#they have that discussion in holding on about wilson believing in an afterlife

[warlenys]

house’s afterlife is wilson….

[theparanormalperiodical]

Boris Johnson’s 5 Not-So-Alive Housemates: The Haunting of Downing Street And The Other Government Buildings You Need To Know About

It’s a new week in British politics which typically means half the cabinet has resigned, a ‘fresh’ approach to Brexit is put to the public, and the PM has pleaded with the Queen to put the ‘United’ in ‘United Kingdom’ in bold.

Oh, and with this new week comes a new Prime Minister.

Yay.

(Emphasis on the sarcasm and sheer volumes of dread in that ‘yay’.)

But anyway – if politics is making you feel dead inside, why not stick to the deceased theme?

For the past 3 years we have been consumed with concluding who is the next candidate to forward march us into our uncertain future.

And it got me thinking: are there any ghost prime ministers?

In fact, is Downing Street haunted?

Yet it turns out someone has already beaten me to that level of imagery. When I began my research into the ghosts and spirits roaming our governmental arenas, I came across a problem.

British politics is indeed haunted, but only in a metaphorical sense, well, according to the papers, anyway.

British politics is haunted by the Euroscepticism that gave rise to the EU referendum, by the age-old beliefs breaking our parties into factions, and the candidates? Well, a quick flick through the tabloids will tell you they are to be haunted by their personal lives, let alone their past professional missteps.

But you can keep your metaphors for your papers, politics and podcasts; today we are going to be discussing the actual ghosts haunting 10 Downing Street, and the international hauntings that include the White House and Japan’s official Presidential residence.

First up is the UK’s very own Downing Street

Boris Johnson will have barely unpacked his stuff before he starts to encounter the hauntings that Downing Street is surprisingly not famous for.

British history has been cloaked with a dark veil considering its bloody past, and this assumes a gaggle of ghosts mirroring its many tragedies will be lurking in the nooks of crannies of most notable places. And its probably this which has made way for the 6 ghosts haunting its hallowed halls.

7 prime ministers have died in office, and only one PM has ever died in Downing Street – Campbell-Bannerman. But it turns out that one assassinated PM (the only PM to ever has been assassinated) frequently returns during times of national crisis:

Spencer Perceval died in 1832 having been shot in the House of Commons, and following his tragic death, his body was returned to his residence where he lay for 5 days.

It is often claimed that the ghost of Perceval wearing Regency Dress wanders inside and outside the residence, and he was frequently sighted by workmen in the 50s and 60s, verifying him as the main spirit staking claim to this government building.

Next up we have a female phantom who has even found her way into the papers given her common haunting.

The facilities manager of No.10 was new to the team when he saw lights in a nearby room were left on. Walking across one room to reach the other, he felt and saw a person pass beside him, only to disappear mere moments after.

He recalls the ‘swishing’ sound like that of a dress made of taffeta, and upon asking a colleague, he was told that he had seen the ghost.

Reportedly, a woman in a white gown goes between the state dining room and the pillared room - with some even adding a rather luxurious set of pearls to that description. These 2 rooms often hold key political figures as both state functions and international agreements are held here, so perhaps the sightings of the Lady in White go much further than the tales tell…

Our final two ghosts have rather vague descriptions attached to their presences, but their creepiness doesn’t end with their limited back stories.

From a little girl haunting a basement and grabbing hands of those passing by, to a male in a top hat wandering through the entrance hall and into a closed door, there is no shortage of spooky here in the UK.

Yet even beyond these apparitions are the arguably more disjointed hauntings that BoJo will soon encounter: a cigar smell perhaps from Churchill himself, and footsteps followed by suspecting Policemen are common occurrences, and will continue even after Brexit.

No, I take that back, Brexit will never end.

The White House: The Most Haunted House in America

No seriously, I mean that subtitle; keep your Amityvilles, and forget your Occult Museums, this is where shit gets real.

And sure, whilst the most terrifying presence in the White House is actually living, the dead have always made their residency known.

“I jumped up and put on my bathrobe, opened the door, and no one there. Went out and looked up and down the hall, looked in your room and Margie’s. Still no one…The damned place is haunted sure as shootin’”

This is from a letter President Harry Truman wrote to his wife and daughter, and is one of many claims from those that have either lived or visited this prestigious home.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is believed to be home to many less-than-living occupants, and famous ones at that.

Abraham Lincoln is one such President to make claims to the haunting of the White House, often witnessing his son, Willie, who died at the age 11 following typhoid fever. But Lincoln’s relationship with those that still walk its halls doesn’t stop there.

