States? My sister couldn’t be. She wasn’t born here. My mom and dad couldn’t either. I’m the only person in my family who could be President. Isn’t that cool? If I were President, I would be able to stay here. In the house we live in. I would find a way to bring back my sister. I’d put the real bad guys in jail. And I’d make everyone eat Pop Tarts for dinner. And make everyone be nice to me.”, and Elliot realizes there are still things left that are worth living for.

[pooma-bible]

Pas. JOHNRAJ. LAMECH

🍁

Greetings in the matchless Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Topic: The First Great Mission to the Gentiles – By Peter!

Rhema Word: Mark 16:15 (NKJV) “And He (Jesus) said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Let’s pray. Our Gracious Loving Father, thank you for giving us an opportunity to meditate Your Word today along with your children who have been called to live a holy life Father. I commit everyone who are all meditating this message into your mighty hand Father. Bless them and give them the oneness of Spirit and make their heart as a good land to receive each and every Word which is living and active Lord. Thank You Holy Spirit for helping us to understand the in-depth treasure of Your Word and helping us to live a life as per Your Word Lord. We give all the Glory and Honour to You only Father. We pray in the mighty Name of Your beloved Son Jesus Christ. Amen.

We learn two incidents in the book of Acts Chapter 9, where God used Peter mightily, first to heal a man who had been paralyzed for eight years; and, second, to raise a Christian woman from the dead. Since resurrections are rare in Scripture, this was an extraordinary event.

We need to understand why Luke included these two stories. Did he mean for us to imitate Peter by going out and performing miracles in Jesus’ name? In Acts 9:35, Luke mentions that all who lived at Lydda and Sharon turned to the Lord as a result of Aeneas’ healing. By “all,” Luke probably does not mean every single person, but rather, a great number. Then, in Acts 9:42, Luke tells us that the result of the raising of Dorcas was that many believed in the Lord. Luke is showing how the gospel of Jesus Christ spread, resulting in the salvation of many.

Thus, I believe that he wants us to view these miracles as spiritual lessons of the power of the gospel to transform sinners. The miracles actually happened, but like Jesus’ miracles, they were signs, pointing to something beneath the surface. They show us how God mercifully imparts spiritual healing and new life to those who are helpless and dead because of sin.

Let us try to learn the following from Acts 9:32-43, with the help of Holy Spirit, today:

1] The Disciple: A Commitment to the Lord’s Mission:

2] The Place: A City where Saints lived:

3] The Need: A Tragic Sickness:

4] The Proclamation: Jesus Christ Heals:

5] The Result: All turned to the Lord:

6] The Need in Joppa: A Believer had tragically died:

7] The Source of Power to raise the dead: Christ Jesus:

8] The Results: Many believed in the Lord:

1] The Disciple: A Commitment to the Lord’s Mission:

There was Peter’s commitment to the Lord’s mission. Christ had chosen Peter to be the leader, the apostle to the Jews as we see in Galatians 2:8 “For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.” Therefore, it was Peter’s duty to reach out to the Jewish believers wherever they were. They were at that time scattered all over Palestine because of persecution (Acts 8:1-4). The Bibles says in Acts 9:32 “Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda.” Therefore, he set out on a mission and evangelistic tour to visit and strengthen the believers and to preach Christ to all who would hear.

Note here three important points:

a) Peter “travelled about the country”, that is, Judea, Galilee and Samaria (Acts 8:4,14,25). He went everywhere, ministered everyplace for which he was responsible.

b) Peter preached the gospel to the lost and he edified (built up, strengthened) the believers (Acts 8:25). This must always be remembered. It is the duty of believers to witness and share Christ wherever they are, no matter their gift or calling.

c) Peter was faithful to his calling, faithful to the Lord’s mission. He had to pay a price by sacrificing personal comfort. He had a family and a home to look after, yet he left the comfort of all to travel about and preach Christ (Matthew 8:14).

Jesus said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Jesus said in John 4:35-36 “Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest! And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.”

Apostle Paul while writing to Galatians says in Galatians 6:9 “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.”

Psalmist says in Psalms 126:5-6 “Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. He who continually goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.”

2] The Place: A City where Saints lived:

The Bible says in Acts 9:32 “Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda.”

The place where Peter went was a city where saints lived – Lydda. There are two things of significance there: (i) The city was a place where the power of Christ was to be demonstrated. It was an important commercial city. (ii) The city had saints living within it. Yes, a city that has believers dwelling within its boundaries is greatly blessed. The citizens may not know it, but they are. Yes, believers bring the presence of God to a place, the presence of righteousness, peace, love, hope, joy and justice.

The Bible says in Proverbs 11:11 “By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted, But it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked.”

We further see in Proverbs 14:34 “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

3] The Need: A Tragic Sickness:

The Bible says in Acts 9:33 “There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years and was paralyzed.”

