#non-political movement just means a flag representing any movement that is not inherently political

[scribblewizard]

Defining Fascism

“Fascism” and “Fascist” have become a staples in my lexicon recently, in an effort to explain to people what is happening to the fundamental ideology of America, right now.  But what is “Fascism”?  What is a “Fascist”?  These words have been thrown around to describe anything from “Islamic Terrorists”, to just generally “Bad Dudes”.  But these words have definitions and explanations that are germane to understanding our current socio-political situation.

The most basic definition is this: 

 “Fascism is an authoritarian Nationalist political ideology that exalts nation (and often race) above the individual, and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and aggressive and invasive military presence, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

The aspect of Authoritarian rule can be achieved, in America, only by undermining the balances and checks to power inherent in the branches of our Government outside the Executive Branch. Such as, undermining the Judiciary when they rule against the Fascist Regime. This type of Authoritarianism is vital to Fascism:  “To maintain the power and greatness of the State requires a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This all-powerful, heroic leader maintains the unity and unquestioning submission required by the Fascist state. The authoritarian leader is often viewed as a symbol of the State.”  This can be seen in, especially the “Alt-Right” and White Nationalist movements, the near Idolatry of Trump. 

The Nationalist aspect of Fascism can be easily achieved in America, especially within certain groups. As the only non-Authoritarian government that forces, or at least strongly encourages, our children to pledge allegiance to a flag we are particularly susceptible to falling under the sway of intense Nationalism under the guise of “Patriotism”. 

Fascist Regimes, such as Trumps, see themselves as financial power houses and innovators in economics. “Fascism sees itself as a third way between laissez-faire Capitalism on the one hand and Communism or Socialism on the other. It acknowledges the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity, but only insofar as they do not conflict with the interests of the state. Fascist governments tend to nationalize key industries, closely manage their currencies and make massive state investments. They also tend to introduce price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures (such as state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors).”

Another step into the Fascist wormhole involves Nationalism, aggressive military presence, and the squashing and suppression of opposition. This occurs when the Fascist Regime undertakes a military action, and despite the public sentiment, deems opposition voices “Traitors” or “UnPatriotic”. In America, again, this is an easy step to take.

“Fascism often claims to be concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence, and seeks to achieve a national rebirth by suppressing the interests of the individual, and instead promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.” These cults can emerge from the Fascist regime or they can co-opt existing institutions, such as the Church. This is evidenced in the 1933 capitulation to Hitler by the Catholic Centre Party in 1933 and the 1933 Reichskonkordat treaty with the Vatican, which was purported to guarantee religious freedom for Catholics . The Nazis would later marginalize and turn on Catholics and Christians as they attempted to forge their own religious ideology using a mix or Nordic Mythology, Mysticism, White Supremacy, Nationalism, and Bullshit.

Fascism demands absolute power of the State. “The Fascist state is a glorious, living entity that is more important than any individual. All individuals are part of the State, but the State is greater than the sum of its parts. All individuals must set aside their own needs and supplicate themselves to the needs of the State. There is no law or other power that can limit the authority of the State.”  This can be seen today in the Right using the term “Snowflake” as a pejorative, alluding to the fact that anyone who sees themselves as a unique individual is weakening the Fascist presence by not facilitating the States absolute authority.

There is an inherent “Survival of the Fittest” mentality regarding military prowess in a Fascist Regime. Aggressive and Invasive military actions are pertinent to, not only expanding Fascist Ideology through conquest, but silencing dissent by, again, labeling the dissenters “UnPatriotic”. 

Fascists also enforce order through strictly maintaining Social Classes. “Social classes are strictly maintained in order to avoid "mob rule" or any hint of chaos. Chaos is a threat to the State. The State's absolute power and greatness depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every individual has a specific place, and that place cannot be altered.” Ipso facto, if you are rich and powerful, you remain rich and powerful, if you are poor and insignificant, you remain poor and insignificant. Racism plays deeply into Social Classes as Racism and general intolerance of anyone who does not fit the ideal will escalate quickly.

