#that only serve to further reinforce his belief that he is not worthy enough | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dalekofchaos · 5 months ago

Text

How Robb could've won the North's independence

Realistically, it would be impossible for Robb to win the War of the Five Kings unless he teamed up with Stannis or somehow got married to Margaery Tyrell(Robb goes to treat with Renly instead of Cat, Renly dies and Robb convinces the Tyrells to join forces, only condition:marry Margaery). But it would've been possible to win The North's Independence.

Before we get into the how he could win, let's look into how and why Robb lost.

Sending Theon to Pyke. The beginning of the end. On one level Robb was right to trust Theon, because we see from Theon's POV chapters that he intended to stay true to Robb's cause…. up until his father rejected him and sent him to reave the West coast and Moat Callin with the other Ironborn. It's only after Theon has been rejected by his father and forced to serve on a ship with another captain (putting the heir to the seastone chair lower in rank than a battle commander) that Theon cracks and decides to do something big to prove he is a worthy heir to Balon Greyjoy. But Cat is also right: because she expected that something could go wrong. Now, she expected that Theon would betray Robb from the off, because she has a nasty suspicious streak and really assumes the worst about everybody - think of all the times she bleats that Jon can't stay at Winterfell as he'll usurp Robb's rights, and ask yourself: has there been any indication that Jon would ever do this? No. Jon could have worked his way up to captain of the Winterfell guard as a Stark bastard, and Robb would have been better protected by his much loved brother than anyone else. But because Cat is so deeply entrenched in her belief that bastards are grasping stealers of birthright, she cannot allow that possibility to even be discussed. Same thing happens with Theon. Cat knows more about Ironborn culture than Robb, and she appreciates that Theon has been a Stark prisoner for years whereas Robb unfortunately thinks of Theon as another adopted brother. But she fails to adequately explain to Robb that her concerns about Theon are not about Theon's character per se, but about Ironborn culture. She anticipates that something could go wrong - she doesn't see exactly what happens to turn Theon against the Starks, but she had enough knowledge of the Ironborn to make a case to Theon and Robb that Balon Greyjoy was a cantankerous old prick who would not be willing to provide a naval fleet to a king he has no interest in pledging his loyalty to in any case.

Not Informing His Uncle of His Plans: Edmure threw back the Lannister forces at the Battle of the Fords. Because of this, Robb is unable to encircle Tywin's host, as he had hoped to surround and capture them further within the Riverlands. I'm not so sure that Robb actually had that "plan" in Riverrun. I think he hammered out the details of the trap somewhere in the West, and didn't think Edmure would interpret differently. As to the trap itself: oh no, Tywin's cause would have been lost for sure. If he delayed for even a few hours, he'd be late to the rescue of King's Landing - Lannister Plot ArmorTM struck again. And the thing is, if he crossed the Trident, he'd be caught between Robb, Edmure and Roose - you can forget about the Red Wedding then: Roose and Walder are dipshits for sure, but they're above all opportunistic dipshits. With Tywin caught between 3 different forces, at least one of which - Robb - is way, way better at guerilla hill-war that Tywin (who never seems to win anything unless he outnumbers his enemy at least 2:1), that's it for the Lannister army. Meanwhile, Stannis takes KL, but keeps pissing off everyone with his charming personality, so his reinforcements are dubious. But Stannis is a man of honor and of his word and he would've given the Starks Sansa. Dorne would be pleased that Tywin and the Mountain dies and extends an alliance with The North. The Tyrells just fuck off in Highgarden. The Ironborn are dealt with and would be at death's door until Euron returns. Stannis has Varys and Littlefinger executed and Lysa just sulks with Sweetrobin in The Eyrie. The Starks regain The North and the Starks reunite and most importantly Robb is the one who goes to the Wall and helps prepare the North for The Others.

Beheading Rickard Karstark: Karstark, feeling the need for vengeance due to his son's deaths, slaughters prisoners of war Tion Frey and Willem Lannister. Due to this act, Robb sentences Karstark to death and beheads him personally. This leads to the Karstark' abandoning ship and heading home. Rickard and the Karstarks had been some of, if not, his most loyal vassals. When Ned was imprisoned and Robb called his banners Rickard answered bringing as many men as he could unlike many other Northern Lords who held back men in reserve for their own interests. Or the Umbers who threatened to go home unless he got his way and had to be threatened to stay and help Robb free his father. When Winterfell was captured and Bran and Rickon's lives endangered the Karstarks were one of the few Northern Houses to send men despite the large distance to Winterfell. Despite all this, despite the fact that two of Rickards sons were killed as they were protecting Robb from Jaime Lannister, or his heir was captured being sent into a battle that Robb knew they were going to lose Robb still gave Rickard Karstark the harshest punishment he could instead of being lenient like his own advisers suggested and keeping him prisoner or sending him to the Wall. Now this move was especially stupid as the remnants of the 2,000 Karstark foot was with Roose. Robb was actually worried about them turning on Bolton, which was a real possibility, but instead they worked with Roose to take down Robb at the Red Wedding. Would Roose have had the confidence to act without those Karstark numbers? Being lenient with Rickard might have still lost those Karstark men but they would never have helped in the Red Wedding. Karstark sacrificed a lot and while killing those two Lannisters was bad, no one would have cared if it had been on the battlefield. Their age has little to do with it, both sides would have had casualties of similar ages in the battles.

Marrying Jeyne Westerling: Robb was betrothed to a daughter of Walder Frey; however, this act broke that vow, thus leading to the Frey's feeling betrayed and withdrawing home. This act of defiance towards the Frey's is later paid in kind via the Red Wedding.

With that out of the way, here is how Robb could've won The North's Independence.

If we’re looking at deposing Joffrey and extinguishing the Royal Branch of House Baratheon-Lannister, then no. Too many riches, lords, and men support them for the Stark/Tully coalition to mount an offensive. They’d be enveloped, surrounded and destroyed.

If we’re looking at the independence of the North, then its possible, but Robb is going to have to do some unpleasant/unhonorable things, because here’s the ultimate goal:

Getting behind Moat Calin and fortifying for the Winter.

If Robb can do that, then he’s pretty much untouchable.

So, how do we get there?

First things first, don’t tie the knot with Talisa/Westerling and marry Roslin Frey like he agreed to. That stupid marriage should never have happened in the first place.

Eddard Stark survived the stain of a “bastard.” Robb can too, which may not even be a problem since Westerling never became pregnant (probably due to her mother). Robb marrying for love was so out of character that we’re just setting aside the Talisa incident.

Next, its time to get the Northern Alliance some breathing room for their strategic retreat.

Robb needs to recognize that Edmere is an idiot and needs his uncle Blackfish to watch over his shoulder the whole time. If he does so, then Robb’s cannon plan in season 3 works. The Mountain and his Ravagers are drawn out of Harrenhal, surrounded and annihilated.

That not only deals a blow to Lannister prestige, but also wins them brownie points with the Brotherhood Without Banners. Enough so that maybe they let Robb know that they have his sister.

That with a nice sack of cash will firmly place the BWB on the Stark side, so long as Robb can keep his Northmen in line. They are going to be the Stark’s eyes and ears as well as turn the Riverlands into the Spanish Ulcer for the Lannisters.

Which brings us to Karstark.

At the beginning of season three, the Kingslayer is gone, so Karstark goes berserk as a result. Instead of beheading the man, Robb should parlay with him instead. Use his anger to help with the retreat, while at the same time, put him in overwhelming situations where a stray arrow or well-timed blade may get through his guard.

In other words, suicide by Lannister.

Karstark won’t notice, he’s too bloodmad, his focus will solely be on killing Lannisters. The problem will eventually resolve itself. And if not, mayhaps the BwB can help, for another sack of cash of course.

So now Robb has his space.

The BwB and Karstark are disrupting the Lannister/Tyrell logistics, inflicting lop-siding losses on demoralized and green Lannister/Tyrell levies (most of Lord Tywin’s professional force was either wiped out at the Whispering Woods or at Blackwater and the Tryrell “impressive” force of 80,000 are farmhands who’ve never seen a blade in their life).

Now comes the hard part, withdrawing the Riverlords and what’s left of their men behind the Moat.

After two years of war, the Riverlords have maybe 15–20 thousand men left. Add on to Robb’s own 15,000 Northmen, and Robb can command an impressive 30,000 battle hardened soldiers.

And every one of those men are needed in the North:

To remove the Ironborn.

To fortify the Moat, the White Knife, and the Stoney Shore.

To deal with the Wildlings, Stannis, and ultimately, the White Walkers.

But the Riverlords are stubborn. They don’t want to abandon their homes to the Lannisters. Who would? Moreover, to abandon their homes to fight a supposedly Northern problem? That’s adding insult to injury.

Hence why marrying Roslin is so important. It means that Robb can’t just pack up and go home. He is now permanently tied to the survival of the Riverlands.

The marriage carries a promise: that Robb will return. Just as Doug MacArthur returned to the Philippines.

Combine that with parting with 5000 men to garrison the strategic and symbolic castles throughout the Riverlands (Riverrun, Oldstones, The Crossroads, the Twins, and Seagard), Robb and the Tullys command the displayed area:

With all three forks of the Trident under the Stark Banner, the Starks can send constant supplies, provisions, and ferry BwB raiding parties. The long-ships they need to navigate the forks can easily be supplied by the ironwood of House Forrestor and designed by captured Ironborn in exchange for clemency.

In canon, The Blackfish claimed that Riverrun could hold out for two years, and that was with an unprepared Riverrun. With a proper strategic retreat, a proper supply route along the three forks, that time frame for Riverrun and all other hard nuts in this system could be raised to near indefinite, or at least until Winter hits.

Until Gunpowder came around, it was almost nearly impossible to take castles. The loss of life in an assault was just too much for farmhand levies. The only way to break a castle is through a siege, and well supplied Trident prevents such castles from starving out.

So, by leaving behind say 5000 men, using the Lannister plunder Robb acquired from his expedition west for payment and loyalty, maximizing the continued harassment and disruption by the BwB, and taking advantage of impetuous, but slow thinking lords looking for glory and blood, the Riverlands could hold out until at least Winter, at which points all sides would have to retire.

Its a stalling game, basically.

Now, with that secured, Robb will then take the remaining 10–15 thousand Rivermen with him North to deal with the Ironborn. Which is a piece of cake, since most already left for the Kingsmoot, and while being incredibly skilled sailors and marines, fighting on the Green Land makes them worthless.

Winterfell is secured (unfortunately still razed), the North is liberated, and the Southern choke points are fortified with the Rivermen:

The warmer climate is better suited for them.

It keeps them close to the Riverlands just in case the Lannisters/Tyrells attempt to make an incursion.

That will then allow Robb to use his reinforced 20,000 battle-harden Northern Banner Army to force Mance Rayder into submission.

Unlike Jon Snow, Robb will clearly explain to everyone that a potentially treacherous Wilding is infinitely superior to a definite enemy wight among the White Walker force.

As for the Wildlings, Robb uses Jon Snow and Mance Rayder to keep them in line as they in turn man the Wall and reap up the final harvest before Winter sets in.

As for Stannis, without a proper logistics network (The Nights Watch and the North will not help him), his mercenary army either dies or defects to Robb.

Stannis is imprisoned, Melisandre either stays to help Robb and Jon or runs away.

While the North digs in for the fight at the Wall, the events of the South happen as they do in cannon:

Joffrey is murdered.

Tyrion is blamed and flees.

Sansa disappears to the Vale.

Tywin is killed by his own son.

Cersei single handily destroys the Lannister/Tyrell Alliance.

The Faith Militant rises and imprisons everybody.

Euron wins the Salt Throne and begins ravaging the Reach.

FAegon invades and secures the Stormlands.

With the South in such chaos, the incursions into the Trident diminish, as Lannister, Tryrell, Dorne, Ironborn, and FAegon are too busy fighting each other.

The line of supply along the Trident is strengthened by the spoils of war that came with Stannis, and Stannis’ mercenaries are sent South to warmer climates and better opportunities for plunder.

Sansa, who by now has become a political player in her own right, tricks Sweet Robin into declaring for Robb, and rallies the Knights of the Vale to the Stark Banner.

Who knows, maybe even taking out Littlefinger in the process.