The need for which Peter ran across was a tragic sickness, a man (Aeneas) who had been paralyzed and bedridden for eight years. His condition was similar to the paralytic whom Christ had confronted and healed as recorded in Luke 5:18-26. Here note two things:

a) The man’s condition was desperate. He was paralyzed, bedridden and unable to arise, walk, take care of his personal needs, move and he was in this condition for about eight years.

b) The man and his family or the ones taking care of him were full of despair and hopelessness. There was no hope he could ever recover and take are of himself. Yes, they were all helpless and gripped with a sense of hopelessness. There was no man who could change his condition.

Psalmist says in Psalm 42:6 “ O my God, my soul is cast down within me; Therefore I will remember You from the land of the Jordan, and from the heights of Hermon, from the Hill Mizar.”

Psalmist says in Psalm 69:2 “ I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing; I have come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.”

Paul depicts this situation in Ephesians 2:12 “At that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”

Yes, that was the actual condition of this Aeneas in the city of Lydda.

4] The Proclamation: Jesus Christ Heals:

The Bible says in Acts 9:34 “And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed.” Then he arose immediately.”

The proclamation was a straightforward confrontation. Peter forcefully declared, “Jesus Christ heals you.” Note five points:

(i) All that is known about the man is his name, Aeneas. He was unimportant to the world, a man of no fame and significance, unable to contribute to society and its welfare. He was most likely even forgotten by the world. But note: he was important to God, very important.

(ii) The focus was Jesus Christ and His power, not Peter, not even the man and his need. Peter did not say, “I heal you.” He did not say, “It is my power, my faith, my act, my work.” But he said, ”Jesus Christ heals you.” It is Christ Himself – His love and care and His authority and power that can make the foulest clean and heal any man.

(iii) The word for “heals” (iatai) means to be healed immediately, here and now. It was not a drawn-out thing. The man was to be healed right then. The word has the idea of being made completely whole, within as well as without, spiritually as well as physically. The man, if not already saved, was made whole spiritually as well as physically.

(iv) Peter declared the Word of God to the man. Jesus Christ heals and make men whole. Then Peter assured and challenged the man. He told him to arise, to believe the Word, the proclamation, and takes care of his mat. Peter did not declare the power of Christ, then turn and walk away. He gave assurance to the man and challenged him, encouraging him to act, to believe, to get up and do something, to take care of his mat.

(v) The man had to believe that Christ had healed him. If he believed, he would get up; if he did not believe, he would not get up.

The Bible says in John 6:28-29 “ Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Apostle Paul says in Romans 10:17 “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”

The Bible says in 2 Chronicles 20:20 “So they rose early in the morning and went out into the Wilderness of Tekoa; and as they went out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, “Hear me, O Judah and you inhabitants of Jerusalem: Believe in the Lord your God, and you shall be established; believe His prophets, and you shall prosper.”

Please note, when God looks at our requests for healing, He considers four things:

a) God’s glory. Would granting the request bring the greatest glory to His Name?

b) Our good, not only physically, but spiritually. What particular spiritual grace or quality do we need to learn: endurance, self-control, trust or dependence?

c) God’s wisdom. He knows what is needed by whom; when it is needed; for whom it is needed; where it is needed; how it is needed; why it is needed?

d) God’s mercy. He wills above all else for men to know His mercy. He does whatever is needed to demonstrate His mercy to men. Sometimes, walking through the trials of life reveals His mercy more; sometimes removing the trials reveals His mercy more. He chooses the best.

The point is this: Jesus Christ heals the believer who has need of healing. This is always true. Yes, a believer who really needs healing is blessed by God and healed.

5] The Result: All turned to the Lord:

The Bible says in Acts 9:35 “So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.”

The result is that all of Lydda turned to the Lord. So did all the residents of the Valley of Sharon, all who saw the healed man. Please note the word “saw”. It was “seeing” the power of Christ in the man’s life that stirred the people to turn to Christ. Yes, nothing influences people more than the power of Christ in the life of a person. Christ within a believer – the rule and reign of His presence and power, the evidence of His working in human lives – touches people. It causes people to turn to the living Lord. They turned from religion in all its form and ritual to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus once told His disciples in Luke 10:23-24 “Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see; for I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.”

The Bible says in Acts 4:20 “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

Psalmist says in Psalms 66:16 “ Come and hear, all you who fear God, and I will declare what He has done for my soul.”

6] The Need in Joppa: A Believer had tragically died:

The Bible says in Acts 9:36-37 “At Joppa there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which is translated Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did. But it happened in those days that she became sick and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room.”

Jesus Christ has the power to raise the dead. This is abundantly demonstrated in this marvellous event, an event that speaks loudly and clearly to the most desperate need of man – the need to conquer death.

The need was created by the tragic death of a believer. Here, note five points:

a) The believer was a faithful believer, a lady named Dorcas. She was deeply committed to Christ, a very faithful and devoted disciple, full of “doing good” and “helping the poor”.

b) Dorcas tragically died. The idea seems to be that she died right in the midst of her ministry when she was so needed. The believers were crushed. There was little hope that the ministry could go on as effectively as it had been.

c) A great hope and desperate appeal was stirred. The disciples at Joppa had heard about Peter being close by in Lydda and the phenomenal healing of the paralytic besides the power of Jesus who had raised the dead when he was doing His ministry.