Fascism is definitive, and hard to pin down. A shark, and a chameleon. The brand of Fascism we see today is not the same as Hitler’s variety. It is not the same as Mussolini’s variety. It is not the same as Franco’s variety. It is different. It is exactly the same. Hitler targeted Jews, removed them from Germany, and forbade them entrance.  Trump targets Muslims, forbids them entrance, and will eventually call to remove them.  

This is by no mean definitive, there are a multitude of other factors at play here. Racism, Misogyny, Elitism, Nepotism, and Theocracy all play important roles in our current situation. This lays out only a general outline of some key ingredients to the Fascist rule we are currently trending toward, and why the need is so great to stop it. 

If you didn’t like this, or simply do not agree, below are some modalities of government, including Fascism, explained using cows:

Feudalism: You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream.

 Pure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

 Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You're both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.

 Bureaucratic Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as its regulations say you should need.

 Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

 Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

 Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

 Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it's so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it.

 Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

 Militarism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

 Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

 Representative Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

 American Democracy: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate." The cows are set free.

 Democracy, Democrat-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being so successful. You vote politicians into office who tax your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay the tax. The politicians use the tax money to buy a cow for your neighbor. You feel good. Barbra Streisand sings for you.

 Democracy, Republican-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

 Indian Democracy: You have two cows. You worship them.

 British Democracy: You have two cows. You feed them sheep brains and they go mad. The government gives you compensation for your diseased cows, compensation for your lost income, and a grant not to use your fields for anything else. And tells the public not to worry.

 Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

 Anarchy: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.

 Capitalism: You have two cows. You lay one off, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when she drops dead.

http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/cowsexplain.php

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_fascism.html

http://people.howstuffworks.com/fascism.htm

http://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8316271.stm

[ask-the-crimson-king]

((This was FAR too big for an ask, put a read more cut where you see fit))

Ok, so the accusing anon mentioned it was the Progress Flag they saw and the way they worded their explanation kinda went in a few directions, which I'll try to sort through:

"Nazi and Nazbol [Nazi-Bolshevik] Groups": Yes, that is a thing that exists, but on a smaller scale online and not nearly as prominent in the living world as other supremacist ideologies. Yes, there are people who actually looked at the darkest days of both German and Soviet History and decided "This could work well together", but they are dunked-on HARD by both pro-fascists and pro-communists by their very nature. Do not ask me how neo-Nazis and Tankies got together in such an unholy union or what they stand for because none of it makes sense to my Bachelor's education degree with social science emphasis OR my regrettable experience from both groups in my soon-to-be 29 years of life

"Eth Nat [Ethnic Nationalist] desires": Yes, those unfortunately exist around the world. Racism and ethnic cleansing isn't a solely White practice, but it's definitely been done by Whites throughout US history and its affects (and believers) still exist to this very day. Only non-White supremacist American group I can recall is the very loose online Hotep community (remember the "We were kings" memes?) that's legitimately Black supremacist and also incredibly anti-Semitic, homophobic and misogynistic---so taking a rainbow flag wouldn't be their work || [Don't forget the ethno-nationalist cleansing of Armenians that is still happening right now, and the settler-colonialism happening with the Palestinians.]

"Representing clear racial politics": Well, I guess if you loosely define Black Lives Matter and its main message of "stop profiling us as criminals and even if we are criminals, treat us humanely as you do White criminals", then it would count as "racial/identity politics". So would the "Stop Asian Hate" movement in response to COVID fearmongering, but if we're really defining any political movement (for good or for ill) as "racial" if it affects a given race, then practically everything is racial politics---by nature of people of different races experiencing things, even within the same country or social class

___ [I think they were trying to say Nazi and Nazi-adjacent groups were seeing the flag as depicting "clear racial politics". I have seen fascists use this talking point, but against non-white minorities. Never for them.] ___