In fact, he is one of the most well known ghosts to make your acquaintance should you visit.

Grace Coolidge – one of the first ladies – often claimed she saw him looking out of the window that once belonged in his office, and the Queen of the Netherlands claimed she saw him whilst sleeping in his bedroom.

Even Winston Churchill saw – and talked to – Lincoln. With cigar in one hand, and completely starkers, he greeted the phantom president.

But aside from walking in on sleeping monarchs, and being flashed by Prime Ministers, he often walks the hallways, knocks on doors, and stands by the windows, looking out at the country he once guided.

Oh, and it doesn’t stop there; Annie Surratt – the daughter of a woman convicted of being a cog in Lincoln’s death – often pleads with the residents for the release of her guilty mother.

If you’re looking for a different president, listen out for Thomas Jefferson’s violin playing, or perhaps the less sweet and subtle tones of Andrew Jackson’s swearing.

Or perhaps you’re in search of America’s first ladies, instead?

Abigail Addams is often seen wandering around the East Room with her arms outstretched, as if to carry and dry linen sheets, which was one of the pastimes she took up at the White House.

And Dolley Madison also sticks to doing chores in the afterlife, with Woodrow Wilson’s administration frequently reporting her ghost taking care of the Rose Garden which they were about to move.

In response to this silent and spirit-based protest, they kept it in the same place.

Yet despite the prevalence and sheer details regarding these sightings, there is evidently decline in the paranormal activity at the White House. 

Jerry Smith – a doorman who spent a quarter of a century at the White House – claims renovations have begun to clear the spirits from this site, suggesting these age-old presidents don’t stray too far from the good ol’ days!

Well, whenever those days supposedly are, anyway.

Shinzo Abe’s Poltergeist Problem

In 2013 the Japanese government made a statement.

And this statement clarified that were in fact no spirits haunting the official residence of the Prime Minister.

It all started when Abe failed to move into the official governmental dwelling shorting after he assumed power in December. Following his resignation in 2007, suspicions were aroused about his reluctance to get the long haul shipping vans in.

Rumours of illness and scandal typically swirled the tabloid drain, and claims he had suffered a ‘bad experience’ at the residence in his previous term began to emerge.

The rival Democratic Party even asked if ghosts were the cause of this, mocking their political opponent, but it turns out this question doesn’t necessarily go so unfounded.  

The residence – as it was built in 1929 – has seen some brutal and bloody history. From one PM’s assassination, and the murder of several officers after a military coup, the claims of haunting do have a solid basis to them.

Even a former PM in 2006 claimed he wanted to see a ghost there, although he never managed to.

Indeed, Shinzo Abe draws us back to the reality behind hauntings – whether the afterlife is real, or not; politics may be haunted by ghosts, but the real hauntings are always personal, are always professional.

Just as much as BoJo will take his first steps into his new home followed by his trail of regrets and wrongdoings, he will be greeted by the real terrors that still take up residence in Downing Street.

Is there a paranormal political figure you’ve ever wanted to meet or move in with?

Whether alive or not-so-alive, let me know down in the comments. 

[cosmicpopcorn]

Deadpool 2 (2018)

So, your favorite crazy ass pansexual assassin/mercenary...antihero...whatever the fuck he is (let’s just go with fucking awesome)...has returned in Deadpool 2 ready to kick ass, take names, and make us laugh with the crudest of jokes. Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead return with him, while the X-Force, Cable, and Firefist are introduced.

Before he made it to the big screen, Deadpool had a humble beginning when he first appeared in the comic book series, The New Mutants #98, cover-dated February 1991. Your girl Domino also makes her first appearance in this issue as well. The New Mutants series is a spin-off series from the X-Men franchise - it centers around a group of teenaged mutant superheroes-in-training. In issue #98, Deadpool has been hired to kill The New Mutants and Cable...such a wonderful way to meet your favorite neighborhood assassin/mercenary, right? He then began appearing as a regular character in the X-Force series and went on to make guest appearances in several Marvel comics such as The Avengers, Daredevil, and Heroes for Hire. After getting a couple of his own miniseries (The Circle Chase and Deadpool), he eventually got his own ongoing title/full series in 1997. Now this fool got two movies...he’s finally got a piece of the pie!