Note, three significant points about the believers:

(i) Great hope swelled up in their hearts. They did not rush to bury Dorcas as was the custom of Jews. But they washed her and laid her in an upper chamber.

(ii) They sent two men to ask Peter to come and seek the Lord in behalf of Dorcas – for the sake of the church and its witness as well as for her sake.

(iii) They demonstrated great faith in the possibility that the Lord could raise the dead and meet the cry of their hearts. Yes, they had enough faith not to bury her and to go for Peter and ask him to come quickly without any further delay. The believers were in dead earnest, believing that the Lord could raise the dead if it was His will to do so. What an enormous faith in the Lord Jesus they demonstrated!

(iv) A sensitive, pastoral response was the result. Peter arose and went with the two men. He was deeply concerned and compassionate. He had been made aware of the need – yes, the cry for help had reached his ears and he responded. What a lesson for the leaders of the church!

(v) A deep sorrow was expressed for Dorcas, the dedicated believer. As soon as Peter arrived, they took him into the upper chamber. The widows whom she had helped so readily surrounded Peter, weeping from broken hearts. Yes, they began to show Peter the clothes Dorcas had made and given them.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:16 “ Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”

While writing to Timothy, apostle Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:18-19 “Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”

7] The Source of Power to raise the dead: Christ Jesus:

The Bible says in Acts 9:40-41 “But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. Then he gave her his hand and lifted her up; and when he had called the saints and widows, he presented her alive.”

The source of power to raise the dead is Christ Jesus. Note here three significant points:

a) The disciple got alone with the Lord. He excused everyone from the room. He had to get alone and seek the Lord. He had to concentrate and meditate; his thoughts had to be undisturbed before the Lord. There are at least four incidents in Scripture where the dead were raised in similar circumstances – (i) Jesus and Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 5:40-42), (ii) Jesus and Lazarus (John 11:28-44), (iii) Elijah and the widow’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24) and (iv) Elisha and the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:18-37).

b) Peter prayed to the living Lord. The Lord is living and because He is alive Peter got alone with Him and asked at least two things:

(i) Peter asked for the Lord’s will. Was it the Lord’s will or not His will to raise Dorcas? (Acts 9:40).

(ii) Once Peter knew that the Lord wanted Dorcas raised, he prayed both for the power to raise her and for God to use the miracle to make men believe. (Acts 9:42)

Jesus while teaching about the model prayer said in Matthew 6:6 “But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

Jesus also prayed while doing His ministry as Bible says in Luke 6:12 “Now it came to pass in those days that He (Jesus) went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.”

Apostle John says in 1 John 5:14-15 “Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.”

c) Peter did exactly what Jesus instructed. He turned to the body and boldly demanded, “Tabitha, arise.”

Just see Peter’s faith. It was the faith of the Lord Jesus Himself, the faith which Jesus had demonstrated in raising Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41).

Yes, it was the Lord’s will for Dorcas to be raised from the dead. The Lord told Peter what His will was while Peter was praying. If Jesus had told Peter that it was not His will, then Peter would not have commanded Dorcas to arise. Her resurrection was to serve a greater purpose that her remaining dead.

Jesus said in John 7:17 “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”

The Bible says in Acts 5:29 “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

8] The Results: Many believed in the Lord:

The Bible says in Acts 9:42-43 “And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord. So it was that he stayed many days in Joppa with Simon, a tanner.”

The results of raising the dead were twofold:

(i) Many believed.

(ii) A tremendous door was open for Peter to freely evangelize the area. It was here in Joppa that God was to give him the vision that led to the carrying of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:11).

The Bible says in Acts 10:5-8; 10-16 “Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.” And when the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier from among those who waited on him continually. So when he had explained all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa.” Verses 10-16 “Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.”

Note this critical point: When God raises the dead, it is always to demonstrate the enormous power of God to save men through any and all trials, even from the greatest of enslavements – death. There is dramatic symbolism in this point for the conversion of a soul from death to life eternal.

The “many” who believed in Joppa illustrate the point. They believed because Dorcas was raised. Because she was raised, they turned to the Lord for salvation. They turned from spiritual death to spiritual life, from physical death to life eternal. They wanted life now and eternally, life abundant and life that lasted forever. They wanted to live with Christ in that glorious day of promise, the day of redemption.

Jesus said in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Jesus said in John 5:24 “ “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”

That is why Apostle Paul says confidently in Romans 8:38-39 “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Hallelujah!!!

Let us introspect ourselves.

Shall we go everywhere and every place for which we are responsible to preach the gospel like Peter?

Shall we witness and share Christ Jesus wherever we are placed by God so as to bring the lost to the fold of God’s Kingdom?

Are we faithful to our calling and our Lord’s mission and able to sacrifice our personal comforts in reaching many lost souls and preach Christ?

Are we having the compassionate heart like Jesus and sense the needs of the perishing souls who are in hopeless situations?