"Protected by a strong border": That definitely is a policy point put forward by ethnic nationalists, pro-fascists, etc. and groups have tried to parrot or "steal" progressive groups' rhetoric to then apply to border security (remember that map of America made into a cartoon woman, gripping her skirt as a hand from the South reaches up, all with the caption "My borders, my choice"?). As for how black and brown are "stronger" colors than pink and white, that's entirely a cultural bias in associating light or warm colors with femininity or "weakness"---which is why Hitler rotated the original Hindu swastika 45 degrees to resemble an X rather than a cross and painted it black rather than the usual pink or light purple, as well as why the upside-down pink triangle was used to mark LGBT+ citizens

"The fact that four in rotation makes a swastika": I mean, if you were to completely disfigure any 4 stripes in such a way, it could resemble an X or a cross, but the swastika itself has 4 more "legs" that stick out from the base. But with how much the human mind needs to warp any given lines into a new symbol, you may as well just slap the graven image itself on the thing and be forthright with it

[And they do! Homofascists/4Chan or generally right-wing trolls in the past have, indeed, simply slapped it on the standard 6-color pride flag.

More info on fascism/it's supporters/how it gains traction under the cut.]

As for whether so-called progressive people do parrot fascist rhetoric and support fascist policy? That is also unfortunately true. Don't ask me how I know this or how this even could happen, but there were a few Trans Fascists I came across and I found two of their flags: one being just the swastika slapped onto the Trans Pride flag, the other being the Lesbian Labrys in the place of the axe in the fasces symbol (that ancient Roman symbol of a magistrate's power over life and death, the origin of the term "fascist/fascism") on the Trans Pride Flag

___ [People who try to be progressive but fall into the pit-falls of Nazi or fascist ideology are why we have NazBols. It's why we see groups trying to "take the land back" and basically create woke ethno-states for marginalized people. I am not saying this referring to indigenous peoples who are fighting to keep their land (which I do indeed support), I have also heard weird Tankie-esque stuff about Black people feeling so much safer away from whites, and other people of color who may feel the same. Thus creating a separatist divide and creating "woke" ethno-states -- "It's for the good of the minorities so they can feel safer!" Or we could talk about and tackle the systemic problems leading to people feeling this way? How about that instead? "But it'll never work!" It won't if you never try.

Don't fall for Black separatism, kids. You are not only feeding into the interests of white supremacists, but you're also becoming a reactionary in the process. Just because you are white, it does not mean you are an inherent threat to your nonwhite comrades. Diversity is strength. Remember that.] ___

My own hot take? We should remember that at the very core of Nazi ideology---no matter how many self-proclaimed LGBT+ individuals also proclaim to be Nazis, no matter how many non-Whites or women march beside them, no matter how many Nazis claim otherwise---is Nazism is straight White male supremacy and those undoubtedly deluded into being their "allies" are simply a means to gaining government office democratically

But once that purpose is served, they too will be slaughtered. Anyone PoC, LGBT, non-Christian or otherwise not fitting the mold of "the Supreme Master RaceTM" who is utterly duped into supporting their agenda (and cause them to succeed) would merely buy themselves a stay of execution at the cost of their neighbors' lives---before their blood also becomes the oil on the gears and their bodies also become the coal in the furnaces of the fascist war-machine

Populism, the Nazis' preferred tactic and a pillar of fascist ideology, is dependent upon democratic majority. It would be incredibly stupid (though these ARE Nazis and fascists we're talking about, so the bar is well beneath the floor as it is) to instantly demonize everyone who doesn't fit their tight mold the moment they set foot on the streets. They will deny being homophobic. They will deny being racist. They will pay lip-service to feminists. They will force a smile on their faces and hold back their gag reflex in the company of "lesser beings" just long enough to get some votes

Hitler did not seize power overnight. Hitler did not seize power, period. Hitler was elected by the desperate, the foolish and the ambitious in equal measures. The Nazi Party did not run door-to-door to viciously murder every Jew the second Hitler was inaugurated. Every Jew was not immediately sent to the death camps. The Jews were not Hitler's only victims. The Jews were not even Hitler's first victims, though the Jewish casualty count is the still highest that we can confirm

In order to both remove the "undesirables" from Germany and to control the German populace, Hitler and the Nazis went down a very long list. Every potential political opponent, every ethnicity, every possible demographic and label besides "Aryan Nazi supporter" was scheduled to be systematically demonized, discriminated, disappeared and destroyed when it was most convenient for the Nazi Party to do so

When it was ultimately the Jewish people's turn, the removal of their humanity was a long and gradual process of public indoctrination and supported legislation that lasted several years. Once the Jews were stripped of rights and thought of as nothing more than vermin by the German masses, the Nazis simply played their willing role as exterminators. Whether the Germans thought it would go so far or would go so bloodily is an afterthought that came far too late

Remember well the words of regretful Hitler supporter and Holocaust survivor, Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me."