So now Robb’s dominion looks like this:

His army around Moat Calin and South now compose of:The ~5000 Garrison of Rivermen. The 10–15,000 Rivermen ready to march. The ~1000 Partisans of the Brotherhood. The fresh 40,000 Knights of the Vale. The 6000 mercenaries that abandoned Stannis.

Meanwhile up North, Robb with his 20,000, the 50,000 Wildlings, and remnants of the Night’s Watch are ready to fight a grueling war of attrition against the Walkers at the Wall.

And if Tycho Nestoris is aware of the White Walker threat, then Robb’s got Bravoos’ armory and the Iron Bank on his side as well.

Robb doesn’t need to beat the South into submission. Not anymore. Arya is safe in Winterfell. Rickon is safe at Skagos. Bran is missing, but NOT in the South, and Sansa now commands the Vale with Yohn Royce.

All he has to do is hold out, using Darry, Riverrun, and the Oldstones as choke points.

The Royal Navy was destroyed at Blackwater. The Iron Fleet and Redwyne Navy annihilated each other when Euron went South, so the choke points can’t be bypassed.

Robb has won defacto independence.

Assuming they survive the Long Night and the rest of Winter, then Robb can coalesce his forces and reclaim the God’s Eye Basin, thus maintaining his pledge and duty to the Riverlords and increasing his prestige.

And the South will still be too divided to mount a proper counter offensive.

A treaty is eventually signed with whoever is left and Robb wins his independence, and with the wealth of a restored Riverlands, and untouched Vale and revitalized North, becomes the most powerful man in Westeros.

And if Robb listens to Roose Bolton more, explains himself to him, and rewards him for his victories, it may be enough to dissuade him from betraying him. After all, Roose is a pragmatic man, and will always back the winning side.

Robb was no longer on the winning side when he married Jeyne Westerling, executed Karstark, and lost Winterfell, the seat of his authority. If he plays his cards right, and doesn’t restrict himself with his honor, he could avoid the first two and quickly rectify the third, thus snagging victory from defeat.

The South was unified with the marriage of Margarey/Joffrey and the iron hand of Lord Tywin. Kill the union and the Hand, and you kill the alliance. And then, the war looks a whole lot less hopeless for the Starks.

And since Robb is now the most powerful man in Westeros AND has married Roslin Frey, the Late Walder Frey may be hesitant with his blade.

Justice has been restored. The North, the Vale and the Riverlands stand united. The Red Wedding never happens. The Starks are reunited and they fight off the Long Night and bring peace to the realm.

THE KING IN THE NORTH!

48 notes · View notes

fifthimageart · 5 years ago

Text

Bloom & Decay (Draft XX)

Introduction:

Propagation in the Wasteland

Memories announce themselves as degrading reels of film, playing over and over, with subtle variations depending upon how forcefully we try to change the moments long-since experienced. However, even in the best imagined outcomes, reality molds the mind back to the inevitable result of the things that have already come to pass. So much of our early lives, simple joys, and ignorance based bliss is lost into the void of the mind and its need to distinguish, pasts, presents, and futures*.

In writing on the Destruction of Art Symposium, a month-long symposium focused on the exhibition of destructive and destroyed works that took place in 1966

London, Art historian Kristine Stiles describes Destruction in art as not being the same as destruction of art. Moreover, she went on to write that the destruction in art addresses the negative aspects of both social and political institutions, and manifests as an attack on the traditional identity of the visual arts themselves. While these artists were responding to their individual overarching philosophies of destruction in the form of ephemeral art object and performance based works, there was never an established movement nor manifesto unifying the practice. Though the symposium itself was formulated by the artist Gustav Metzger, who coined the term ‘Auto-Destructive Art’ seven years prior, it would seem final meditations of both destruction and decay as separate from any particular canon following the month-long event would end there.

Eight years later, In the 1974 essay Theory of the Avant-Garde, Peter Bürger presents a similar problem, more directly asking the question as to how the development of art and literature could be reconstructed within a bourgeois society. This question, alluding to a later point made in the piece in which definitions of individual works are thus not made through the autonomy of the object itself, but rather solely through socially institutionalized investigation. The institution of art itself, then presents itself as the system of production and distribution of the prevailing ideas that dictate an object's reception of what we would consider to be Art. Dadaism had poised itself as a radical movement 50 years prior within the European avant-garde, in their manifested criticism of art as an institution (TAV_PB.22). The movement, in fact challenged nineteenth century aestheticism and art object through the self-criticism of art, or rather the theoretical destruction of Art within the realm of the institution. The Dadaists were among the first to introduce a means of subverting capitalist ideas directly within the western art canon, while also destroying traditional comprehension of what we would call aesthetic experience. Though, the paradox in the base ideas of an anti-art itself, reside in the fact that such concepts have long since been inducted into institutional canon, and by extension the greater art market. As recognized by Gustav Metzger, ‘They did not destroy enough’(ADA_GM_30). Object even in a Dadist manner, acting as a signifier to nothing but itself and the meaninglessness nature of the modern world, was still left with meaning by its physical presence in the facet of a world it was attempting to critique.

In Antony Hudek’s The Object (pub.2014), objecthood is understood as a thing that has obtained verified value through the perception of the individual, or a conformed and collective intellect. In both cases, objects become subjects themselves. Later in the text, Hudek addresses the relationship between this valued and venerated thing, as being made object in relationship to the specifically thinking subject (Tobj.HudPg17). However, arguably in both cases, the object is nothing more than a thing, oppressed with meaning and extensions of two subjects’ own ego and narcissism. Consider an art object. In the process of making, a cumulation of things that would have otherwise been overlooked (in the most general sense where one does not actively seek the particularly used material, or in the more ideal situation in which the material is sourced other than otherwise commodified or sentimental means), suddenly become object. That object then becomes one of subjective perceptions by a larger body. The art object, in that particular moment of exhibition, transforms into a mirror, in which this primary subject observes and make reflected judgment on a now secondary subject, the maker. The object itself then operates as if both hiding its own past thingness and intent, in ambiguous form and meaning. However, as the object becomes further commodified through institution, original thinghood transcends to proposed magnificence.

While opulence often has (understandably) more association with physical tokens of wealth, this can be arguably more abstracted in that opulence is the way in which we manifest, cast out, and assert our productions of grandeur into a system that demands it in exchange for the false promise of value (heroism) in the greater and perversely commodified heroic machine*(EB). Post-opulence then, is a theory aimed at dismantling and reversing the deconstruction/reconstruction process. Though the relationship to the art object is similar to that of destructionist practice, it is also a recycling practice between a materials’ thingness and objecthood. Post-opulence introduces unpredictability in material presence, rather than finding comfort in the stable image or object. It aims first, to reveal the sought ideal and iconic states as nothing more than a mimetic reflections of questionable institutional/social standards (Destruction of Art). Secondly, actively creates afflictions and ambivalence toward a conventional aesthetic, through the destruction of the art object (Destruction in Art). Post-Opulence highlights the investment in an idealized form, to then reduce the object back to a state of “thingness”. Moreover, explores a struggle that ensues between the formerly idealized art object (Icon) and new variable form revealed, through a process of deconstruction and decay. Post-Opulence rejects notions of value and stagnation in a commodified system, and operates as institutional disruption in that it consistently makes reference to both actions and signals of changed circumstances and time.

The Reality of Decay

Every moment of our life belongs to the present only for a moment; then it belongs for ever to the past. Every evening we are poorer by a day. We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we tan for ever draw new life and renewed time (*VE).

In his essay, On the Vanity of Existence (1924), Arthur Schopenhauer describes our existence as a fruitless struggle amidst a life dictated by instability and confusion. In that the living body is a dedicated mechanism to strife, in the pursuit of a recognized sustainable present of satisfaction. However, this journey will inevitably end in vain as that which was meant to embody a lasting existence, would not have non-being as its preordained goal(*VE). Arguably, the objective reality is that at one moment life is, and eventually it is not. Moreover, it’s in our subjective reality during the process of life, that such definitions become skewed and distorted through culture and institution. It is through such domineering vessels of that even our basic realities are taken from us, being supplemented by false promises of eternal life, hollow examples of transcendence, and vacant reward for allowing our individual realities to be managed by forces no better nor worse than ourselves. In this, the made environment shapes the way in which we define and find value in our own individual definitions of what our realities are.

Post-Opulence then is eventually interested in both the exploration and disentombing of this turn from humanity's rebellion toward a false dominance of a commodified society. This being said, the visual experience should not be reinforced to just seek the supplementation of permanent images and icons, but go on to embrace the decay of them. While representation is inherently mimetic of reality, Modernist ideology called for the delusion of it and is thus much more dangerous. Where the physicality of the made form is a manifestation of tangible truth, paintings manipulate the texture of the mind. To quote Harold Rosenberg, “Art as action rests on the enormous assumption that the artist accepts as real only that which he is in the process of creating”. In what could’ve been unknowingly hinted by him at the time, was the potential for narcissism in self-referential types of art that creates a volatile iconization of itself in the form of artistic commodity. Good art being overdetermined by economy, while external society is abstracted away.

The Icon

‘It doesn’t matter whether the cultural hero-system is frankly magical, religious, and primitive or secular, scientific, and civilized. It is still a mythical hero-system in which people serve in order to form a feeling of primary value, of cosmic specialness, of ultimate usefulness to creation, of unshakable meaning. They earn this feeling by carving out a place in nature, by building an edifice that reflects human value: a temple, a cathedral, a totem pole, a skyscraper, a family that spans three generations. The hope and belief is that the things that man creates in society are of lasting worth and meaning, that they outlive or outshine death and decay, that man and his products count (*DeDeath5). ‘

An icon is representative of something otherworldly. Moreover, is by extension defined as an object or image deployed to aid devotion/action toward such heroisms. Secondly, an icon is defined separately as a representative symbol, or as being worthy of veneration. Even in such surface definitions, there’s a redundancy in both definitional cases, as an icon serves as nothing more than a manifested access point to something perceived as greater than the self. Whether in a composition, place of worship, or in our pockets, we imbue faith and define reality via iconic vehicles of reconciliation and promises of fixed access to the infinite.

In The Denial of Death (pub.1973), cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker poses that the human mind is occupied by both anxiety and despair as we meditate upon impending demise. Moreover, as humans we seek a buffer or antidote to this truth, in adopting a greater urge to heroism - an application of significance to one’s own existence*(also freud). However, while certain imagined heroisms are inaccessible to most, we find ways of seeking heroism in our daily routines (i.e. work, religion, politics, relationships). This heroism is short lived, in that its destined for failure. This is because the cosmic significance of the individual person is nonexistent. Additionally, we subscribe to what is ultimately the illusion of permanent meaning. As religion was the once prominent means of establishing this illusion of greater individual significance, the institution in this form began to lose its hold as modernity began to supplement this need via a cultural heroism defined by its respective culture.

It’s in the latter that we begin to see the rise of cultural heroes (or icons), and the creation of heroic machines. These apparatuses, being of the institution, dictate the rhetoric that the average individual can only hope to fold into the illusion of being a part of the greater heroic movement. Again, this machine being directed and represented by the culture in which it grows, for better or worse. Becker, asserts that this quest for cultural heroism is the most actualized form of heroism that an individual could hope to achieve. There are rare instances, however, that Becker coined as being called genuine heroism. For Becker, genuine heroism refers to a small population of people that do not require any form of heroism illusion to live, and can face the impossible situation of living that we find ourselves in.

I think that taking life seriously means something such as this: that whatever [humanity] does on this planet has to be done in the lived truth of the terror of creation, the grotesque, of the rumble of panic underneath everything. Otherwise, it is false (DD_EB).] good quote

Applying such a context once again to this idea of the physical icon, the Post-Opulent role is that of the institutional iconoclast, and the introduction of an aesthetic anti-heroism. In that while one accepts that we are indeed subject to the individual limitations of the unconscious drives to cultural heroism, the objects and images we produce in this world are fleeting offerings to the two facts of our current temporal finitude: being and non-being. Moreover, by redirecting the productions of oneself away from satiating the cultural/institutional beast in favor of starving it, one may produce an aesthetic theory or practice similar to that which can be viewed as a genuine heroism.