Are we ignoring the people who are of no fame or unable to contribute to society or forgotten by the world while witnessing or sharing gospel by ignoring the fact that such people are very important for God?

Are we really glorifying our Lord Jesus Christ when miracles happen or boasting ourselves?

Are we growing in spiritual quality or grace day by day especially in endurance, self-control, trust or dependence on God always?

Are we able to understand God’s wisdom, His will and His mercy and how He does whatever is needed to demonstrate His mercy to His children?

Are we seeking our Lord’s will by keeping our thoughts undisturbed before the Lord?

Are we praying to our Lord after getting His will seeking His power to do the miracle and use the miracle to make people believe and glorify His Name?

Let us Pray: Our Heavenly Gracious Father, we thank You for helping us to understand about “The First Great Mission to the Gentiles – By Peter” today Father. Father, please help us to go everywhere and every place for which we are responsible to preach the gospel like Peter, help us to witness and share Your beloved Son Jesus Christ wherever we are placed so as to bring the lost to Your fold Father. Father, please help us to be faithful to our calling and our Lord’s mission by sacrificing our personal comforts in reaching many lost souls and preach the gospel, help us to have the compassionate heart like Your beloved Son Jesus Christ and sense the needs of the perishing souls who are in hopeless situations Father. Father, please help us NOT TO ignore the people who are of no fame or unable to contribute to society or forgotten by the world while witnessing or sharing gospel by ignoring the fact that such people are very important for You Father as You love them so much, please help us to humble ourselves and glorify You Father always whenever the miracles happen besides helping us to grow in spiritual qualities like endurance, self-control, trust and dependence on You Father. Father, please help us to understand Your wisdom, Your will and Your mercy and try to seek Your perfect will besides seeking Your power to do the miracles and use the miracles to make people believe and glorify You Father. We give all praise, glory and honour to Your Holy Name. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

God bless you all.

[aion-rsa]

Star Wars: The Clone Wars Episodes You Need to Watch Before The Mandalorian Season 3

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This Star Wars contains spoilers.

Din Djarin reluctantly found himself thrust in the middle of Mandalorian politics in season two of the hit live-action show. The bounty hunter just wanted to bring Grogu to a Jedi who could teach him to use the Force, but that journey also led him to Bo-Katan Kryze and Boba Fett, two Mandalorians who operate completely outside the strict traditions of Din’s own clan, the Children of the Watch. For the first time in his life, Din’s seeing all the different angles and factions of the society to which he belongs.

If all of the intrigue surrounding Mandalore went over your head while watching the second season, there’s a very easy way to catch up. After all, much of the Mandalorian history teased in season 2 was first detailed in The Clone Wars animated series, and watching just a short selection of episodes provides a lot of context for what’s happening in the live-action series. While The Clone Wars doesn’t explain everything about what we’ve seen in The Mandalorian so far, it does give you Bo-Katan’s backstory, a rundown of Mandalore’s many cultures and factions, a deeper dive into the race’s relationship with the Jedi, and an introduction to the Darksaber.

Stream your Star Wars favorites right here!

Here are The Clone Wars episodes and arcs you need watch to get up to speed on Mandalorian history before season 3 of the live-action series (as well as The Book of Boba Fett):

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The Mandalore Plot (Season 2, Episode 12)

Remember when Bo-Katan called Din Djarin’s clan “Children of the Watch?” What about when Din argued with a Mandalorian named Paz Vizsla in season one episode “The Sin?” Well, the significance of both the clan name and the Vizsla surnname are hinted at, if not fully explained, in the first Mandalore episode of The Clone Wars.

This episode marked a soft reboot for Mandalorian lore even before the pre-Disney Legends timeline was declared non-canon. Far from the armored warriors we were used to at the time, the Mandalorians introduced in this episode are a pacifistic, largely homogeneous society led by Duchess Satine Kryze, Bo-Katan’s sister. Not all Mandalorians are happy with this new status quo, though.

A violent rebel faction called Death Watch seeks to bring back Mandalore’s warlike past. This is the same group that would one day rescue a young Din during the Clone Wars, which explains why Din and his clan follow ancient warrior traditions as opposed to the more modern beliefs of Bo-Katan’s group.

“The Mandalore Plot” also marked the first appearance of the Darksaber, this time in the hands of Death Watch leader Pre Vizsla. He explains in the episode that the Darksaber was built by a Mandalorian Jedi named Tarre Vizsla and later stolen from the Jedi Temple. While many years and unanswered questions remain between “The Mandalore Plot” and The Mandalorian, the episode does show the roots of the Darksaber as a symbol of political power on Mandalore.

Voyage of Temptation (Season 2, Episode 13)

This is largely a bridge between the two other episodes in this arc when it comes to new Mandalore facts, but it does reveal some important elements about the political situation on the planet during the war.

An assassination attempt reveals that Death Watch is in league with both a corrupt Republic senator and the Separatists. Palpatine’s hands are everywhere, even on Mandalore. While that probably is no longer true at the time of The Mandalorian, we do know the wheels of Palpatine’s plans are still spinning between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens, including during the time period when the Disney+ series takes place. It’s possible we’ll learn more about what the Imperial remnant wants with an occupied Mandalore in season 3.