To all those who those who look upon their far-right reactionary movement and think "They will always stand by me and the power I give them will never be used against me": You could not be any more wrong, yet you already believe their lies

----

[Good and informative post for those not already familiar with any of these terms, which is why I put the cut where I did. I also added a bit of my own commentary here and there to try and provide examples along with an explanation of the terms I was using.]

[travelworldnetwork]

By Kirsten Henton

3 December 2018

Blink, and you could pass through Europe’s smaller nations without realising. Take Luxembourg, which can be crossed by car in just over an hour at its widest point. Before you know it, you’ve popped out into the surrounding countries of France, Germany or Belgium, with only the eagle-eyed spying the border sign and the striped flags of the Grand Duchy far behind.

The ability to do this is partly down to its petite size, but also thanks to a Luxembourgian legacy: a treaty signed more than 30 years ago in the tiny village of Schengen in country’s far south-east. The now-renowned Schengen Agreement dramatically changed the way we travel within Europe, and continues to evolve today.

View image of The Schengen Agreement, named for the tiny town of Schengen in Luxembourg, dramatically changed travel within Europe (Credit: Credit: Kirsten Henton)

Not-so-little Luxembourg

On the surface of things, Luxembourg could be viewed as a starchy centre of commerce, where European bigwigs busy themselves and money is made. It also appears to take up very little space on the map and, as a result, is often unwittingly overlooked as a destination in favour of its more sizeable neighbours.

You may also be interested in: • Europe’s strange border anomaly • The invisible lines through Switzerland • ‘I’m from a country that no longer exists’

A founding member of what is now the European Union, the diminutive country is home to one of the EU’s three capitals – Luxembourg City (along with Brussels and Strasbourg) – and remains a key player in the running of the union.

It stands out as a constitutional monarchy wedged between the two giant republics of France and Germany, and has paid the price for its location in not one, but two world wars, ensuring there’s plenty of history on offer. There’s a flourishing domestic wine industry, an impressive restaurant scene, countless museums and memorials (from the Unesco-listed fortress and old city centre to the grave of General George S Patton Jr), and a seemingly inherent love of seafood, cheese and all things pastry.

In 1985, Luxembourg was also instrumental in the creation of a landmark legislation: the signing of the Schengen Treaty, a unilateral agreement ensuring border-free travel within European member countries.

View image of Schengen is located in Luxembourg’s Moselle Valley, home to the country’s flourishing domestic wine industry (Credit: Credit: Valerii Shanin/Alamy)

On the trail of this historic spot, I travelled down the Moselle Valley, a quiet, unassuming part of eastern Luxembourg. The Moselle River lazily snakes its way south, acting as a natural border between Luxembourg and Germany. The valley is evidently central to the country’s wine production, with row upon row of vineyards draped over the low-lying hillsides interrupted only by a scattering of towns and villages.

Just as I thought I was running out of country, I arrived at tiny Schengen, tucked in among the vines on the western bank of the Moselle. With fewer than 520 residents, it’s certainly not the big-name, bright-lights destination one might expect for an agreement that would change the way people travelled in Europe. Nevertheless, it was here, on a murky morning on 14 June 1985, that representatives of Belgium, France, Luxembourg, West Germany (as was) and the Netherlands gathered to officially seal the deal on this revolutionary new border-free zone.

A bit of background

The number of European treaties, alliances, cross-alliances and counter-treaties that emerged during the second half of the 20th Century is near mind-boggling. The list screams bureaucracy, but understanding something of the various allegiances at this time goes a long way to setting the scene in Schengen, so stay with me.