Final Notes: Anti-Heroism & Reverence of the Non-Opulent Object

In the 1995 piece by John F. Schumaker, The Corruption of Reality, When an individual is in need of order in a chaotic system, the solution requires the individual to establish and maintain an unjustified or artificial order. Schumaker goes on to assert that this develops into a second system of operation that begins to eliminate competing data from the individual consciousness. Thus, the ordered institution becomes dependent on a social body of individual dissociation(CR.34). The example Schumaker provides in regard to the way in which the artificial reality takes hold, is the institution of religion. Much like hypnosis, such institutions produce a state of complacency by way of deconstruction of the individual scope via disassociation, and supplementing through a reconstructive process of suggestion (CR.81). Object and icon begin to then form as waypoints, or rather as gaslights along a darkened street, leading the collective consciousness down a path laid down by unknown entities that claim such passages safe.

Some worthwhile examples come to mind that would reveal the bridge between “hypnotic” and religious behavior. Consider the recently publicized miracle that took place when a figure of Christ on the cross began to shed tears. The cross was situated high against the front wall of the church, too high in fact for anyone actually to see the drops of water firsthand. Yet a great percentage of people who visited the church were convinced wholeheartedly that tears were being shed by the figure. At a later point, zoom cameras were able to show that there were no changes to the figure’s eyes, even while people reported seeing the tears. // They stared at the eyes for long periods of time, which had a trance-inducing effect due to the visual monotony*. At the same time, the staring caused eye fatigue and some inevitable perceptual variations // These effects were then interpreted in relation to believers’ original suggestion, namely, that Christ’s eyes would water (CR.81).’

Here is one example of iconic object, fulfilling the role as a vessel of prescribed imaginative illusion and suggested magnificence, or rather opulence. The maker venerates the thing to object with meaning and direction toward a subject, the object then becomes a mimetic representation and reflection, of the once subjected target. This new observer, with prescribed reason, imbue in the cycle of deconstruction and reconstruction of meaning. In short, an object and the concept of its meaning, means little compared to the amount that institution itself can

There is no art without ourselves, or acknowledgement of the lack of it.

Chapter I

On the Destruction of Ideology:

Post-Opulence & Critique in Early Iconoclasm

If all that changes slowly may be explained by life, all that changes quickly is explained by fire. Fire is the ultra-living element. It is intimate and it is universal. - (PF/GB)

Icon and sacred object have always served as powerful means of instilling pillars of power. While we may think of the word icon in solely western terms, such as digital representation of files or in relationship to objects of Christianity, this use of object or image as vessel to areas beyond our conceptual understanding is a cross cultural phenomenon that has spanned throughout time. From the objects of polytheism and pagan era deity worship, to contemporary vessels such as photographs that capture and represent memory, all can fall within the theoretical characterization of the ‘Mimesis’. This, being the concept that artistic expression and creation are nothing more than a re-representation and imitation of both internal and external realities. In this sense, the iconoclast or destroyer (in terms of being an antithesis to the ‘maker’), inadvertently still holds a specific aesthetic sensibility and potential to create a work that reveals an opposite reality than the initial object implies. Aesthetically and socially speaking, we now exist in a time where iconoclasm thus can be argued to have the ability to present itself as an evidence of progressive victory over historically problematic institutions. Iconoclasm then could be argued to better be described as a conceptual construct, that has evolved in relationship to an auto-destructive culture that in fact created the environment that fosters it. Reframing the negative associations of the destruction of Icon based on Byzantine era victors and influences, iconoclasm overall serves as both a powerful aesthetic strategy and political tool. The legitimacy of the destruction of the icon, has found both evolution and intersection within whole practices of sociopolitical life and contemporary aesthetics. The French Revolution, being one way that iconoclasm had found its most drastic shifts in narrative following the period in which it was defined solely by it’s religious targets, French revolutionaries destroyed artworks and portraits of the wealthy, as these symbolized the luxury, vanity, and opulence of the aristocracy. However, as the social valuation of art itself began to grow, these revolutionaries evolved once more this concept of iconoclasm, and created new techniques of destroying and transforming symbolic meaning through the process of renaming, rededication, and the full removals from sites where display and interpretation can be institutionally controlled.

Hugo Ball, a key theorist and practitioner of the Dadaists in early twentieth century Zurich, took this concept of reframing in the realm of iconoclasm by motivating the Dada movement though complex thinking on language, philosophy, theology, mysticism, history, and politics. Not only did the views of Dada contradict Christian mysticism, but characterized similar institutions (such as the museum), as ‘outdated, hierarchical repositories of power’. Dada thus was at an intersection between iconoclasm, anarchism, and aesthetic experience. Moreover, viewed the iconoclastic movements as being a singular mold of both religious and secular, although its participants would claim one or the other. Dada was responding to aestheticization of late 19th century art, which itself was the aristocratic bourgeoisie response to industrialization - While the use of the term iconoclasm in Balls essays were in relationship to a historical ‘Bildersturm’, otherwise known as the 16th century’s Great Iconoclasm during Europe’s Protestant Reformation, it was treated as an important means of force in political conflicts that continued to resonate into the twentieth century.

Prefacing Modernism, it was thought that ‘Because man is unable to escape the concrete, all abstraction, as an attempt to manage without the image, leads only to an impoverishment, a dilution of, a surrogate for the linguistic process.’ Moreover, that ‘Abstraction breeds arrogance; it makes men appear the same as or similar to God (even if only in illusion)’. In which case, the museum presents itself as it’s church.

In his essay, Functions of the Museum (1973), Daniel Buren describes the museum as being a privileged place with three specific realms of function: In the Aesthetic, Economic, and Mystical. First, it frames itself as the central viewpoint in which to consume the narratives of the collection, under the guise of individual emphasis or freedom from agenda. The museum exhibits what it wants to show, to which point the institution itself becomes synonymous to stage. Secondly, the museum removes object from commonplace, creating an inclusive value system based on the privileged/selected. Thirdly, perpetuates a self-reflecting mythysism of omnipotent power over what is consumed as ‘Art’, in both it’s implied promise and intention of self-preservation. This preservation, perpetuating the idealistic notion of becoming eternal*DB within it.

The museum has been tasked with a cultures’ protection against time itself. It is an artificial space, ‘granting it an appearance of immortality which serves a remarkably well discourse which the prevalent bourgeois ideology attaches to it*DB. The museum presents itself as self-evident, all while protecting itself and it’s own fragility through the serving upward collection of voice and gesture. This collection, becoming where art becomes born and buried* in the museum’s ability to create the space for simplification. The two roles of the collection then presents itself as either a silencing of the many, or the embedding of value upon the privileged few.

Chapter II

Destructive Nature:

Modernism, Auto-Destructive Art, and Post-Opulence

In the western canon, following the end of World War II, iconoclasm via the abstract form (i.e. Tachisme and Abstract Expressionism) became the predominant means of cultural expression within a mass episode of cultural forgetting within the western world. That being, there were no means of both accurately confronting and aestheticizing the horrors of the post-war world that remained grounded in both its reality and truth. In the destruction of recognizable imagery, In favor of the abstract form, reality was even further removed and that unpleasantness successfully buried.

Auto-Destructive Art (1959) was acutely concerned with the problems of the repressed aggressions of and toward the individual, as well as those within the greater society. Additionally, operated against a system that was viewed by Metzger as being the maker of its own destruction, responding to WWII, and the increased Industrialization of war and nuclear armament. In three separate manifestos, he went on to criticize privileged institutions and their dominion of both nature as a tangible entity, and in more metaphysical forms in relationship to the greater society. Metzger viewed people as being vessels of the unresolved and suppressed aggressions against ourselves. Moreover, That this predisposition toward destruction served as a critical threat to the continuation of the institutional illusion of balance and control. It is for this reason that he rationalized, that due to this conflicting unconscious allure, any art celebrating this pleasure would be quickly rejected*(GMB).

How have we progressed in regard to the way in which we in a neo-gilded culture, invest in the ideals of the ideal, consume art, and adorn creation as a half-realized concept; keeping in mind that no product of creation can or will exist in its most opulent or idealized form forever. Additionally, within a culture that both appropriates and consumes the aesthetic and moral principles of it’s would be counter. Mass media, as an example, serves us daily reminders of the realities of our modern day capacity for destruction, disruption, and decay. Through it, catastrophe and their sediments are made both palatable and distant, creating a cognitive distance as a kind of means of not looking, alienation, and disassociation. The question as to whether or not art object can both accurately describe reality and catalyze redemption, is one I put before Post-Opulence to answer, through the reclamation of destruction within the infrathin* moments between a completely destructive process and its inherent aesthetic manifestation following.

The contemporary ways of viewing of this progression/interaction with the perceived and ‘finalized’ art object, mirrors Jean Baudrillard’s theory of hyperreality, in which reality itself is formed from an endless reproduction of the real. Moreover, Developing into a relationship of equivalence, indifference, then the extinction of the original*. The way in which mass production has shaped our way of viewing, has both destroyed and altered the relationships we have with our own experienced reality. Additionally, it has created a perceived hierarchy of these two visual forms of completion and degradation into two opposing icons of status.

Where Auto-Destructive Art and Post-Opulence diverge, is in the intention toward the intimate actualization of a specific set of ethical and political ideals, rather than solely becoming a grand spectacle of them. Auto-Destructive Art was interested in complex and large-scale forms, somewhat hypocritical (ironic?) relations to the art market itself, and rings problematically absolute in its overall practice. The practice always needing something tougher (GM-pg34), and was characteristically power driven and hungry in it’s goal of being a ‘constructive force in society (GM-36)’. Auto-Destructive Art craved destruction in the form of violence, expelling through force of action, rather than decomposition. Post-Opulence is based on the passing of time, rather than a specific and complex manipulation of it. Moreover, it strives to relinquish control, rather than perform it. Where the theory of Auto-Destructive Art was an attack on the capitalist art market through performance in conjunction with maximal material form, Post-Opulence is rejection of the idealized or fixed state of material form, as well as an attack on the notions of extended iconization through similarly problematic traditional gallery systems.

Aside from acknowledged relationships to Dada, Auto-Destructive Art sucessfully lacked being a complete theory. However, the work of Auto-Destructive Art began to be defined by its scientific motivations, idealizing the future machine based experiences ‘that we need’ (GM_ADAC-191). These, being equally fallible frameworks subject to the draw of institutional self-preservation. Auto-Destructive Art found manifestation (or lack thereof) not only in the physical practice of deconstructing works, Destruction in art, but also by means of the manifesto/lecture format. Much like Post-Opulence, acting somewhat beyond a means of a self-authoritative or object based artistic practice, Auto-Destructive Art worked as a synthesis of the aesthetic values of destruction, and the performative aspects of public/collective engagement. Specifically to Post-Opulence, the lecture/manifesto takes form in events which have been informally called ‘burnings’. However, the overall criticism of Auto-Destructive Art in relationship to Post-Opulence, is in the synthetic and violent texture of the Auto Destructive movement itself.

(Image credits for Key)

As a continual modernization process provided the western world with a means of dealing with the traumas of war and its disasters, it additionally left open the questions surrounding whom truly carries the authority over the conventions of art and its institutional value. Clement Greenberg, a prominent art critic of the mid-twentieth century, adopted a new iconoclastic ideology and championed Abstract Expressionism within the western canon. His rejection to representation was not due to a personal dislike of the narrative image, but rather out of necessity as aesthetic progress called for it. Abstract expressionism created a standard and climate for the privileged to foster the grand modernist narrative, in that it demanded critical analyses, interpretations, and informed opinions (BJM_37). Here, iconoclasm has found itself appropriated as a tool of illusionary progress in the form of the abstract. Illusionary, in its failure in this form to provide a genuine challenge against normative consumer/capitalist ideology at the time.

The modern studio itself can be seen to conform to the limitations of the neutral space, to which the hope it is to be selected, exhibited, and sold. While on the one hand the studio was a private space, a heroic space, the studio was and remains a space with the intention of convenience for the organizer, curator, or exhibitors own designs*(DB_FS). Institution provides an easy to understand space, in which it’s own values characterize the studio into a described, ‘boutique where we find ready-to-wear-art’ *(DB_FS); tailored and fitted to the markets’ needs. Said institution, abstracting that which challenges between its space of production and its space of exhibition and distribution.