This episode also emphasizes how different Satine’s regime is compared to other eras of Mandalorian history, as she’s forced to make hard decisions in order to protect her government’s pacifist ideals. Bo-Katan, Koska Reeves, and Boba Fett are far from the first Mandalorians to fight over what being a Mando actually means.

Duchess of Mandalore (Season 2, Episode 14)

Death Watch reveals themselves in a big way in this episode. If Din is meant to be a member of a group derived from these guys, the faction has changed a lot over the generations.

In “Duchess of Mandalore,” the political situation on Mandalore gets more complicated as the prime minister worries about public perception of Death Watch. If the Republic comes in to put a stop to the brewing civil war, more Mandalorians could side with Death Watch out of the belief that they’re true countrymen are fighting against the Republic oppressors.

Although she doesn’t appear in this episode, this is the environment in which Bo-Katan formed her beliefs and opinions about how the planet Mandalore should operate and be governed. This moment in Clone Wars history really shapes the character.

Corruption (Season 3, Episode 5)

Rather notorious for its obscure “poisoned tea” storyline, “Corruption” is nevertheless an important link in the chain of understanding the recent history of Mandalore. Featuring both Satine and Padmé Amidala, the episode is a close look at the price of victory.

Despite the planet’s belligerent past, Mandalore manages to remain neutral in the Republic versus Separatist war, but it still controls a powerful sector valuable to both sides, which makes the planet a big prize for either side. This is one of the reasons the planet is ultimately doomed to fall in the war.

This episode also clearly shows how different Satine’s ideas are from those held by more traditional Mandalorians. When Bo-Katan expresses surprise that Din Djarin won’t take his helmet off in front of others, she is not only comparing him to extremists like Death Watch (who didn’t actually have the strict helmet rules) but to Satine’s efforts to bend the majority toward pacifistic homogeneity.

The Academy (Season 3, Episode 6)

Another character from The Mandalorian takes the stage: Ahsoka Tano. A continuation of “Corruption,” “The Academy” shows what life is like for children growing up in this era on Mandalore. It also sets the stage for conflict later.

The Jedi are not actually enemies of Satine’s Mandalorians during this time period. The idea of Jedi and Mandalorians as ancient enemies comes from ancient history, but was probably reinforced by the events of the fall of the Republic. As you’ll see by the end of The Clone Wars, the Jedi play a direct role in the Empire’s occupation of Mandalore.

The Jedi at this point in the Clone Wars unknowingly represent a corrupting influence of their own, spreading Republic ideology while Palpatine orchestrates from the shadows. Another political shake-up here further destabilizes Satine’s reign.

A Friend in Need (Season 4, Episode 14)

Bo-Katan takes the stage at last in her first appearance on the show. In “A Friend in Need,” we see how Death Watch has been slowly growing more powerful and more zealous while Satine and the Republic try to hold the New Mandalorian pacifist culture together.

This episode gives fans a closer look at who Death Watch were and why Bo-Katan chose to work with them to topple her sister’s government. In her attempts to reclaim Mandalore on The Mandalorian, she’s drawing on decades of the planet changing hands, a cycle of violence she helped spark in the first place. At some point, she’ll need to reckon with her past, but first she needs to get the planet back.

Another treat for fans of The Mandalorian: Bo-Katan and Ahsoka meet here, the start of a decades-long history that Din hilariously has no idea about. Bo-Katan matter-of-factly pointing Din to Ahsoka is pretty funny.

The Shadow Conspiracy Arc (Season 5, Episodes 14 – 16)

You will need some extra context before jumping into one of the most important Mandalorian stories in the Star Wars canon: a resurgent Maul and his brother Savage Opress have taken control of Death Watch, gaining a powerful army with which to execute their plan against the Jedi. During this arc, Maul takes the Darksaber from Pre Vizsla by force, declaring, “I claim this sword and my rightful place as leader” in the kind of violent transfer of power Bo-Katan later believes she needs to evoke to take the Darksaber from Din.

This action-packed arc marks a major turning point in the life of Bo-Katan and Mandalore itself, and you’ll get to see that all the way through in “Eminence,” “Shades of Reason,” and “The Lawless.”

The Siege of Mandalore Arc (Season 7, Episodes 9 – 12)

Some of the very best storytelling in The Clone Wars came at the end of the series. By the time she leads a Republic force to free Mandalore from Maul, Ahsoka has left the Jedi Order and the dark events of Revenge of the Sith are happening in the background. “The Night of a Thousand Tears” Moff Gideon witnessed also takes place around this time, although it hasn’t yet been seen on screen.

The Siege of Mandalore arc (“Old Friends Not Forgotten,” “The Phantom Apprentice,” “Shattered” and “Victory and Death”) shows how Maul encourages all-out war on the planet, Bo-Katan switches sides and asks the Jedi for help, and the Republic takes over Mandalore to stop the conflict just as it becomes the Empire.