In the 2004 comic book series Cable & Deadpool, Deadpool describes his appearance as “Ryan Reynolds crossed with a Shar-Pei.” And since 2016 (if you don’t count Ryan Reynold’s appearance as Wade Wilson in X-Men Origins: Wolverine), Ryan Reynolds has taken on the task of being our beloved Deadpool and he’s pretty damn good at it. It was clearly meant to be. In Deadpool 2, starring alongside Ryan Reynolds, we have Josh Brolin as Cable (yes, that’s the same dude who did a fucking fantastic job as Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War), Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Julian Dennison as Firefist, Zazie Beetz as Domino (guess who I’mma be for Halloween?), T.J. Miller as Weasel, Leslie Uggams as Blind Al, Brianna Hildebrand as Negasonic Teenage Warhead, and Stefan Kapicic as the voice of Colossus, Deadpool’s wonderful friend who puts up with all his bullshit and possible love interest/sex buddy? (I’m just saying - even Vanessa told him not to fuck Colossus when she spoke to him in the afterlife, so clearly something may be happening there).

Before we get into the pros and cons for Deadpool 2, let me just say this: I’ve seen a lot of Marvel movies lately and I gotta be honest, they have set the bar high for not only superhero movies but movies in general. At this point, even the most “average” Marvel movie is gonna have great acting, writing, and special effects. This makes it hard for a nigga like me who is trying to find something to critique when writing these reviews because who the fuck just wants to read about me fangirling over a movie (e.g. my Avengers: Infinity War post). I don’t even enjoy writing fangirl posts, which is why the one for Avengers was as short as it was. So unless Marvel starts randomly fucking up their movies for no damn reason - which I doubt is ever gonna happen - I’m not gonna have half as much to critique as usually do. 

Anyway, let’s get into the pros and cons:

Pros:

From what I know about comic book Deadpool (antihero characteristics, humorous - especially crude humor, breaks the 4th wall, pansexual), the movie Deadpool appears to be a pretty accurate representation of him. They didn’t try to make him kid/family-friendly, I definitely see them playing on and/or hinting towards his pansexuality (if anything I swear he flirts with men more than women - the only woman I really see him flirt with is Vanessa), and movie Deadpool is crude as fuck. They even have movie Deadpool continue to break the 4th wall (in case you didn’t know, breaking the 4th wall is when a character is aware that they are a fictional character and may actually interact with the audience) and you can check out this Deadpool 2 trailer for an example of him breaking the 4th wall - he actually interrupts the trailer to discuss the special effects. You’re never too sure if a sequel is going to actually be just as good as the original...or good at all. Another concern is whether or not the sequel continues to build on the character while remaining true to the character’s essence/core personality and this is especially concerning when a movie is an adaptation of a comic/book. Deadpool 2, if anything, continues to emphasize Deadpool’s core personality while building upon it at the same time. 

Going off of the first pro, Deadpool 2 emphasizes his core personality traits (humorous, individualistic, sexual) while attempting to give him more emotional depth. The first half of the movie has us watch Deadpool experience grief after the death of Vanessa. Even before her death, watching him interact with her and plan a family allows us to see the side of him that desires stability, commitment, and family. This first half is important because it shows us that while Deadpool is securely individualistic and doesn’t necessarily need a team like the X-Men or The Avengers, he does still desire family and companionship. It lets us know that even the Merc with a Mouth isn’t beyond the basic human desire to connect with others. In the second half, while more fast-paced and action-packed, we still get to see more of Deadpool’s sense of morality and belief in the goodness, or potential goodness of others when he fights to save young Firefist from Cable. In fact, I would say that Deadpool has an even stronger sense of morality than Colossus - Colossus was willing to leave Firefist in the hands of the headmaster even though it was pretty obvious he was being abused because he refused to play “judge, jury and executioner,” while Deadpool was so sure of how wrong it was that he started killing the orderlies immediately. We also get to see him try to form his own family with the creation of the short-lived first version of the X-Force. 

Ryan Reynolds was made to play Deadpool. Makes me forgive him for Green Lantern and almost makes me forget it even happened! By the way, that post-credits scene of Deadpool shooting Ryan Reynolds in the head while he holds a copy of the Green Lantern script is PURE GOLD.

Zazie Beetz does an awesome job as Domino - she makes a big impact on the audience even though she may not have as many lines or scenes as some of the other characters. The directors and writers also did a really good job of showing the audience Domino’s power of luck - a power that seems so abstract and would be believed to be difficult to display well in movie format.

Cable is a character that I feel you can empathize with and who I actually kind of liked by the end. I really enjoyed how at first he was portrayed as the villain, only for things to be switched up and for us to find out the real villain was the chubby kid from New Zealand (aka Firefist). 