It would seem the case that such institutional powers (Which were/continue to be problematic and white-male dominant) would continue to provide answers. To that point, and the institutionalization of art itself in the development of higher conceptual frameworks belonging to those who can access it, has transformed Art into a vessel

(or icon) of a flawed social order. The concepts and aesthetics of the artistic field grew in relationship with the post war period, which today are still taught as fundamental knowledge. However, Abstract Expressionism eventually removed a necessary conflict between an ‘Advanced Art’ and the dominant culture, in that it kept alive the social and political norms of the west, and thus became an icon in both its material reality and lack of image.

Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power

Instead of causing us to remember the past like the old monuments, the new monuments seem to cause us to forget the future. Instead of being made of natural materials, such as marble, granite, or other kinds of rock, the new monuments are made of artificial materials, plastic, chrome, and electric light. They are not built for the ages, but rather against the ages. They are involved in a systematic reduction of time down to fractions of seconds, rather than in representing the long spaces of centuries. Both past and future are placed into an objective present (RS_NM11)

Minimalism acted as a theoretical reversal of power relations between individual values and those of society. Where in reality, in its compositions, minimalism represented authority. It not only embodied a prevailing social authority, but also the currency of power of the social patriarch. Moreover, made a case of an inherent discourse of implied power that was present in minimalist work, contextualized by inscribed problematic meaning. These included implications of industry, representations mimicking the rhetoric of a perceived dominant figure (the male), and a visual violence/aggression that would be directed toward the viewer, and as a complete occupation of communal space.

In Anna Chave’s essay, Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power (1990), Robert Morris’s work is described as being reminiscent of “carceral images of discipline and punishment”. The images themselves portray imprisonment or and repression, and Chave goes on to comment that even in [Morris’s] writings, he was more interested in power, rather than the countering of the current political/social context of the time. As an example, the Morris piece Hearing was a gallery installation made up by a copper chair, zinc table, and a heated led bed. In the description of the piece, all the installed objects were connected with live electricity, with load speakers playing an interrogation. While the compositions are a clear reference to a prison setting, the implied and forced narrative is that of a context of intimidation and the policed state.

Dan Flavin’s work is described as having including corporate references, in its recontextualizing the mass produced fluorescent light. Moreover, generated a market practice that was solely supported by its authorship over the readily available material, in short, selling the name.

‘Flavin’s Diagonal not only looks technological and commercial - like Minimalism generally - it is an industrial product and, as such, it speaks of the extensive power exercised by the commodity in a society where virtually everything is for sale’ - (Adorno, Pg.46)

Donald Judd’s work can also be argued to be making reference to an implied inner figure or ‘Strong body’. Through composition and scale, Judd’s work captures the characterization of the proverbial ‘strong silent type’ as described by Chave. Moreover, in the work there is the expression of power, which similarly lacks feeling or communication.

While Minimalist sculpture did succeed in its aim of expressing an implicit power over time and space, the model and phallic heavy references to outdated notion, exposed the monuments to their own overcompensation evolving since the previous period. It’s not until pieces are introduced having other dilapidated form via destruction or judgment from time and the elements, that the absolute nature of the works begin to feel less absolute and thus less authoritarian in nature.

Chapter III

Destruction on Display:

Practice & Presentation

It’s in these created moments of chaos, destruction, and broken silence, that we momentarily operate outside of a reality constructed by the mundane. The spectacle of the broken glass, engages our most primal drives, alerting us to the space in which we’re operating, but also instantaneously connects us to a space we presently share with others. By means of joining a destructive process with the power invested in a sought idealized state, a struggle over iconic form through its breaking, salvaging, and reuse begins to be exhumed. Additionally, creates reference to the actions and signals of changed circumstance & time.

In recent years however, we have seen a progression toward the dismantling of this resonant flawed modernity in both iconoclastic aesthetics and social intervention in the Contemporary. The practice and concept, both being free from the confines of institutional structure and influence. As an example, Earlier in 2017, the city council of Charlottesville voted to remove a confederate statue of Robert E. Lee and the surrounding park. Later, on August 12th a ‘Unite the Right’ Rally was scheduled following months of earlier protest from white nationalists. This rally, resulting in the death of one and injury of nineteen others when a white nationalist, James Alex Fields, drove his car through a crowd of counter protesters.

By no means do I make this illustration lightly, but it's worth exploring the fantasticism and need for the illusion/safety found in connection to such a fetishised preservation of toxicity as monument. Moreover, the social revelations made by such progressive iconoclastic action toward said icon and monument, comprised of nothing but material and thing. Ernest Becker might understand this relationship as being the essence of transference as a certain taming of terror, by means of creating order in a chaotic universe (*EB_DD145-9). In that certain monuments, or icons, represent what we aim to be loved by or to hate. In the former, comes with the consequence of Transference Terror*, in which one fears to lose the love of the object that manifests as an icon of one’s heroistic ideal(*EB_145-9). Iconoclasm in this sense, successfully disrupts and challenges the heroic projects/objects of the oppressing institutional body, while revealing it’s reality and greater insignificance. Following the events of Charlottesville, there was a wave of stated illegal and legal instances of iconoclasm of Confederate monuments in Durham, North Carolina, and Baltimore, Maryland**(NI_pg1-9). While the subject is still one between proposed ‘heritage’ and social progress, iconoclasm now manifests as an aesthetic tool that still makes the propositions of progress, however through actual physical instances and evidences of destruction.

During the same year as this Iconoclastic wave, contemporary artists Doreen Garner and Kenya (Robinson), came out with their two-person exhibition White Man On A Pedestal (WMOAP), opening at Pioneer Works in 2017:

Installation view of ‘White Man On A Pedestal’ at Pioneer Works, 2017

‘Pioneer Works is pleased to present White Man On A Pedestal (WMOAP), a two-person exhibition by Doreen Garner and Kenya (Robinson), from November 10 – December 17, 2017. WMOAP questions a prevailing western history that uses white-male-heteronormativity as its persistent model.

Both artists approach WMOAP from an individual practice that is responsive to their individual experiences as black women, operating in a system of white male supremacy. At a time when removing Confederate statues—literally white men on pedestals—were cultural flashpoints of whiteness and class, Garner and (Robinson) play with the size, texture, and scale of white monumentality itself, referencing both real and imagined figureheads of historical exclusion’

Installation view of ‘White Man On A Pedestal’ at Pioneer Works, 2017

Iconoclasm has thus serves as a subtle force of change, beyond the conventional ideas surrounding it as simple brutality. The questions remain open in the aesthetic exploration of the destruction in art, vs. the destruction of art. Moreover, aesthetic iconoclasm being a matter of politics, art, and navigated areas of intersection in relationship to the greater social body. Other exhibitions and areas of site are considered when visualizing some successful means of destruction both in and of art.

Spiral Jetty and La Jetée are two examples of a makers attempt to reconcile with such destructions through time. In each, we get a sense of an acknowledgement and understanding of a descension of the past into a present chaos, entropy. In Spiral Jetty, it’s in the form of the natural degrading archaeology of the pieces’ direct exposure to the elements. The variable and unstable manifestation of form at this location, act as as both a time-marker and the exhumed nature of these decaying themes in relation to the present. Likewise, in the film La Jetée, the subject character of the film, is in constant reference to an abstract time before the dropping of the bomb.

In the present, both works express a returning to a work in progress, both with the intention of resolution, albeit a resolution resulting in decay each time. With the spiral jetty, in it’s created intention, is inevitably going to find itself eroded, as our protagonist in La Jetée is to be ‘liquidated’ as the task becomes complete.

Nothing distinguishes memories from ordinary moments. Only later do they become memorable by the scars they leave. (Narrator, La Jetée)

In the film, there is also a sense of the auto-destructive attitude toward technology and humankind’s industry both to create and destroy. However, the Spiral Jetty again better represents the idea of passive destruction vs. that based around its violet nature. In the former, it’s either the implied violence of individual erasure or world ending catastrophe, and the latter being a relinquishing of something of human production to the natural progress of time and decay.

Lastly, in the documentation piece (Spiral jetty), there’s an interesting shot of Smithson in his film as we follow the maker via helicopter. He runs down the jetty for what seems like an endless amount of time as he progresses towards the center. However, as he follows this spiral form and begins to get closer to the eye, past and near future parts of the track began to be revealed in the frame. Until reaching the center and conclusion of the track, leaving the artist nowhere to go. Likewise in La Jetée, the protagonist asks those residing in the future to return to the beginning, but once returned and as he runs down the pier, it’s revealed that at the end is in fact the inevitability of death. It’s in these final moments, that past, present, and future clash for our subjects, leading to a progressively quickened state of entropy and closure.

Show the line between Bloom & Decay

When Attitudes Become form

Formalized

Passive/conceptual disruption

HS - LA Exhibit

Theme/theatre

aggressive/violent disruption

Contrast to Post-Op

3 notes · View notes

amrefevr · 5 years ago

Text

headcanon / incident in heaven ( drabble )

* note : rokbiel is an npc of my own creation , there is no angel of any circle called rokbiel * note#2 : check these other headcanons here & here for more background for this , also this refers to this headcanon

set during the war in heaven , pre - assignment to the garden of eden

BLINDSIDED , THE TAINT OF the corruption was a mere skirting along their senses. naught worth a glance when within the throes of an ongoing war , one sided with their heavenly creator & the other against one with secondary might that wished opposition to the almighty’s wishes. yet it was in this , a great mistake was made.

STANCE UPRIGHT , PERFECTLY ERECT , they had stood on either side of a heavenly forge. inside weapons meant for worthy hands were formed & blessed , none but those of special note were to pass its threshold. two cherubim kept guard on either side of its towering white pillars of the doorway. their spinning swords keeping a whistling cadence that deterred even other angels from straying too close , their multiple sets of wings fanned wide & hundreds of eyes ever roving their surroundings.

YET STILL THEY WERE caught unawares , renegades were upon them. the stain of their rebellion having began its eating away at their heavenly souls , violent & foul the others’ essences flashed. flaring their own divine presence , the true ability of smiting had yet to be developed but this still had the attackers shying away with sharp cries. the cherubim pressed forward to keep these fiends away.

SWORDS RAISED & POSED , THEIR assigned craft drilled into their non - corporeal muscles since the moment of their creation. intrinsic were their movements , honed by centuries of attentive practice. swinging as one towards the first two opponents , the larger of the two angels meeting their mark. the smaller one’s missing by a hair’s breadth , speed usually saw them through but it seemed height helped the other of the two. their reach long enough to eliminate their target in a single thrush. it took the smaller of the two , thrice as many. reluctance weighing their blade , but tampering his actions little.

SECRET , STALKING ABOUT THE nonexistent shadows but between planes of their kind of physicality to slid behind the two guardians. swiftly slicing through the non - corporeal constitution of the smaller angel , crippling them at their knees & leaving them overwhelmed with an agony of a wound that would never bleed. their shout that gave voice to their turmoil alerted the other cherub but their pivot was too late. not slow , but the deceitful rebel was quicker. slicing & shoving the angel back with the heated blade of their.

THE NEFARIOUS FIENDS WERE quick to take advantage of the shown weakness.

THE TWO WHOSE NAMES were rokbiel & aziraphale . the tormented outcry for reinforcements resounding but with still a distant reply to be heard. rokbiel possessing a lesser wound of the two wobble to their feet , charging forward once more whilst aziraphale turned onto their belly then clamoured to their knees. aziraphale’s injured leg outstretched awkwardly , they no longer held control of it nor did they think it could bear any weight should they gather it under themself. aziraphale’s flaming sword still held within his hand , grip tighter than they’d have liked but desperate they were not to drop it , & aimed at who dared come near.

WEAK LIMBED , TREMBLING HE was , as the blade’s taint poisoned the divinity of their system. aziraphale kept with each parry , the instigators seeming to grin & toy with them than place any effort into cutting then down. one of the pair branching away to help the other two , believing there was no need for more to keep this angel occupied in the state they were in. an incline of fear , one the angel hadn’t ever felt unto now , washed over them then at realising how much merit that statement held. he wouldn’t last long here.

& he didn’t.

RUSHED BY THE NEXT move , a feint then blow aimed at their already wounded leg , aziraphale collapsed with a tortured wail. fingers lacks around the hilt of their sword , nothing between the vengeful traitor & striking them from existence. gaze drifting behind the positively gleeful successor , aziraphale watched rokbiel’s stance buckle. wrenching a strangled keen from aziraphale much to the betrayers delight , the lament of an angel's grief a music to their souls that no heavenly choir could ever touch again.