Along with being some of the best tragedy and pulp fun Star Wars has to offer, this arc both details Order 66’s effect on Mandalore and Ahsoka. It also shows how much of it was orchestrated by Palpatine. The character who drives that home is Maul, who all along knew the Sith were eventually planning to use galactic in-fighting as part of their scheme to rise to power. It’s not surprising that the dark effects of these events are still being felt decades later on The Mandalorian.

The post Star Wars: The Clone Wars Episodes You Need to Watch Before The Mandalorian Season 3 appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3a0kAeL

[cathrynkenobi11love]

Nothing Is Ever Quite On Mandalore

"Master, besides the obvious fact that your here to see your girlfriend, what are we doing here?" I asked my master as we land on Mandelore. "The Jedi Council has given you a mission, Ashlynn. It's your duty to see it through." Obi-Wan said, completely ignoring the fact that I said he had a girlfriend. "Don't you think I'm just a little overqualified for this? I mean, teaching is a job for adult teachers, not 15 year old skilled Jedi." I told him. "According to Senator Amidala, Mandalore is a deeply corrupt world. If the cycle is to be broken, the future leaders at the Royal Academy of Government must learn the evils of corruption. Yoda feels that only a young Padawan like you can get through to them." He said and I scoffed. "Come on master, we all know the only reason you care is because your in love with Satine." I said and he pretended to ignore me, again. The doors than opened and we walked out to the Duchess and prime Minister Almec. "Duchess Satine. Prime Minister Almec." Obi-Wan said and took Satine's hand and kissed the back of it gently. I smirked and rolled my eyes. "Master Kenobi, it's a pleasure to see you again. You too, padawan Ashlynn." She said to me and smiled that beautiful and gentle smile of hers. "The pleasure is all mine, Duchess." I said and bowed slightly. "I am grateful that the Jedi Council could spare the two of you to help instruct our leaders and peacekeepers of tomorrow. Please thank Master Yoda for me." She said. "I'm afraid that due to our limited resources, I must return to battle immediately." Obi-Wan said and on the inside I deflated at the prospect that he was not going to stay with Satine. And that he was leaving me on Mandelore alone. "So you will not be staying, Master Kenobi?" She asked. "No, but I assure you, Padawan Tano is a highly capable Jedi and has the full confidence of the Council." Obi-Wan said. "Very well. Cadet Korkie, Amis, Lagos. These are some of the cadets that you will be instructing, Padawan Tano." Three cadets came from behind Satine and one of them was the boy from before. "Korkie! Nice to see you again." I said and shook his hand. "Nice To see you too Ashlynn." He said. "Wait, you two know each other?" Obi-Wan asked. "Oh, yeah, we met last time I was here while you two were at the park." I said and they nodded. "That reminds me. Because of Master Kenobi and Padawan Ashlynn's recent visit and the trouble that followed, no offworlders may carry weapons on Mandalore." almec said and I huffed. "Well, good thing for me, I didn't cause any trouble." I said and started to walk forward but the guards stopped me and raised there staffs to my face threatenly. "Okay, okay, okay!" I said, throwing my hands up and backing up. "And I thought they liked me." I muttered to Obi-Wan who rolled his eyes. "Just give me your lightsabers." He said and I reluctantly handed him my two slender sabers.

"Excuse the interruption, sir, but it is time to depart. General Fisto is expecting us." Cody came and said to Obi-Wan. "If you'll excuse me." Obi-Wan said and backed away, me following him to say goodbye. "Ashlynn, you have one mission besides the one the counsel assigned you." He said. "What's that?" I asked. "Don't fall in love." He said and the doors closed on the ship. "That's easier said than done." I muttered than turned back to the others. "This is going to be a long trip." I said and R8 beeped and agreement.

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

I got a guest room in the palace given to me by the Duchess herself which was completely awesome, and then I got to have dinner with the Duchess and her nephew, which was equally as awesome, and then I got to teach cadets, which was terrible. "Corruption is what happens when someone in power puts their own personal gain before the interests of the people they represent." I said as I paced in front of the rows of desks. "So, it's a result of greed?" A girl asked. "Yes. A leader sacrifices moral integrity for the sake of money or power. Entire star systems have collapsed into chaos or revolution because their greedy politicians got caught up in a cycle of bribery and blackmail, while their people suffered." I said. "Does that mean most government officials are corrupt?" Korkie asked. "Well, no. But the point is that temptation is always there, and citizens must be vigilant so corruption can't take root. The deadliest enemies of a society dwell within its borders. And from these internal threats, the people need to be protected." I said. "But if you don't trust your leaders, isn't that treason?" Another girl asked. "It's every citizen's duty to challenge their leaders, to keep them honest and hold them accountable if they're not." I said. "How do you do that?" A boy asked. "By exposing corrupt officials for what they are. Lasting change can only come from within. Be sure your assignments are prepared for tomorrow." I said and the class was dismissed.