View image of After World War Two, a number of international treaties and alliances paved the way to the Schengen Agreement (Credit: Credit: Oliver Kessler/Alamy)

As World War Two drew to a close in 1944, Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands joined together to establish the Benelux. This party of three recognised the benefits that would come over the following, inevitably difficult, decades from working together, and were hoping to encourage trade through a customs agreement.

Building on Benelux, the 1957 Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC), an expanded customs union of six founding member states (Benelux plus West Germany, France and Italy).

By the early 1980s, there were 10 EEC members, and while only quick border checks were being enforced between the nations, the reality was that this still stopped the flow of traffic, required man-power and was increasingly seen as unnecessary red tape. The concept of unilateral internal border-free travel split the members, however, with half wanting free movement for EU nationals only and thus remaining committed to internal border checks to distinguish between EU and non-EU nationals.

View image of The 1957 Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community and made travel between the 10 member nations easier (Credit: Credit: Allard Schager/Alamy)

As Martina Kneip, manager of the European Museum Schengen, explained: "The idea of open borders in 1985 was something extraordinary – like a kind of utopia. Nobody really believed that it could become reality."

It was left to the remaining five members (Benelux, France and West Germany), keen to implement the free-flowing movement of all people and goods, to spearhead the creation of the area to which Schengen would give its name.

Why Schengen?

As Luxembourg was soon to take over the EEC presidency, the small nation was entitled to choose where the signing of this treaty would take place. It just so happens that Schengen is the only place where France and Germany both join with a Benelux member, securing it as the destination of choice.

As the meeting place of three countries, the choosing of Schengen was drenched in symbolism. To ensure it was a neutral affair, the signatories were assembled on a pleasure cruiser, the MS Princesse Marie-Astrid, to put pen to paper. The cruiser was moored as close as possible to the tri-point border, which runs down the middle of the Moselle River.

View image of Signed in 1985, the Schengen Treaty established border-free travel between participating European nations (Credit: Credit: The European Museum)

Regardless, the signing in Schengen failed to attract a great deal of support or attention at the time. As well as the five EEC member states who were against it, many officials from all sides simply didn't believe it would come into force or succeed. So much so, there wasn’t a single head of state from the five signing nations present on the day.

From the outset, the agreement was underestimated, “considered an experiment and not something that would last,” according to Kneip. This was compounded by the inevitable red tape that ensured the complete abolition of internal borders within the five founding countries didn’t materialise until 1995.

The Schengen Area today

Today, the Schengen Area comprises 26 member states. Of these, 22 are members of the EU, while four (Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Liechtenstein) are not.

Schengen has its critics now as it did then. The recent migrant crisis and the 2015 Paris attacks undermined Schengen, giving those against open borders plenty of ammunition to strike at the inclusive efforts made by the agreement.

Despite this, the Schengen Area continues to grow, even if the process of joining remains cumbersome. Politics still determine who can join, since new members must be unanimously voted in. Bulgaria and Romania, for example, have repeatedly been vetoed from joining Schengen largely due to concerns over domestic corruption and the security of their external borders. In fact, no country has joined the Schengen Area for several years; Liechtenstein was the last addition in 2011.

View image of Schengen is the only place where both France and Germany join with a Benelux member (Credit: Credit: Zoonar GmbH/Alamy)

Nevertheless, the pros of Schengen far outweigh the cons for the majority of people. As Kneip observes: “The Schengen Agreement is something that affects the everyday lives of all the Schengen member states – some 400 million people.”

For locals, this can mean anything from visiting friends and going to work to nipping into Luxembourg to take advantage of the country's relatively low tax on fuel when compared with its neighbours, diesel in particular.

As for travellers, the Schengen Agreement grants immediate access to all member countries, making travel – be it by road, rail or air – quicker and easier. Add to this the Schengen visa, which allows non-EU travellers to apply for a single visa valid for 90 days with entry to all participating countries, and its appeal is blindingly clear, saving travellers both time and money.