FRIGHTENED THEN WERE THE demeanours of the attackers , nervous muttering & glances past where aziraphale could see. they ran a moment later. forgetting that half their quarry still held life within their chest.

THOUGH IT WOULD NOT last. ethereal light wavering , swirling then dimming as aziraphale lay there. heaving tearless sobs that would soon too diminish as their energy waned.

THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER , one too holding too the taint of rebellion. having lost too much energy to realise this particular essence was born familiar & held none of the malice the others had broadcasted with pride. a low keening noise slipped past the angel’s control , the being’s pretense of bravery cracking yet never crumbling under the constant flow of pain & the grief they left at the loss of rokbiel. now another had come to finish them off ? or to inflect more suffering before their light was firmly snuffed out ?

HOPING IN THE VERY least mercy would be granted , a swift execution. not to be toyed with nor gawked at whilst further injury was inflicted. yet seeing branded traitor kneel beside rokbiel , had aziraphale giving a choked outcry as they attempted to lunge from their supine position. they wouldn’t have their fellow’s ethereal form disgraced anymore than it was before it could be taken to the almighty’s memory.

CLUMSY & UNCOORDINATED THOUGH THEIR movement was , it served to startle the betrayer back to his feet & away. but the little strength aziraphale had mustered drained away quick as it had come. thus they could only stare , lambert aura faded to a wearisome glow , as the other stepped forward again. mindful manoeuvering around rokbiel’s prone form to crouched by aziraphale's side now.

A LOW SHUSHING NOISE , nearer to that of a hiss than a hush , came from the quisling. normally a sound of comfort held a harshness that had aziraphale wincing. expecting another attack but instead was met with a gentle hand upon his head. a peace that was near foreign to the cherub after all these long years fighting encompasses his frame. not healing nor a life keeping lightness , but one to ease the hurts until they passed.

IT ONLY SEEMING TO last a brief moment , in truth aziraphale was never certain of how long the contact lasted , before the righteously outraged sounds of approaching angels resounded through the air. signally reinforcements arrival. too late for one & nearly so for the other.

THE MYSTERIOUS SAVIOUR SPRANG to their feet at the noise & fled , leaving aziraphale more bewildered than before but unable to hold onto his own thoughts for the barest of moments then they’d slip by again. wishing to remember that unknown oddity , but never was the angel certain if they had been real or if it’d been an image conjured by belief.

#╰ ✩ HEADCANONS #( if this is a bit confusing because i tried to keep it vague for rp purposes ; a more condense & plainly put headcanon will be posted later #( tomorrow with the queue )#( it will detail the wound / it's aftereffects / etc. )#( but i wanted to rush this one out because i'm excited ; sorry if it's not the best writing ; but hopefully it gets the point across )#( if anyone has any questions beforehand ; always feel free to ask )#war tw #violence tw #fighting tw #wounds tw #death tw #long post tw

3 notes · View notes

politicaltheatre · 5 years ago

Text

The Boy In The Bubble, pt.2

“Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives the acclaim of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends.” - General Dwight D. Eisenhower, July 12, 1945

Immune response isn’t something we tend to think of when it comes to politics and other social behavior, but, we should ask, how is it that politics and social behavior function? More precisely, what are their functions to our species as a whole?

Their primary function could be said to be to aid our survival. We have short term needs and we have long term needs. We test our environments and we learn how to adapt to them. If we fail to learn, we fail to adapt; fail to adapt and we die.

This can be taken literally - and right now it should - but it applies just as well to politics and social behavior. Relationships, be they between a government and its people or just between two friends, depend on the ability to adapt to change.

To succeed in the short term, partners can afford to be selfish and transactional; to succeed over the long term, however, each partner in the relationship must selflessly root for the other to succeed and take action on behalf of the other to make that happen.

Selflessness is key to our long term health as a society. Too much selfishness and societal cohesion breaks down. The more we feel alone, the more we truly are. That feeling is never far away. It’s in the questions we ask about the world around us.

How many times have we witnessed the horrors of this world and asked, “Why?” How many times have we gotten sick, with a virus, with allergies, with food poisoning, or with heartache, and asked, “Why?” There must be a reason for it, a purpose in it. What must we accept if there isn’t?

To protect ourselves from that answer we seek out a higher authority, anyone or anything with the power to answer those questions and, in doing so, to make us feel safe. We never do feel safe, though, not enough and never long enough.

To know that we were truly, lastingly safe would require proof, and nothing could ever last long enough for that. To cross that last, infinitely long stretch of belief, we choose faith.

This is no criticism of religion, this applies to everything. Of all the things that require faith, religion is just the most obvious example. When we hear the word, faith, religion is where our minds go. It is a thing many of us rely upon. It provides moral and ethical guidance, it provides structure, and it offers answers to unanswerable questions.

When we criticize it, we do so in part for its failings, which have been every bit a betrayal of its promise of protection in exchange for power, and in part to reassure ourselves that the other kinds authority offering us protection in exchange for power are worthy of that faith, because they, too, require our faith.

Many who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 - too many of them, really - called their choice “a leap of faith”. They had things they wanted, things that they felt were important enough to look past his failings. It was a short term transactional decision. To get what they wanted they were placing themselves in his hands and hoping for the best.

“The best” may be words they’ve heard from the man - too many times, really - but the results have been anything but. Part of this has been general incompetence, but the rest of it has been what generates and perpetuates so much incompetence, which is the bubble of craven reinforcement Trump demands from those around him.

Whatever the appeal of authoritarianism in hard times, it inevitably breeds a culture of yes men, either by design or through mere attrition. That kind of echo chamber kills whatever analogue to an immune system a government and the society it serves can have.

In a government operating without dissent or criticism, there are solutions that will work for some problems. Its goals being short term - aggressive selfishness can have no goal that isn’t - the problems that it can solve are necessarily short term. A brief crisis on a small scale, that should be a piece of cake, at least for a government that cares to acknowledge that such a problem even exists.

Of course, how many times can you jump from one short term solution to another before you arrive at something definably long term? Long term thinking is what is required to solve those problems, in no small part because long term thinking is what prevents them, or at least mitigates them.

This, again, is where the immune response of a government is dependent on its openness to criticism, on its culture of seeking preventative and mitigating solutions to problems it should know could happen.

The initial response of the Trump administration to the COVID-19 outbreak was a classic example of a political leader surrounding himself with short term-thinking yes men and attempting to deny a problem out of existence. That should worry us, and not simply because the result of operating in this kind of bubble was a slow, flat-footed response to an urgent, worsening problem.

What should worry us so much about it is that Trump has sought to emulate other “strong man”, authoritarian regimes around the world, because their responses to the outbreak have been extremely troubling.

If we’re finding that we can’t trust Trump’s reporting on the status of the outbreak in the United States - or his reporting of his own response to the outbreak - or his ability to handle the crisis in any way that isn’t driven by his own aggressive selfishness, we need to pay attention to what’s going on in those countries with authoritarian regimes.

That list includes countries in eastern Europe and central Asia, all of them formerly part of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, as well as countries in Africa and Asia that were once colonies and now have regimes that may only be called “democratic” with great charity. Oh, and then there are countries such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, India, Pakistan, Brazil, North Korea, and, of course, Russia.

Russia’s response to the outbreak has been particularly troubling. It’s possible to discount a virus’ viability in Russia’s colder winter climate, but not when you consider that Scandinavian countries all reported hundreds of cases and dozens of deaths when Russia was still claiming a few dozen cases and zero deaths.

That Russian companies also do heavy business with both China and Iran should also raise an alarm to their apparent underreporting. Thousands of Russians likely traveled between those three countries since the beginning of the outbreak in Wuhan. If the idea is to slow down the outbreak and mitigate the loss of life, knowing the size of the outbreak in cities the size of Moscow and St. Petersburg is crucial.

Then again, it’s possible the misinformation campaign currently thriving in Russia media, that the United States is responsible for COVID-19 and released it China as an act of biological warfare, will do more damage, because there will be just enough idiots around the world to take it on faith that it’s something the United States would do. Or maybe Canada.

The Chinese government has also been pushing that rumor, a clear attempt to push accountability for the outbreak away from them. This, paired with barring American news organizations, is yet another alarming development. It suggests that they see their failures as a threat to their hold on power.

The initial response from the Chinese government to the outbreak in Wuhan was telling. The now-deceased doctor who sounded the alarm was punished for doing so. That should really scare the shit out of us. It delayed the safety measures that could have contained or at least greatly slowed the spread, and there is no reason to believe this was a lesson the Chinese government has taken to heart.

Time is critical in containing something like this. Just ask the families of those who died at Chernobyl. That the lessons of that catastrophe and ones like it haven’t been learned and applied by every government is remarkable, but not especially surprising when the government in question, much like their nominally “communist” Soviet counterparts, doesn’t take criticism. People taught not to deliver bad news won’t, even when you need it most.

The response in Iran, which insisted on telling its people that nothing was wrong just weeks after it lied to them about shooting down a civilian airliner, may lead to another revolution. The higher the death toll, the worse it will be for those in power, and the death toll in Iran will be high. So little do Iranians trust their government at this point that many have become infected because they have done the opposite of what the government told them to do because it was what the government told them to do.

Governments can’t afford to lie to their citizens. At least, they can’t afford to get caught. If you, like so many in the right wing, hate government because you hate having to be accountable to other people, you’ll go ahead and lie. Getting caught only helps you because it furthers distrust of government. Its a win-win in a losing, lonely world.

If, on the other hand, you were counting on maintaining control of your people and you need the apparatus of government to do that, lying is a sure way to destroy whatever power you hold, because lies, especially lies about the health and safety of everyone, get out.

So, yes, we know that Trump has screwed up. We know that he has done so because he has chosen to surround himself with people who only tell him what he wants to hear and has punished those who have delivered bad news. We know that he has blamed others for his own mistakes. We know that he has also made decisions about what to tell Americans based on how it might serve his own, selfish, short term needs. And we know that at least one part of his initial response, to ban travel from all of western Europe except for the British Isles, was made because he has hotels there.

Okay, we don’t know that last part, but given that the outbreak had already reached England, it’s fair to guess. It was either that or reckless stupidity. Either way, it was a great example of what a compromised immune response looks like.

The many mistakes Trump and his people have been making are merely compounding that. His many lies and lack of empathy have not only crippled our government’s ability to respond but our own ability to respond to each other. That cripples our ability to earn the lessons that need to be learned to aid our survival.

He won’t change. Like the leaders he chooses to emulate, he won’t accept responsibility, either. Like them, his need to do so puts our entire species in danger.

We’re smart enough, though, as a species to overcome this. When our leaders fail us, we look elsewhere. Many will look to other, more competent, more empathic leaders or other potential leaders. Many will look to each other. This is part of adaptation. This is part of being a social organism.

We get sick and, hopefully, we get better. This is how we evolved. This is how we test and adapt to changing environments, evolving us further still. This is how we, hopefully, learn. The cultural antibodies added to our collective history will record both how we allowed ourselves to become sick, how we through our own selfishness and short term thinking, threatened our own survival. It will do so, however, because (and only if) we survived.

Our environments will continue to change. The threats will, too, learning and adapting themselves, mutating as they always have. It doesn’t stop, and neither do we. We’re still here.

“Nothing is easy in war. Mistakes are always paid for in casualties and troops are quick to sense any blunder made by their commanders.” - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April, 1953

- Daniel Ward

0 notes

pete-and-pete · 6 years ago

Text

Paul Rosenfeld: ‘Sortition’ Supporter Charged in Election Day Suicide Bomb Plot

The FBI has arrested a New York man accused of plotting to blow himself up on Election Day in the National Mall in a suicide bombing. Prosecutors said his plan was to draw attention to “sortition,” which is a “political theory that advocates the random selection of government officials.”

Paul Rosenfeld was charged October 10 with unlawfully manufacturing a destructive device and interstate transportation and receipt of an explosive, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said in a press release. Rosenfeld told the FBI he was not aiming to injure or kill anyone other than himself, but federal authorities said the bombing would have put others at risk.

“As alleged, Paul M. Rosenfeld concocted a twisted plan to draw attention to his political ideology by killing himself on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.—risking harm to many others in the process,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in a statement. “Rosenfeld’s alleged plan for an Election Day detonation cut against our democratic principles. Thanks to outstanding coordination between local and federal law enforcement, Rosenfeld’s alleged plot was thwarted and he is now in federal custody.”