While being hilarious and action-packed, Deadpool 2 does take the opportunity to give you something to think about if you pay attention. First, they have Firefist point out how there are no chubby superheroes. It’s no secret that our society often discriminates, shames, and is prejudice against those who are larger. In media, they are often portrayed as the butt of jokes, being romantically and sexually undesirable, lazy, unhealthy, not athletic, etc. So, is it really a surprise that there are no chubby or plus-size superheroes? I love that Firefist is not skinny or unrealistically built and that he points out how there aren’t any superheroes who look like him (Fun Fact: In the comics, Firefist is a white, skinny, blonde kid from Tulsa, OK, so I’m digging the changes they made - both to Firefist and Domino, whose comic book version was a woman with chalk-white skin).

Second, Deadpool himself points out how the name X-Men forgets that there are female mutants in the group...this is why he chooses X-Force, a gender-neutral name for his group of superhero misfits. The language we use in a patriarchal society is often masculine - for example, we tend to say mankind instead of humankind or things like, “come on guys” to refer to an entire group of people who may not all identify as male and it’s because men are seen as the default. Deadpool’s jokes and commentary in this movie sometimes calls out societal biases that have also made their way into our comics and superhero movies and I’m here for it. Not only that, but Deadpool does not look like your typical hero - his skin is scarred and disfigured, despite him being fit and we still see him being a sexual and romantic being and I think that’s powerful when you have nothing but a bunch of super fit and conventionally attractive superheroes running around.

The soundtrack for the movie is perfect and they perfectly match the songs and scenes. 

All the references are so fun to pick up on - if you’re really into comic books, superhero movies, and honestly just a TV and movie junkie in general, you will love picking up on all the references they throw at you. 

Cons:

So, while those references are great for TV, movie, comic book, and superhero junkies, they’re not-so-great for those who just watch movies here and there and aren’t necessarily fanatics. I’ll go as far as to say if a person isn’t really into comics, superheroes, and doesn’t really know a lot of television and movie shit...a lot of stuff is going to be lost on them. Some movies are made for everyone and some movies are made for fans or at least those with a strong interest - Deadpool 2 is one of those movies and unfortunately that may alienate other viewers/audiences.  

Deadpool’s humor can be hit or miss - at times, the jokes didn’t really hit and weren’t really funny. The first half of the movie’s humor wasn’t as good as the second half of the movie. At times, I found myself laughing just because I knew I was supposed to and the humor and crudeness felt forced. 

Overall, Deadpool 2 is a fun, fun movie that poses some important questions about morality and makes commentary on aspects of society. Ryan Reynolds not only starred in but was also one of the writers and producers of this movie, and his talent shines throughout the entire 1hr and 59min of it. I’m proud of him, and I’m sure Deadpool is too.

Rating: 4.5 Caramel Popcorn Pieces 

[mycosmicvoid]

The Paranormal and Skepticism - as Discussed in Steve Volk’s “Fringeology”