View image of Today, the Schengen Agreement grants immediate access to all 26 member states (Credit: Credit: Henri Martin/Alamy)

What of Schengen itself?

Since Schengen is removed from any major artery, you’re only likely to find yourself there if you make a conscious effort to go. Around a 35km drive from Luxembourg City, the route takes you through forests, over farmland and down into the Moselle Valley. The landscape changes quite noticeably as you descend the rural hills to the town of Remich. From here, it's a pleasant riverside drive, winding between vine-clad slopes and the Moselle River to the epicentre of Schengen, the European Museum. Here, the story of how the Schengen Area came to exist is expertly told through interactive displays inside and a variety of monuments outside.

Don’t miss the cabinet of official border control caps from the member states at the time they joined the area, each a piece of national identity that was surrendered in order to make Schengen work. Poignant sections of the Berlin Wall sit perfectly placed in front of the museum, set there to remind us all that walls – in this case, world-famous reinforced concrete from one of its founding members, no less – don’t have to remain in place forever. Further along the jetty in front of the museum, you’ll find three steles, or steel slabs, each with their own star commemorating the founding members. Finally, there are the striking Pillars of Nations that beautifully detail iconic sights from each member of the Schengen Area.

View image of Three steles outside the European Museum commemorate the founding members of the Schengen Agreement (Credit: Credit: Arterra Picture Library/Alamy)

Of course, there’s more to this laidback border village than international legislation. Visitors can extend their stay to enjoy a river cruise on the Moselle, go hiking or cycling in the surrounding hills, or set about sampling some crémant (the region’s revered sparkling white wine) to get a true taste of life in Schengen, the tiny rural village now committed to the annals of history.

Places That Changed the World is a BBC Travel series looking into how a destination has made a significant impact on the entire planet.

Join more than three million BBC Travel fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter and Instagram.

If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Earth, Culture, Capital and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

BBC Travel – Adventure Experience

[stephenpetroniocompany]

“Bloodlines is the project of a lifetime.”

Melanie George’s program notes for the 2017 season of Bloodlines

“I don’t have one dance home. I have lots of homes.” -Stephen Petronio

Bloodlines is the project of a lifetime. Literally. Initiated in 2014, on the heels of Stephen Petronio Company’s 30th anniversary, Bloodlines simultaneously looks forward and back on the legacy of Stephen Petronio, while making space for the vision and lineage of his most influential predecessors. With specific focus on Petronio’s post-modern heroes and mentors (Trisha Brown, Merce Cunningham, Anna Halprin, Steve Paxton, and Yvonne Rainer), Bloodlines endeavors to shift dance history from the books into the body, and, in doing so, encourages audiences to reframe the narratives assigned to these dances within history. Part homage, part investigation, through Bloodlines, Petronio draws a serpentine line from post-modernism to his own signature elegance and kineticism.

Beginning with Merce Cunningham’s RainForest in 2014, each season, Stephen Petronio Company has added one or more historic post-modern dance works to their repertory, to be performed alongside a new work created by Petronio. For its 2017 season, the company presents an excerpt from Steve Paxton’s Goldberg Variations, a triptych of early works by Yvonne Rainer, and Anna Halprin’s solo The Courtesan and the Crone, performed by Petronio. Though the artists have a shared history in modern dance chronology, each of the works represents a different era in the artists’ lives: Rainer’s works are from the start of her career, Paxton’s dances were originated in his late forties, and Halprin was a septuagenarian when she created her solo. Bloodlines is not a retrospective. More than mere tribute, the repertory is in dialogue with itself and current and future pieces by Petronio. Similar to revisiting great written works, within each dance is context and subtext promoting a rereading of what we think we know of these dances.  

Yvonne Rainer’s Diagonal was first presented as part of the evening length work, Terrain (1963). Diagonal is a playful game, full of humor and chance, but with clear rules for space, time, and movement, denoted by letter and number. In reducing the design to a series of actions, devoid of meaning, the performers relationship to the movements is revealed. Dancers alternately revel, grapple, and impose their will on one another. In Diagonal, we glimpse the seeds of Rainer’s movement aesthetic that would eventually be immortalized in her No Manifesto and most famous work, Trio A: a fascination with pedestrianism and repetition, direct locomotor movement, limb initiation as an obstacle to traveling movement, and an averted gaze.