The FBI said in a criminal complaint that agents found, “a functional explosive device weighing approximately 200 pounds,” in the basement of Rosenfeld’s home in Tappan, New York, in Rockland County. In a blog post in 2015, Rosenfeld said, “Those of us who feel that voting (in its current configuration) represents a scam should be agitating outside of the poles [sic] at every election.”

Here’s what you need to know about Paul Rosenfeld, his alleged bombing plot and sortition:

1. Rosenfeld Told a Reporter in Pennsylvania He Planned to Blow Himself Up Because He Is Angry With the Direction the Country & Told the FBI He Had Made Smaller Devices to Conduct Test Detonations

youtube

Paul Rosenfeld began communicating with a reporter in Pennsylvania about his plan to blow himself up, leading to the FBI investigation, NBC New York reports. He told the unnamed reporter he was “angry about the country’s direction,” the news station reports.

Rosenfeld sent letters and text messages to the reporter and in those messages, he detailed the plans for the suicide bombing, according to the criminal complaint filed in the Southern District of New York. Rosenfeld also told the reporter about his support for the sortition theory, the FBI said in the complaint.

The FBI served a search warrant at Rosenfeld’s home in Tappan, New York, on October 9, according to court documents. He was then interviewed by agents and told them he had ordered “large quantities of ‘black powder’ over the Internet,” and brought it to his house in New York. Rosenfeld told the agents he made “smaller explosive devices” than the one he planned to use on Election Day and “had conducted test detonations.”

Rosenfeld also used about eight pounds of the “black powder” to build a larger explosive device in his basement, according to the criminal complaint. He told the agents he installed “certain components” in the device to ensure he would be killed in the blast. According to the FBI, “black powder” is an explosive substance used as a propellant in firearms, artillery and rockets.

The FBI said they found a plywood box in Rosenfeld’s basement containing “black powder.” According to the criminal complaint, explosive experts X-rayed the device and discovered, “that engaging the firing switch on the explosive device would generate an electrical charge, which would, in turn, spark an ‘e-match’ inside the explosive device, thereby igniting the black powder.”

The FBI agents also found empty canisters of black powder.

He told the FBI he would drive the device to Washington D.C. to detonate the device on the National Mall and draw attention to his political belief in sortition. Rosenfeld told the FBI he acted alone.

You can read the full criminal complaint below:

2. He Wrote an Essay in 2015 on a ‘Kletorian’ Blog in Which He Argued Sortition Is ‘Common Sense,’ but They Must ‘Convince Enough People to Put Our Movement on the Map’

youtube

In 2015, Rosenfeld wrote an essay on the blog “Equality by Lot,” a site run by “Kletorians,” the name that supporters of sortition and the “deliberate use of randomness (lottery) in human affairs.” In the blog post, titled “Extinction of Politics,” Rosenfeld argued that they had to work harder to raise awareness of their political theory.

“We aren’t a minority and we aren’t a fringe group (not even a lunatic fringe); from the perspective of politics we simply don’t exist (at least not in the U.S.),” he wrote. “Our sense of things is anything but common, it is exceedingly rare. If we ever hope to see this thinking converted into action that will have to change. Somehow we must convince enough people to put our movement on the map. For this, we will need a highly effective argument, because the people we wish to persuade are living under the thrall of a myth.”

He added:

The average citizen of our globe believes fervently in something which they call “The Democratic Process”. Voting is its central tenet. No matter how often it fails them they rarely waver in their devotion. And like true believers, fundamentalists even, each further obstacle is taken as a sign; the path is righteous but rocky, we must purify our faith and trudge ever onward. When we are finally worthy, the Democratic Process will at last deliver us. The road to true reverence has been long. Following the rise of the Third Estate there came the fall of property qualifications; then the secret ballot; voting by freed slaves; direct election of Senators; the ballot initiative and finally women were included. None of this brought deliverance and so today’s mantra is “corporate cash”. If only we can somehow stay the floodgates of corporate influence which pervert the process of “True” Democracy, then at long long last we will finally enter the promised land.

The origin of this myth is difficult to place. I suspect Christian infused political philosophy from the Enlightenment has played a role. The centuries of demagoguery which followed have probably reinforced this thinking as well. But I also believe it goes deeper than this, or any intellectual history. I think that the faith in “one man, one vote” strikes directly to our core. I believe, quite literally, that it is in our blood. We humans are defined by a set of political behaviors which are transmitted from one generation to the next. The relative importance of genetics vs. culture in this transmission is probably debatable, but either way the behavior is a given (in the short term at least). We’re stuck with it. We may not care for it today but this behavior served our ancestors well for thousands of generations. It won’t change overnight.

He also wrote:

Majority rule represents the the deliberate suppression of violence in favor of political maneuvering. This social truce holds only so long as the various parties each possess a credible threat of violence in the event that politics breaks down. When a faction (such as the peasantry) is disarmed, disorganized, or without military training, they will inevitably lose their political rights and descend to the level of slavery.”

The logical end of majority rule is monarchy. The constant political maneuvering of individuals and factions must inevitably trend towards a winner takes all conclusion. Even today, despite all our “democratic” pretensions in the U.S., one might easily imagine a scenario in which President Jeb Bush (following an act of nuclear terrorism) suspends the electoral process, under the pretext that “terrorists” have infiltrated the Democratic party. A perpetual dynasty of Bush leaders would be a plausible outcome. Most people imagine that democracy and monarchy are different animals, but they are actually cousins.

In the comments of the blog, Rosenfeld said, “I have just always assumed that legislators chosen by lot would be treated like other “civil servants” and subjected to an appropriate examination. Cops and Firefighters take a test, nobody calls this “elitist”. Surely lawmakers must demonstrate some minimum knowledge of history and economics if nothing else. Personally I wouldn’t want to set the bar too high because I do believe much knowledge and wisdom are impossible to measure; but a room full of the ignorant and illiterate!!”

You can read his full blog post here.

youtube

According to the Sortition Foundation, a group run by British political scientist Brett Hennig, “Sortition is the use of random selection to populate assemblies or fill political positions. An assembly that uses sortition would be composed of people just like you and me: it would be a representative random sample of people, making decisions in an informed, fair and deliberative setting.”

The foundation says, “Sortition has a long history, going back at least to Ancient Athens, where selection by lot (from among all free, male citizens) was the principal way courts and councils were filled. For hundreds of years it was considered a fundamental aspect of democracy; it wasn’t until long after the French and American revolutions, as universal suffrage slowly became widespread, that the term “democracy” was re-christened to mean electoral democracy.” Hennig and his foundation say their goal is, “to reclaim democracy and demand real democracy now.”

Writer Michael Schulson wrote in 2014 about how sortition could work in America:

Here’s how sortition works: for any given election, you take the names of every eligible citizen, and you put those names in a very, very big hat. (Note: you don’t have to use a hat, and there are many variations on this method). Then you draw a certain number of names out of the pool. Those are your legislators. It’s democracy by lottery.

For the House of Representatives, for example, we could pull 435 names out of a giant lottery of all American citizens 25 and older, and, voilà: legislators!

You may feel that this is an incredibly stupid idea, but keep two things in mind. First, sortition was the main system for choosing political officials in ancient Athens. As you’ll recall from civics class, Athens was the template, muse, and foundational bedrock for the American Republic. And, second, we already use sortition to select an important deliberative body, the trial jury. Those jury summonses that you get in the mail? Blame the Athenians. …

Sortition rests on two rather unique properties of random sampling. The first of these—which I’ve written about more extensively elsewhere—is that chance is essentially incorruptible, at least until someone rigs your lottery machine. No matter how much money the Koch brothers or Tom Steyer spend, they cannot convince a lottery to choose one person over another. What could be more impartial than chance?

And, second, as your random sample gets larger, you tend to get closer and closer to a sample that mirrors, in almost every respect, the qualities of the entire population. More than any other system, random sampling gives you “an exact portrait of the people at large.” It’s the Law of Large Numbers. (This doesn’t work, of course, for small samples, and you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who wants to elect a president by lot).

youtube

In 2015, Rosenfeld posted a comment on the Kletorian blog saying that Ted Talk videos and other YouTube presentations on sortition are an important way to spread their message. He wrote, “It’s not perfect, but it is accessible to the masses. There needs to be a lot more of this. Most people, even ‘educated’ people, have an extremely short attention span and zero interest in political theory. Media like this could be our best hope,” he wrote.

Rosenfeld also published a lengthy article on sortition and his political views in 2015. You can read Rosenfeld’s full essay on sortition below:

3. Rosenfeld Could Have ‘Claimed the Lives of Innocent Bystanders & Caused Untold Destruction,’ the FBI Says

The FBI and local police are still on Slocum Avenue in #Tappan. Town officials say they're executing an arrest warrant "based on threats that were made to targets not in the local area." More on @FiOS1NewsLHV. pic.twitter.com/SmAtp9wwmF

— Jonathan Gordon (@JGordonFiOS1) October 10, 2018

The FBI said Paul Rosenfeld’s suicide bombing plot could have put people at risk in the National Mall on Election Day.

“As alleged in the complaint, Paul M. Rosenfeld planned to detonate a large explosive to kill himself and draw attention to his radical political beliefs. Had he been successful, Rosenfeld’s alleged plot could have claimed the lives of innocent bystanders and caused untold destruction,” Assistant FBI Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said in a statement. “Fortunately, his plans were thwarted by the quick action of a concerned citizen and the diligent work of a host of our law enforcement partners and the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.”

Sweeney added, “I’d like to extend particular thanks to our partners with the Orangetown Police Department, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office, the Rockland County District Attorney, the New York State Police, the New York City Police Department, and the Stony Point Police Department for their respective roles in bring this investigation to a safe conclusion.”

According to the press release, “Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI’s New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, which consists principally of agents of the FBI and detectives of the New York City Police Department. Mr. Berman also thanked the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office, the Stony Point Police Department, the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, New York State Police, and the Orangetown Police Department for their valuable assistance.

4. He Has Worked as a Painter & in the Visual Department at Lord & Taylor

#Breaking: 56-year-old Rockland County, New York man, Paul Rosenfeld has been arrested by the FBI and charged with building a 200 pound bomb which he would set off on election day to kill himself and draw attention to "#sortition". #CVE pic.twitter.com/MEnntT0BUK

— Parthiban Shanmugam (@hollywoodcurry) October 10, 2018

According to a now-deleted Linkedin profile, Paul Rosenfeld is a painter and has worked in the visual department at Lord & Taylor in the department store’s painting and decorating division. Rosenfeld has also operated an independent painting and decorating company, offering house painting, custom colors and faux finishes.

Little else is known about Rosenfeld, who has lived in Rockland County for several years. He has lived in Tappan, New York, along with Piermont, New York; Berkley Heights, New Jersey; and Manhattan, public records show.

In an argument on the “Equality by Lot” blog, Rosenfeld wrote, “Call me an elitist if you like but my hands are dirty, I live from paycheck to paycheck and I never went to college. My proletarian credentials are firmly intact. But I do not believe there is a snowball’s chance in hell that a large group of humans (however you select them) is capable of managing itself in a manner consistent with social justice or even rational self-preservation UNLESS there are definite conditions laid out in advance for the management of this body. Otherwise, Nature will take its course; I don’t care if the group is composed of janitors, college professors or even a ‘statistically accurate’ cross-section of the population at large. I am certain that it will end badly.”

He added, “Someday perhaps, if our culture evolves, things might be different. But today this is what we’re stuck with. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. There are certainly many more people in your camp than there are in mine. Therefore, presumably, you must be right.”

5. Rosenfeld Faces Up to 20 Years in Prison if Convicted of the Charges

FBI on the scene in Tappan, in connection with threats made to targets in Washington, D.C. pic.twitter.com/Ys8kPYpwKb

— Peter D. Kramer (@PeterKramer) October 10, 2018

Paul Rosenfeld faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted of charges against him. Unlawfully manufacturing a destructive device and interstate transportation and receipt of an explosive both carry a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison, according to federal law.

It is not known if Rosenfeld has hired an attorney. He remains in federal custody after being arrested October 10, according to prosecutors. He appeared in federal court for the first time Wednesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison in White Plains, prosecutors said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said, “This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Michael K. Krouse is in charge of the prosecution.”