I have sat and thought, since uploading my introduction post, about where I would even start. There's so much to touch on that I almost didn't want to approach it at all, but it only makes sense to start with a more general post. I want to start with the topic of “the paranormal” and the acceptance of such phenomena (in the sphere of this book, at least, considering the vastness of the topic). “Fringeology” was written and published in 2011 by Steve Volk, a writer with enough humility to subtitle his book, “How I tried to explain away the unexplainable and couldn’t.” He makes a good argument for the reasons why people can’t accept an opposing view to their own, and to put it plainly: why it’s really not so crazy to accept that paranormal phenomena exists, scientifically or otherwise (along with tons of other concepts to expand on separately). To begin, he offers a few quick examples of the connections between the paranormal, science and history- alchemy has led to modern chemistry, as Francis Aston used predictions from occultists to discover the isotope. Hans Berger invented the EEG originally wanting a mechanism for measuring psychic events. Plato told the story of Er, a soldier who died in battle, experienced the afterlife, and was revived days later, and President Lincoln dreamt/predicted his own death. Although these are just a few examples, they serve the argument that paranormal phenomena is present in situations, lives and even myths seemingly important enough for us to want to expand on. “…Taking the paranormal seriously means we gain a greater understanding of the world regardless of the outcome.”[1] An example of this would be the NDE: the Near Death Experience. It is a phenomenon that has been heavily associated with the paranormal, but is now a topic studied in our modern medical and psychological science. On the other end of the spectrum are committees and individuals dedicated solely to disproving paranormal and psychic phenomena. Volk mentions this one above all: CSICOP (The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), founded by humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976, a committee Volk pegs as the foundation for the modern skeptical movement. However, they voted to discontinue further scientific investigations after the Mars Effect study (conducted by Michel and Francoise Gauquelin, proving that extremely talented athletes and sports champions were found to have Mars “around the Ascendant and Midheaven in their birth chart more frequently than chance would allow.”[2]). In fact, according to Volk, CSICOP changed their name in 2006 to CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), so they no longer had to have the scientific method in question, which I find interesting and ironic for a committee with the mantra, “We can’t let the mystics rejoice.” Also mentioned is a good point made by Dr. David Jones, a man who believes that hard, rational thought traces the contours of the problem, not its answer. When you think about it, the main argument by skeptics (of anything, really) is the use of “logic.” As explained by Jones, “Logic is based on society’s current storehouse of accepted knowledge,”[1] which changes constantly. even though it’s an argument used all the time, the most obvious example of this is that “logically,” at one point, the whole world also agreed that the earth was flat. Specifics aside, I like the simple summary it ultimately comes to with Volk, which is basically that if “paranormal” refers to what is unexplained, then reality itself is paranormal. “The mystery of the world exists apart from our judgment of it.”[1] If you want to hang on to the concept of “logic,” even Volk elaborates on the fact that our version of logic does not equate to what is true, by explaining that our brain isn’t built to give us a true and accurate perception of reality. There is too much stimuli to assess, so the brain creates a model of the world that allows us to survive, comfortably so. It brings the “important” things to the forefront and suppresses anything else (like the paranormal, perhaps?), even though the image that this creates is wrong.

In fact, skeptics are so dedicated to disproving, that a popular tool used are psychological evaluations (the go-to explanation: if you believe, something is “wrong with you”). From what I’ve seen, they popularly come in the format of a questionnaire, one of the most famous being the Fantasy Prone Personality (FPP) test, proposed by Sheryl Wilson and Theodore Barber in 1981, “the debunker’s dream.” Fantasy Prone people are more likely to believe in something mainstream science rejects, and answering yes to 6 or more questions automatically makes you Fantasy Prone. With this logic, having one paranormal experience in your whole life can result in a 6+ “yes” response. Despite that being a main problem, Volk also mentions that your belief in your experiences aren’t always concrete- sometimes we have more vivid belief in certain things depending on what is happening in our lives at the very moment. Another famous psych-based test would be the Magical Ideation Scale, meant for “irrational thinking.” Apparently, people with confirming answers to a certain amount of the provided statements are more likely to develop a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, and people that are considered to have an “FPP” are more likely to have experienced childhood trauma. Although this is not unlikely, skeptics use these tools to prove that anyone with a sort of paranormal belief have them simply due to mental illness and trauma. From what I remember, Volk does not mention the condescending nature of these tests, but it’s something I noticed almost immediately. Imagine having to take one of these questionnaires given to you by your psychologist because you’ve discussed experiencing something paranormal, and the first thing you hear is that the test is to measure irrationality. This is just one of the many, many examples of reasons why experiencers have not and will not come forward. There is a sort of obsession with needing to be what we consider “logical” and “rational,” however, “Prosaic explanations aren’t always available - that is, unless we allow our commitment to the rational to make us downright irrational.”[1]

In an interview with Steve Volk given by Greg Newkirk (paranormal investigator and co-creator of the docu-series “Hellier”) on a temporarily posted live stream, Greg proposes that there should be a sort of Magical Ideation Scale for nonbelievers. Volk replies with nothing other than, “Absolutely.”[3] As i look back in my notes regarding his book, I realized that this idea was actually mentioned- Volk asks the question of why there aren’t comparative studies on “sane belief” and why people hold those opinions, and includes the viewpoint of skeptic Chris French, who believes there probably is a scale for nonbelievers, but being at the hard end of the skeptic spectrum is due to just being born not open to believing. According to Volk, French is a committed skeptic but believes we should continue to learn and revise our beliefs as we do so. Another interesting comment Newkirk has made in the past regarding the book was about the aforementioned perception of logic. Volk credits Edward de Bono as an “expert of creative thought” who argues that the West’s tradition of settling disagreements by argument is “over-reliance on logic”[1], while logic is more of a partner to free, associative thinking. Simplified by Newkirk, “The ‘wacky stuff’ is just a way of looking at the world differently,”[4] and in Volk’s eyes, “…What is today seen as wacky often leads to tomorrow’s progress.”[1] Volk isn’t afraid of being ignored or discredited due to the “wacky stuff”- in the Newkirk/Volk interview, Greg asks how skeptics have responded to “Fringeology.” Steve replies quick-wittedly, “They didn’t read it and hate it.”[3]

I wanted to explore the viewpoint of Volk and some of his examples regarding the paranormal generally, as I find it may be easier to begin with a sort of overview when discussing certain works and writers in this community- Nearly all of them have specific differentiating details regarding their own theories. I think it’s important that writers such as Volk explore the world of skepticism, as it is an obscure way of thinking in itself.