When I got back to my guest room I turned on my holo for a nightly check in with Obi-Wan. "How did your first day on the job go?" He asked and I sighed. "Corruption is boring. I thought nothing could be worse than a politics mission. But I guess this is technically politics." I said and he grinned. "I wish you were here." I said and he tilted his head at me. "Why?" He asked. "So you could be with your girlfriend." I said and he rolled his eyes. "As long as you don't get shot while there I'm staying here. Sorry." He said and I shrugged. "It's fine. Could be worse. I could be stuck as the third wheel with Ahsoka and her boyfriend. If she had one that is." I said and Obi-Wan smiled. "Well, if everything's alright I'm going to leave you for the night. Sleep well." He said and the holo shut off. I pocketed it and then got into the blue pajamas Satine gave me. Then I went to bed.

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

"Korkie, you seem distracted today. What's going on?" I asked him. I had sensed his distraction all day, and I thought sense I was a friend he might listen to me. "We did what you said. We found evidence of corruption." He answered and I got intrigued. "What do you mean?" I asked. "Well, we were hungry, so we decided to go look for food." One of his friends said. "Food?" I repeated. "Yeah. Down at the government warehouse." Another friend said. "Someone just let you in to inspect the warehouse?" I asked. "No, we broke in." The kid said casually. "Oh, great. So you committed a crime?" I asked, slightly jokingly. "It sounds bad, I know, but then we saw a meeting and offworlders and..." "And they chased us!" A girl finished. "Maybe they chased you because you broke into a government warehouse." I suggested, slightly amused by these kids trying to be heroes. "No! It was a black market deal. I know it! My Aunt Satine told us to stay out of it, but we must do something." Korkie said. "Do you have proof?" I asked him. "We made a holo-recording. The Prime Minister is meeting us tonight to..." He started to say but I cut him off. "Are you sure that's a good idea?" I asked. "But I thought you said it was the duty of every citizen to expose corrupt officials." The girl said. "I'm only saying that you should take this slowly. Examine all of the facts and all of the people involved before you act." I said. "You sound more like my aunt than a Jedi Knight." Korkie said and got up and left the class. "Korkie!" I called after him but he was gone. I knew what I had to do. Tonight, I had to follow them.

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

When I followed them I snuck along the buildings waiting for the right time to catch them, and when they were cornered by guard I jumped from my hiding place and knocked the guards out. "Looks like the Prime Minister set you up." I said. "That's treason. He's the leader of our system. He couldn't possibly be a traitor. We need proof." Korkie said. "We have the recording." The brown haired girl said and turned it on. "That's no good. You can't see who it is." Korkie said. "Wait! Stop right there. Information retrieval, I need you to ID a hologram." I said into my information retrieval device and scanned the holo. "That's him! You're right! That is the Prime Minister. We have to take this to my aunt and warn her. They know I talked to her." Korkie said and we headed back to the palace.

When we got to Satine's study, the room was destroyed and the guards were dead. "We're too late. They took her. This is all my fault! Who knows what they've done to her." He said, dropping to the ground. "Oh kriff, Obi-Wan's gonna kill me." I said and put my hands on my leku. They all stared at me and I waved my hands. "I'll explain later." I said. "Now what? How are we supposed to find her? Who can we trust?" A blonde girl asked. "I need all of you to calm down and focus. We know the Prime Minister is behind this." I said. "After my aunt, he's the most powerful person on Mandalore." Korkie said. "So, let's go talk to him." I said and we headed off to his office.

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

"Padawan Ashlynn, this is an unexpected pleasure. What can I do for you?" Almec asked me. "Actually, Prime Minister, it's what I can do for you. I believe some of my students are involved in a conspiracy against you." I said. "Intriguing." He said and standing up he signaled for his guards to take them away. "You can't do this! We trusted you, Master Tano." Korkie yelled as they pulled him away and in my head I gave him props for his acting. I know I'm a terrible liar and acter. "Thank you for bringing the traitors to justice, padawan." He told me and I turned to him, ready to play my part in the act. "They mentioned that Duchess Satine was their leader. We should arrest her, too." I said to him. "Do not worry, we already have her in custody." He said. "How would you have he rin custody if you didn't know about the conspiracy?" I asked him and he rushed to find a good lie. "We knew about the conspiracy, just not about her colleagues." He said and I nodded. "My bad. Where are you holding her?" I asked him. "That is none of your concern. Now I must prepare a public statement about the Duchess and her crimes." He said and ushered me out of the office. I then headed to the prison blocks to talk to the others.