It is not clear when Rosenfeld is scheduled to appear in court next.

READ NEXT: These Are the Victims of the New York Limo Crash

source https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/paul-rosenfeld-sortition/

0 notes

citizentruth-blog · 6 years ago

Text

On Punching Nazis, Serving Sarah Sanders, and Matters of Civility - PEER NEWS

New Post has been published on https://citizentruth.org/on-punching-nazis-serving-sarah-sanders-and-matters-of-civility/

On Punching Nazis, Serving Sarah Sanders, and Matters of Civility

Sarah Sanders getting kicked out of The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia has prompted conversations about whether people should be kicked out of establishments for their political beliefs and whether “civility” is warranted in these situations. While not all calls for civility have equal merit in light of their source, restraint, mediated by facts and precision of language, is still a worthy aspiration. (Photo Credit: Twitter)

You’ve probably seen T-shirts or memes devoted to instructing others to “PUNCH MORE NAZIS.” This sentiment, which invokes Richard Spencer—who doesn’t call himself a “Nazi” or a “white supremacist,” but an “identitarian,” though that basically means he’s a white nationalist and doesn’t want you to know he’s a white nationalist—getting punched in the face by a protestor on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, is one that many of us can probably get behind. After all, who really likes Nazis outside of actual Nazis?

As sympathetic as we may be to the idea of Spencer and his ilk getting decked, however—or, for some of us, wish we could’ve been the ones to do it—just because we can punch more Nazis, does it mean we should? Political theorist Danielle Allen, in an August 2017 column for The Washington Post, emphatically rules for the negative on this question. She writes:

White supremacy, anti-Semitism and racism are false gods, ideologies to be repudiated. They must be countered and fought. We must separate the violence that flows from those ideologies from the ideas that animate them. Different tools are at hand for fighting each.

We need to counter extremism’s violence not with punches but with the tools of law and justice. Where hate crimes and acts of domestic terrorism are perpetrated, our judicial institutions must respond. We as citizens must make sure institutions do their jobs, not plan to take the law into our own hands.

When the legitimacy of legal and judicial institutions has come into question — as has occurred because of police shootings and mass incarceration — we must strenuously advance the project of reforming those institutions to achieve their full legitimacy. But to take the law into one’s own hands is only to further undermine legal and judicial institutions. It provides no foundation for reform.

As Allen sees it, we need to be thinking more Martin Luther King, Jr.’s brand of civil disobedience and nonviolence, and less, you know, Charles Bronson’s brand of vigilantism from Death Wish. In doing so, we must address the failings of major institutions—namely the courts, the criminal justice system, and the legislative branch—enduring the process of advocacy for reform. Punching Nazis, while perhaps providing more immediate satisfaction, doesn’t put us on the same long-term path of reform.

In fact, as Allen stresses, countering violence with more violence only takes us further away from the peaceful society many of us would envision — one devoid of white supremacists and their hate. It does not make our world anymore just than it was before we started throwing haymakers, rocks, and the like. It certainly doesn’t make it any more stable.

In other words — Danielle Allen’s words — “Once political violence activates, shutting it off is exceptionally difficult.” Her closing remarks reinforce this theme, with special attention to the morality of nonviolence as well as the impracticality of its opposite:

Why should anyone believe that people who have been committed to political violence will change their minds and recommit to peaceful forms of litigating conflicts? That kind of distrust erodes the foundations of stable political institutions. The path to justice always lies through justice, including the basic moral idea that immediate self-defense is the only justification for the use of force. We need moral clarity on this point.

Along these lines, violence is not the cure or negotiating tool we might conceive it to be. As the saying goes, it just begets more violence and makes people that much more predisposed to taking sides and fighting, rather than willing to change. When people are made to think of political and social matters in terms of a war, they treat it like one—casualties and all.

The topic of punching Nazis is an extreme example, but one that facilitates a conversation about how we as Americans try to interact with and otherwise react to people with whom we disagree on matters of culture, politics, and morality. Recently, Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant named The Red Hen in Virginia because of her connection to the Trump White House.

The owner of the restaurant, Stephanie Wilkinson, was home when she got a call from the chef that night, who expressed to Wilkinson the notion that the staff was concerned about Sanders’s presence there. For Wilkinson, Sanders’s defense of Donald Trump’s policies within her role as White House Press Secretary was a deal-breaker. As she (Wilkinson) feels, it’s a matter of moral standards. Compassion. Cooperation. Honesty. These are not the kinds of things that Sanders and her briefings are not known for, and as such, Wilkinson took a stand. What’s more, Wilkinson said she would do it again if given the same opportunity.

News of Sanders’s removal from the restaurant has prompted all sorts of reactions, many of them indicative of a political divide that events such as these only seem to help widen. If The Red Hen’s spike in popularity on Yelp is any indication, the actions taken by its owner have proven very polarizing indeed, with scores of 1-star and 5-star reviews being affixed to the restaurant’s online profile in light of the controversy. While I suppose the treatment of guests should be a factor in reviews of eateries, lest we call these new additions illegitimate, to say nothing of the other elements of the customer experience really seems like a waste of an entry. I mean, what if the trout Grenobloise is truly transcendent? You can say what you want about the owner—but leave her and her restaurant their fish dish, OK?

Beyond reputation assassination via social media from anonymous sources, there are other issues raised by Sarah Sanders getting the boot from The Red Hen and subsequently calling out the restaurant on Twitter. For one, Sanders did so in her official capacity as Press Secretary, and that’s an ethical no-no. According to Walter Shaub, former ethics chief under Barack Obama and Trump, Sanders’s condemnation of a business for personal reasons using her government account can be construed as coercive and a violation of a corollary to the ban on endorsements that someone like Kellyanne Conway has blatantly disregarded in the past. As Shaub reasons, Sanders can “lob attacks on her own time but not using her official position.”

Also, people have drawn a comparison between the way Sanders was refused service for her political positions and the way some businesses have sought to refuse service to homosexuals, claiming “religious freedom.” As far as detractors on the right are concerned, this is just bigotry on the part of the left, but this is a false equivalency; since it has come up frequently enough, it’s worth addressing. Sanders chose her line of work and accepted her current position, and continues to serve as Press Secretary of her own volition. Gays and lesbians, on the other hand, don’t choose to be gay. It’s who they are. The best argument one can try to make is that Sanders, were she to proverbially fall on her sword, would put her career and her livelihood at risk. Still, that’s a stretch when considering the ostracism members of the LGBTQ community have faced over time.

The issue that appears to loom largest here, however, is the matter of whether or not owners of establishments should refuse service to patrons based on their political beliefs or their association with a disinformation machine like the Trump White House. This is where I’m a little unsure that Stephanie Wilkinson’s choice is the right one. Now, it’s one thing if Sanders and her group were actively trying to cause distress to members of the staff or other patrons, or they were trying to espouse discriminatory views. If I were a restaurant owner, I wouldn’t want, say, Ku Klux Klan members waltzing into my place and ordering cheese and crackers. There are limits to freedom of expression, to be sure.

Assuming Wilkinson has the right to ask Sanders and Co. to leave, though, whether or not she should ask them to leave is a subject worthy of debate. It’s like refusing to serve or otherwise accommodate someone wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. In April, a New York City judge ruled a bar was legally allowed to refuse service to a man wearing a “MAGA” hat, as it wasn’t discriminating based on country of origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other demographic characteristic. It also didn’t help the man’s cause that he reportedly was verbally abusive to staff. In Sanders’s case, meanwhile, there is no indication that anything more than her presence was the source of unrest. Even in the court of public opinion, this seems like less of an open-and-shut case.

What especially gives me pause is that few people seem to be on Sarah Sanders’s side on this one, and I’m not sure if this is my failing in my refusal to join in, or just the left looking to stick their tongues out at a Donald Trump supporter like the White House Press Secretary in the midst of the administration’s flagging popularity, and as we plumb the depths of a crisis facing immigrant families which feels less like border security and more like ethnic cleansing.

Other Trump administration officials have met with similar treatment, with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and senior policy advisor Stephen Miller both being met with protests as they ate at—irony fully noted—Mexican restaurants. It’s not just Cabinet members and racist advisors to the President, either. A video of New York-based attorney Aaron Schlossberg berating and threatening employees of a restaurant with deportation because they spoke Spanish went viral, and condemnation and ridicule were soon to follow. Heck, a GoFundMe page was even erected to pay for a mariachi band to play outside the man’s office. At a moment in time marked by visible tension between groups, especially whites who support the President vs. minority groups and their defenders, everyone seems to be fair game. The racist rants of yesteryear now run the risk of damaging people’s careers.

In all, there doesn’t seem to be much sympathy for Ms. Sanders—and I don’t know that there should be, quite frankly—but despite what someone like Rep. Maxine Waters would aver, maybe these officials shouldn’t be kicked out of restaurants, and definitely, I submit, they shouldn’t be harassed. That is, if one were to convey his or her opinions to them in a civil manner, it’s one thing, but it’s another to shout epithets at them while they try to eat enchiladas.

At the end of the day, we may find the positions of Nielsen and Miller reprehensible, but they’re human beings. Like you or I or the immigrants who live in fear of the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, they still need to eat and spend time with family. While I suppose Sanders and her group could have just gone, say, to a Chili’s instead, to try to abnegate the humanity of one because of his or her own abnegation of another’s humanity is to make two wrongs without making a right. It might feel good for a spell, but as with punching Nazis, it doesn’t put us on a path to reform.

To boot, for those looking to discredit people on the political left as intolerant in their own right, the decision to ask Sanders to leave The Red Hen has the power to turn her into somewhat of a sympathetic figure, and given that she’s served as the mouthpiece of an administration which doesn’t seem to have the word “sympathy” in its vocabulary, such is a regrettable turn in these cultural conflicts because concern for her feels unearned.

It comes on the heels of criticisms levied on her by Michelle Wolf, for which members of the media were quick to come to her (Sanders’s) defense, a defense not only unearned but undeserved given that Wolf was only pointing out Sanders’s role as an enabler and liar for President Trump. Thus, when Sanders tweets to say that The Red Hen’s owner’s actions say “more about [Wilkinson]” than they say about her and that she tries to deal respectfully with those with whom she disagrees, you tend to hate that she seems even somewhat credible—compromised ethics and all.

I know my position is liable to be upsetting to some people because it screams Democratic centrism to them (Chuck Schumer, among others, has criticized the desire to harass Trump administration officials). Believe me — I don’t wish to be lumped in with moderates when the Democrats’ refusal to move further left is one of my chief frustrations as someone trying to become more engaged with politics. And I certainly don’t wish to appear as if I agree with Donald Trump, who, though he has much more important things to do — facilitate peace on the Korean peninsula, help Puerto Rico, reunite kids with their families, etc. — felt compelled to rant about The Red Hen’s decision on social media. Say what you want about POTUS, but he’s consistent, you know, in that he never misses a chance to point a finger in a petty way.

Or some might just plain disagree. Ryan Cooper, writing for The Week, defends incivility toward Trump administration officials with points such as these:

In the situations recounted above, no one beat up these officials, broke any property, or threatened them in any way.

If anyone is “uncivil,” it’s the con artists, criminals, and/or racists of the Trump administration and people of a like mind such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

President Trump is, like, the most uncivil of us all, and he has a platform much bigger than any dissenter on the left.

This is a natural and perhaps unavoidable reaction to a lack of immediate electoral solutions or an absence of meaningful legislative representation.

Fretting about civility on the left internalizes the belief that it is pointless to try to appeal to people on the right, especially the far right, on moral and rational terms. Moreover, it sows division within “the Resistance.”

Cooper also dismisses concerns about incivility from the left being used as political capital for Trump and other officials, and while I agree to a certain extent that one shouldn’t necessarily worry about the feelings and potential votes of others in the course of public discourse, I also think that these definitions of “civility” and “incivility” are somewhat vague and get muddled with moral judgments. Being “civil” doesn’t necessarily relate to the moral rectitude of your behavior or your speech, but merely to formal courtesy and politeness in their expression. By the same token, however, “political civility” isn’t exactly the same thing as civility as per the dictionary definition, so maybe the problem is simply with our specificity of expression and how we delineate the terms, first and foremost. The line is an apparently fine one, and who is using this terminology is as important as what words are being used.