Trio A with Flags (1966/1970), is one of many versions of the iconic dance, Trio A. Originally titled The Mind is a Muscle Part 1, Trio A was first performed on January 10, 1966 at Judson Church. An egalitarian, movement-focused work performed by any willing participant with any degree of skill, Trio A can be a trio, solo, an ensemble work, or duet. Its focus on movement invention sans repetition, seduction, or spectacle, would, over time, be seen as the ultimate rebellious act of post-modern dance. In questioning, and ultimately breaking, most of the rules of conventional dance composition and performance, it succeeded on its own terms and redefined those terms for the field, in general.

In program notes for a March 1968 performance, Rainer stated

“Just as ideological issues have no bearing on the nature of the work, neither does the tenor of the current political and social conditions have bearing on its execution… This statement is not an apology. It’s a reflection of a state of mind that reacts with horror and disbelief… not at the sight of death, however, but at the fact the TV can be shut off afterwards as after a bad Western. My body remains enduring reality.” (1)

Her words reflect the inherent iconoclasm of Trio A’s origins. Though the content remains unchanged, or perhaps because of it, the intent is endlessly malleable. In the case of Trio A with Flags, it is overtly political. First performed in 1970 by Grand Union (with David Gordon, Paxton, and Rainer) during the People’s Flag Show, the dance was used to protest the arrest of fellow artists. Nude, with five foot flags tied around the neck, this version has rarely been performed since 1970.

The decision to revive Trio A with Flags at a time when our cultural and political climate is fractured, is a purposeful, tactical act of resistance. Petronio has chosen to speak with his most effective medium. He states, “...our actions are the architecture of our souls, and so we shall be remembered for the heart and breath and fierce passion of our march.” Where words fail, the body speaks eloquently, transforming what was once a timeless counter-culture political statement, into a timely, necessary declaration on the role of art in society. It incites. It reflects. It validates. It comforts.

Chair-Pillow is an excerpt from 1969’s Continuous Project-Altered Daily. The most structured and conventional of the three excerpts presented on this program, in the original evening length piece Chair-Pillow served as an interstitial counterpoint to a series of interchangeable solos duets, trios and group dances. In documents from the rehearsal period, Rainer writes extensively of a need to interrogate the role of authority and directorship in her creative process. Of this time she commented, “It seemed a moral imperative to form a democratic social structure.”(2) Chair-Pillow is an interesting byproduct of this approach, as it is organized and repetitive, but, in its original incarnation, could be initiated by any dancer, at any time in the performance.(3) What is clear in the early performances, and the Petronio restaging, is Chair-Pillow is a dance about self-inflicted obstacles, theoretical and tangible. Though Rainer and her Judson Church compatriots rarely get due credit for their whimsy, how could the accompanying Ike and Tina Turner performance of “River Deep, Mountain High” be anything but whimsical. In the narrative of the anarchical, political, and experimental leanings of Judson Dance Theatre, humor is often excised. By adding these works to the Bloodlines repertoire, Stephen Petronio Company balances the scales between the wit and wisdom that is woven through Rainer’s choreographic history.

Of the many dance interpretations of Bach’s Goldberg Variations, Steve Paxton’s work is, perhaps, the most invested in variety. Beginning in 1986, Paxton’s Goldberg Variations project extended over six years, rooted in his commitment to never perform the work identically. Inspired by Glenn Gould’s 1982 recording, and intrigued by the juxtaposition of an ever changing dance set to a fixed audio reproduction, Paxton did not commit to recording any of his performances until the project’s end in 1992.(4) A quarter of a century later, the video serves as a lush portrait of who Paxton was as a mover during this time, though that was never his intent. Widely revered as the shepherd of contact improvisation, history texts often fail to mention the exquisite nature of Paxton as a performer of his own repertory. Yvonne Rainer once commented that Paxton developed his aesthetic as a means to avoid the inherent technical brilliance of his dancing body.(5) This excerpt from Paxton’s work highlights the magic that results from mating a highly evolved mover with a masterful improviser. Shifting from isolation and fine motor movements to athletic gross motor movement, existing in all dimensions in space, contrasting strong, quick effort with undulations of the spine, the dance, and Nicholas Sciscione’s performance, are facile… curious…. alluring.