"Officer, I need to interrogate the prisoners immediately." I said and entered to cell. "Careful. We're being watched." I said. "Did he buy it? Have you found my aunt?" Korkie asked. "Not exactly. But I know they have her in custody." I said. "Where?" He asked. "The Prime Minister wouldn't tell me." I said. "I knew this plan wouldn't work." The blonde girl said. "Have a little faith. I'll find her. We'll just modify the plan a bit." I said. "How are you going to do that?" He asked. "Don't worry. You'll know when to act when I give the signal." I said. "What's the signal?" He asked. "You'll know it when you see it." I said and walked out of the cell over to the guard. "You will take me to Duchess Satine." I said, waving a hand in front of his face. "I will take you to Duchess Satine." He said and walked away. "What are you doing?" Korkie asked but I ignored him. He took me to a large room with a long cylinder tower in the middle. Satine was standing at the top of it, cuffed. "I must interrogate the Duchess." I said to the guard, mind tricking him again. "You must interrogate the Duchess." He said and clicked a button that lowered the tower and opened the doors. Satine walked out of it and fell to her knees, and I ran over to her. "I'm getting you out of here." I said, knowing that she was my friend and if I didn't Obi-Wan would surely kill me. "Ashlynn, it's a trap." She whispered. "I see you found the Duchess, youngling." I looked up to see Almec walk in with a couple guards behind him. I got to my feet and gritted my teeth at him. "You may stop your playacting now, Sergeant." Almec told the guards and they turned. "Prime Minister, sir!" They said and I stared at them, bewildered. "Using a Jedi mind trick was a very poor decision. My guards have been trained to resist such archaic magic. And now you have revealed yourself as a conspirator. You little fool." He said and the guards came over and grabbed my arms, holding me back. I knew coming to Mandelore was a bad idea.

"Sign it. Sign the confession and admit to your treasonous ways." Almec held out a data pad to Satine. "There is only one traitor to Mandalore here, Prime Minister, and that's you! You control the black market. You have betrayed the public trust, and used your office to accumulate wealth and power. It's shameful." She spat at him and I grinned at how she was able to protest against someone even though she was the one cuffed. "Your idealism is inspiring, my dear, but hopelessly naive. I established the black market for the people." He responded. "That's absurd!" I said. "The war is disrupting trade across the galaxy. The profits from the black market are being used to purchase humanitarian supplies for Mandalore. Think of it as a new tax in the interest of national security." He said. "It's a tax for your benefit, Prime Minister. Where are these "humanitarian supplies" you speak of?" She asked and Almec lost his patience. "Sergeant, put the shock collar on her. My patience has worn thin, Duchess. Maybe this will convince you." He said and the collar was snapped onto her neck and he and clicked a button. I watched in horror as an electric shock was shot up through Satine from the color and she screamed in pain. When it stopped she gasped for breath before glaring at Almec again. "I would die before I sign your confession!" She yelled at him and I grinned at her persistence, but I knew she wouldn't last long. Shock colors really destroyed your spirit. They were made to make you talk. "That can be arranged." He responded, smiling slightly. "Your wasting your time! Nothing is going to make her talk!" I yelled, and I believed it. Satine cared too much about her people for this. "Nothing? Are you sure? Bring me those traitorous cadets." He said to the guards. "No, you can't! They're just children!" Satine protested but Almec ignored her.

The guards came back in with the cadets and Almec glared at Korkie. "I'm afraid your nephew will have to suffer needlessly. Put the shock collar on Cadet Korkie." He said and I looked at him in fear. "No! You can't!" I said, struggling harder against the guards arms. This time, I flipped in the air and kicked a guard in the face, spinning my legs around the ground and knocking the other Guard down to his feet. I used the force and broke the color of Satine and snapped it on Almec's neck, smashing the bottonto electrocute him. "Gotcha!" I yelled and used the force to grab a guard's shield and start deflecting stun blast from the canons above us. "Stop fighting!" Almec yelled at the guards and I smiled in triumph at his surrender and threw the shield to the ground. "Send for my personal guards." Satine said and a cadet called them while I helped her to her feet. "You must know by now that I didn't bring you here just to teach. I knew something was amiss, but I had no one to trust. I thought if I brought a Jedi, especially a friend of Senator Amidala's, we could solve this mystery together." She said and I smiled at her. "I never doubted you, Duchess." I said. "Neither did we." Korkie said and Satine pulled him into a hug. She then grabbed me and pulled me in as well. "Oh, okay." I said and smiled at Korkie who smiled at me. Little did I know that something sparked between us in that moment, something that would change my life forever.

When Satine let go of us I sighed. "Let's be honest Duchess, we all know a certain Jedi would have done much better than me." I said and she looked taken aback at first, than smiled at me. "Oh yes, he would have." She said and we headed out of the cell's together.

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

"It was an honor to serve with a Jedi Knight." Korkie said to me when I got ready to leave the next day. "It was my privilege to be your teacher." I said and I was a little sad to leave him and Satine to be honest. Obi-Wan than came up behind us and smiled. "I hope this assignment wasn't too boring for you." He said to me. "It had its moments." I said. "Like the one where you convinced untrained children to help you overthrow a corrupt government?" He asked me. "That was a highlight." I responded. "It sounds pretty risky. You're lucky you didn't get hurt." He said. "Saving the Duchess and the entire city, nothing you wouldn't have done." I said and he shook his head at me. "Your too much like Anakin you know." He said and I smiled. "I know." I responded. "So, me and Satine were thinking..." Obi-Wan trailed off. "What?" I asked him. "We want you to stay here on Mandelore." He said and it was like I had just gotten slapped across the face.