Plus, for those decrying this fussing over civility as just a ploy to stifle free speech, while addressing how to reach people in the face of carelessness or lack of composure is critically important, and while not all calls for civility are equal considering the source—this can’t be stressed enough—this doesn’t strike me as an occasion to participate in relativistic exercises. So Trump’s henchmen and henchwomen are uncouth. Does that mean we should all up and call them “feckless c**ts” in the style of Samantha Bee? Even if I feel Bee, like Michelle Wolf, shouldn’t feel duty-bound to apologize, her use of profane language didn’t make her argument more credible. At least we should be able to agree on this point.

I get it—so many of us are angry at Donald Trump and his enablers, and heartbroken about the plight of immigrant children, and feeling powerless with the midterms months away and 2020 still seeming remote, and tired of the onslaught of bullshit day after day. It’s not easy. Then again, it never was going to be easy, and for all the hemming and hawing about civility, if this is not to be the goal, at least we can aim for precision of language and factual correctness. Even in the face of haphazard tweets and “fake news,” rationality and truth yet have value.

Is Political Correctness Really Bringing America Down?

#Aaron Schlossberg #civility #donald trump #immigrant children #Kirstjen Nielsen #Red Hen restaurant #Sarah Sanders #Stephen Miller

0 notes

konnl · 7 years ago

Text

Preview Chapter 1 of Dream: Part 2 of Mental Damnation

Enjoy the sneak peek of Dream: Part 2 of Mental Damnation.

Available September 13th, 2017.

Chapter 1

An Era Ends

Sitting cross-legged, the motionless man exhaled steadily from his dry mouth. Eyes closed, he gradually followed the action with an inhale. His eyes remained shut, his full concentration on his breathing cycle. He ignored the cool floor and the subtle deep rumbling ambience that echoed throughout the chamber. His goal was to keep his mind as empty as possible.

Silence, he thought to himself. The man’s bottom eyelid twitched slightly, realizing that a word had entered his mind. No thoughts, he thought. Wait!

“Damn it,” he muttered to himself. His eyes slowly peeled open as he came to the realization that he had broken his moment of bliss. The concentration he’d invested into clearing his head of thoughts was now gone. A surge of frustration coursed through his veins: the slight burning sensation of anger. The same anger he’d concentrated on suppressing over his years of training as a paladin—a warrior of the light.

As descendants of a holy bloodline known as paladins, his kind had abilities that matched the angels. The power given to the paladins was from another era; an era when God believed man was worthy of such gifts. Paladins had to meditate daily to retain a connection with their lord, heightening the holy ability fused to their physical being.

When one could not focus on their meditation, it was more than frustrating.

The man scanned the surrounding space, a chamber that served as the primary meditation area in the Temple of Zeal. Large marble columns stretched from floor to ceiling in the four corners of the square room, supporting the intricately carved illustrations of winged men above. The flooring had three circular designs overlapping one another painted in the centre where he sat. He gazed straight toward the stained-glass windows filled with varying shades of beige, yellow, and red. The sun beamed into the chamber and tinted the area with the hue of the glass.

Through all my years in the temple, even with the holy gifts blessed upon me by our lord, I still can’t master something as simple as meditation. He shook his head and stood, staring directly at the centre stained-glass piece: an image of a shirtless man with a crown of thorns piercing into his head.

Despite following the practices of my mentors and the words of God, the Creator . . . the man thought to himself while marching out of the chamber. He walked beyond the circular painting toward two large wooden doors reinforced with black painted steel. He pushed the handle plates open with one hand on each door, moving them aside so he could enter the hallway beyond: a long, narrow passage with marble sculptures lining either side.

If only the temple’s spiritual training came as easy as using a weapon, he thought. Physical tasks were something the man had always preferred. Using his mind to master his consciousness seemed to be a waste of time. He had his foundational beliefs and didn’t understand the need to meditate to find anything more.

“Brother Zalphium.” A masculine voice came from down the hall. Zalphium looked up; a man was marching toward him, clad in the same matching gold-plated armour that he himself wore.

“Brother Franch.” Zalphium returned the greeting with a nod. The two of them converged, stopping merely a foot apart.

“I hope you were able to come to some sort of epiphany through your meditation,” said Franch.

“Unfortunately, no. I find my mind is unable to quiet itself enough to find what it needs to. Especially in a time like this.”

Franch brushed his red beard with his hand and sighed. “I am sorry to hear that.”

“The blade is something that I identify with far easier than delving into a mental foundation that is already seamless. It’s essentially running my mind around in circles.”

“You raise a good point. Keep in mind, though: unless you challenge your mindset, you will never broaden your consciousness. We may already out-live any normal man by several centuries, but that doesn’t mean you can brush aside any training of wisdom.”

“Yes, as our mentors have told us,” said Zalphium. “I feel it serves no purpose to me, though. I am far better off perfecting my combat skills so I can further serve the Paladins of Zeal on the front lines, spreading the word of God and cleansing the world of Dega’Mostikas’ evil.”

“If meditating is difficult at a time like this, that is precisely why you need to meditate. Eliminate your weaknesses. You must seek answers about why you remain so disturbed by it.”

Zalphium folded his arms. “Perhaps because all we did during the Drac Age was fight. I think that is all I know.”

“You’re not a soldier, Zalphium. You’re a paladin. The days of battling the draconem with swords and blood are over.”

“I’m not a soldier anymore, but I was. It becomes difficult to remove that mindset from one’s head. During the war, we had to be certain of who we were when fighting those monsters.”

“Hence why you need to meditate,” said Franch. “Face the inner demons that trouble your thoughts so they do not corrupt you.”

“You know what troubles me? Even through all the struggles we went through during the Drac Age, ending their tyranny and bringing the world out of the darkest era it has ever seen, we are still following the draconem’s steps in every way.”

“Are you referring to the vazelead exile? You do recall Saule found evidence of the reptilian people serving the last Drac Lord, Karazickle? They are not worthy of being anywhere in the charted world.”

“I know this, but is exile to the underworld really necessary?”

Franch extended his hand while turning back the way he came. “Walk with me, brother.”

The two began to move farther down the hall, strolling side by side while passing numerous closed doors on each side of the path.

Franch kept his hand behind his back and sighed. “I understand what you are proposing: that our actions mimic the harsh tyranny of the Drac Lords. Their goal was to eliminate all other life. I disagree that we are following their ways. We are only exiling the vazelead people to the underworld, not annihilating them.”

“How is exile to that harsh environment any different? You know the stories as well as I do—the heat, the winds, and the utter darkness. We both know that Saule and the Council of Just chose the underworld because they knew of its conditions, how it mutates people into fiends. No one comes out of there the same. There is something otherworldly down there.”

“The vazelead people will never return from underworld, so we do not have to worry about what they will become from the metamorphosis fumes in the air. We are preparing a banishment ritual.”

Zalphium’s eyes widened. A Prayer of Power. “But that will keep them shackled there for eternity!”

“Yes. The vazelead people are not like us; they pose a threat that must be addressed. You cannot deny that.”

“Perhaps they are an opposition, but I do not believe that this is morally any different than the actions of the Drac Lords. Do you really think God approves such actions?”

Franch shrugged. “We tried to convert the vazelead people when we enslaved them decades ago. Now that they are free, they retain little of what we taught them about the civilized world. They’re animals, not human.”

The two pushed open a set of wooden doors leading out onto a stone balcony that extended along the outer wall of the marble temple. Beyond the balcony’s cylindrical stone railings was a vast and steep mountain-scape, covered in snow and dark charcoal rocks. The sun overlooked the clear blue sky, shining down on the ice and reflecting a bright white light directly at the temple. A single dirt path in the distance led to the base of the Temple of Zeal, directly below where Zalphium and Franch stood.

I never tire of the view of Mount Kuzuchi, Zalphium thought briefly. Through the debate with his comrade, the mountain-view provided him a moment of peace.

Franch extended his hand. “The Council of Just wills the banishment of the vazelead people, and we must obey. They led us out of the Drac Age and are responsible for ensuring such a threat never arises again.”

“They also traded for witchcraft from the nymph to do so.”

“The politics with the kingdoms and nymphs is a whole other discussion. Regardless of the technicalities, you need not question the will of the Council of Just.” Franch grinned. “You were the one telling me that you don’t want to challenge your intellect, so why question clear instructions?”

Zalphium frowned. “I don’t want to challenge my mind’s moral foundation—not my critical thinking. This action does not follow the Paladins of Zeal code of morality that the Creator has given us. I may have followed orders without question during the Drac Age, but now that the war is over I do not agree with the Council of Just’s choices. We would be better off sending out missionaries once more to convert the vazelead people to the light.”

“Not if they are serving the Drac Lord Karazickle. If this is the case, they have chosen their side and we must take the opportunity to prevent another war.”

“With a banishment to the underworld? It’s practically sending them down to Dega’Mostikas’ Triangle!”

Franch shrugged. “It is a devilish landscape, I will agree with that. Not that I’ve seen it personally.”

“Subjecting them to the mutation is murdering them.”

“The Council of Just is wise, as is Saule, who was chosen to lead the council. They would have thought about conversion as well. We simply cannot take the any chances.”

The two continued to walk on the balcony, following it along the outer rim of the temple. Franch kept his gaze to the floor as Zalphium stared out at the mountains.

Zalphium brushed his dirty blond hair from his face and looked over to his comrade. “Do these questions ever haunt your mind, Brother Franch?”

“No. I put my trust in Saule’s leadership.”

“How did he discover this knowledge about Karazickle and the vazelead people, though?” asked Zalphium. “Where is the proof? I’ve never seen a vazelead champion the Drac Lord’s winged-moon symbol.”

“True, but they spoke a weak form of Draconic before we discovered them. There’s one link.”

“How do we know Saule’s sources regarding Karazickle are credible?”

Franch stopped in his tracks and turned to face Zalphium. “I am your temple brother, and you’re lucky I am also your friend. That kind of talk amongst the other paladins would be met with rehabilitation.”

“I know.” Zalphium folded his arms. “That is why I am asking you. I know you are on my side.”

“To answer you, no we do not. I don’t think anyone knows how he found that information.”

“That is what makes me sceptical of the whole thing. Which is also why I do not want to be a part of it.”

“It’s already in the process as we speak. From what I heard, the last tribe was gathered at the base of Mount Kuzuchi, near Kuzuchi Forest. The rest of the paladins in the temple will be joining our brothers and the Knight’s Union at the top of the mountain.”

“I will pass.”

“This will not look good to the others, Zalphium. You should include yourself in the ritual. We need all the manpower we have to channel the banishment prayer.”

“I have full faith that our brothers are capable of finishing it on their own. I cannot fully invest in something that I do not believe in.” Zalphium gestured to the far end of the temple, where they were headed. “I’d rather practice my agility in the chamber of endurance.”

“That will be there any other day.”

“I am sorry, brother. I cannot join you. I must stick to my beliefs.”

Franch stopped in his tracks and nodded. “You are bold, Zalphium. I admire that greatly—but it makes you a fool at times.”

“As I said, I have my core principles from God. I will not stray from them. I believe this banishment is against everything we stand for.”

Franch smiled. “As any paladin must do. It is why we were blessed with divine powers from the Father.”

Zalphium placed his hand on Franch’s shoulder. “Indeed.”

Franch patted his brother’s arm. “I must prepare with the others. We leave on horseback within the hour.”

“Go now. I will see you when you return.”

The two bowed before each other and parted ways, Zalphium continuing to the chamber of endurance and Franch returning to the doorway they’d come through.

He sees my view but doesn’t understand it, Zalphium thought to himself while marching down the pathway. His hands were clenched. The discussion had upset him, knowing that he could not convince his friend of the error of their ways. If not Franch, he would be unable to convince any of the Paladins of Zeal that he was right. And by not participating in the vazelead people’s banishment, he would prove himself to be an outcast amongst his own kind.

I’ll be a reject. The thought made him sick. He simply did not understand how they could not see what he saw.

Thank you for reading!

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Subscribe for an upcoming secondary sample chapter.

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Dream: Part 2 of Mental Damnation is available September 13th, 2017

If you’re in Edmonton on this day, join us for the live reading and launch event.

#Mental Damnation #Preview

0 notes