The Courtesan and the Crone was chosen for Petronio by Anna Halprin. Halprin created the dance in 1999, at the age seventy-nine. A feminist work about aging and image, the piece is emblematic of the manner in which Halprin remains present in her work, evolving thematic material to reflect current states, eliminating the distinction between life and art.  Inspired by the gift of an Italian mask from her daughter, Halprin designed a humorous dance of seduction, revelation, and resignation. Petronio’s performance is sly and provocative, as it simultaneously assumes and subverts the character through age and gender. His performance poses questions found in Halprin’s artist statement: “What next? Where am I going? What is my work now…?”(6), while also touching on drag and genderqueer themes. The result is a mix of illusion and vulnerability from a character of indeterminate identity.

Petronio’s latest work, Untitled Touch, is a mix of purposeful propulsion and dexterous motion. The dancers often act upon another, rather than work in tandem, orbiting around each other while transitions and groupings dissolve. The movement allows varied aesthetics to rub together, as classical lines collide with the deliberate release of effort. As noted in the title, it is a tactile work, but is neither sensitive nor indulgent. Instead, it employs surprisingly percussive movement vocabulary. The accompanying score, composed by frequent collaborator Son Lux, suggests an ongoingness in opposition to the decisive irregularity of the staging. In these moments of juxtaposition, Petronio makes his own dance history transparent, referencing his influences without mimicry or portraiture. The non-discerning eye might miss the elements upon first glance, but in the context of this program, we see clear nods to Trisha Brown’s dynamism, Paxton’s athleticism, Rainer’s intellect, and Halprin’s humanity. In Untitled Touch, and the Bloodlines project overall, Petronio unpacks these coexisting aesthetics, reassembling them like a three dimensional puzzle with its own internal logic and multiple non-linear perspectives.

Bloodlines continually plays with sum and parts, discarding the notion that one is greater. Of note is Petronio’s decision to explore the work of other artists at a point in his career when most artists are concerned with concretizing their own legacy. The notion of legacy as synergistic is anomalous to the vision of modern dance history as a roster of individuals chiefly concerned with authoritative personal statements. Though historians often encourage the reductive geometry of timelines and family trees, we know the evolution and chronology of art is rarely linear or singular. No art form evolves in a vacuum. An alternate reading of the Bloodlines project highlights cooperative artmaking as one of the lasting lessons from Petronio’s early dance training. A dancer’s movement profile is an amalgam of every physical experience encountered over time. There are preferences and predispositions toward style, genre, and technique, but one cannot undo his physical history. What the body encounters changes it, dynamically; what the eyes capture imprint on the brain. The result is a complex recipe that cannot be quantified or duplicated, but is tangible and visible in performance.

-Melanie George

(1)  Rainer, Yvonne. Work 1961-73. Halifax: Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1979. Print. (2) Ibid (3) Chair/Pillow History. Perf. Yvonne Rainer, Mila Parrish. Vimeo. Arizona State University ArtsWork Theatre, 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2017. <Chair/Pillow History>. (4) Steve Paxton's Introduction to the Goldberg Variations. Dir. Walter Verdin. Perf. Steve Paxton. Vimeo. N.p., 1993. Web. 15 Feb. 2017. <https://vimeo.com/188213292>. (5) Kourlas, Gia. "Yvonne Rainer Talks about Her Newest Dance and Judson." Time Out New York. Time Out, 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2017. <https://www.timeout.com/newyork/dance/yvonne-rainer-talks-about-her-newest-dance-and-judson>. (6) Halprin, Anna. "Artist Statement." Anna Halprin. N.p., 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2017. <https://www.annahalprin.org/artist-statement>.