“The truth is, we don’t have to treat the paranormal the way we do. We don’t need to bathe in it with the believers, or strenuously deny its existence, like the skeptics. And we don’t need to turn the whole thing into a fight.”[1]

[1] Steve Volk, “Fringeology”

[2] The Astrology Podcast Episode 173 Outline

[3] Greg Newkirk live stream interview with Steve Volk for Patreon members (no longer available), 7/19/20

[4] Greg Newkirk live stream book club discussion of “Fringeology” chapters 1-4 

[ecotone99]

[SF] Time Freezes for everyone but one man - "God Bless You, Philippe Audiarde"

Father Bernard,

I write to you under the cover of night, near candlelight, as the snores of our fellow Fathers fill the adjacent room. I know not what is in my power of disclosure, nor what will, through the guiding hand of God, reach your ears. I pray the good man Big John will see to it you receive this letter, as I have received yours.

I want to assure you that what you have heard is not imaginary. The disturbance you have felt around you, and the whispers in the halls of our great Church, are real. There are letters, hundreds of them, from all over the world. As we speak, they are being studied at all four corners of the Church, shielded from the prying eyes of the public, penned by what we are calling “The Man From Nowhere.”

I, along with Father Birmingham, Father Theroux, and Father Wilson, are working under the tutelage of the Archbishop Bartolucci, and have been tasked with the reading and summation of the writing that follows the ‘Great Rambling.’

But beyond this period, and in the year since the discovery of the letters, I have been fortunate enough to read the collection in its entirety. I even have, in my possession, a great number of transcriptions, which, in a moment, I will share with you.

The letters were written by a man named Philippe Audiarde. In them, he described an event, precipitated by “a deep and terrible sneeze” (Letter 1, 2 years after freeze, denoted by ‘AF’) — a sneeze so great, Father, that what would succeed it is unimaginable, unthinkable, and unbelievable. The world, he said, went silent. Philippe Audiarde, if the letters are to be believed, found himself in “a world without time” (Letter 1, 2 AF), where all around him had frozen. And, for the next 44, 519 years, Philippe Audiarde would compose 776 letters, or, at the very least, a total of 776 letters have survived his journey through non-time.

I can understand, Father Bernard, if it is your natural inclination to declare this a bold-faced hoax. This reaction has been most fortunate for the Church. As the letters were discovered, and rumours circulated, the Church has promptly steered public opinion to just that—rumours. That being said, it is the official opinion of our group of Fathers, and by our holy extension, the Church, and the historians who have viewed the letters, and the men of science who have verified the age, that these letters are exactly as old, and as real, as they claim to be.

However, there is a problem. The turmoil these letters are causing, in both our small group, and the Church at large, has been troubling. I myself know not what to make of it. If the letters are to be trusted, and again, I believe they are, what are we to believe about our world? What is the public to believe? How could the Church still remain the moral and metaphysical authority when it offers so little guidance in the face of this apparent phenomenon? It can’t, and it doesn’t, which is why I fear that should these letters be made public, the Church may crumble. And at the same time, I see wisdom and sincerity in the words. I see a man emerging from eternity to guide us home. So, I’m at an impasse, and I know not how to proceed.

Which is why I am writing this letter to you, Father Bernard. I have always trusted your judgement, advice and council, and I need it now more than ever. I shall summarize the letters for you here, some in full, some in my own words, and should you deem them worthy for the world to see, so be it—I will release Philippe Audiarde to the world.

These are the full facts, as I know them.

Philippe Audiarde (of which, no formal record exists) was a French bricklayer who was born on a small farm outside of Paris in 1855. The terrible, time-stopping sneeze occurred over a coffee with his brother, Tomás (of which, again, no record exists). They owned a bricklaying company called the “Audiarde Brothers” (of which, I am sure you can surmise, no record exists) together in Paris, and were discussing payment from an outstanding client. He was, and would forever remain, thirty eight years old.

Throughout his ostensibly infinite lifespan, he would be constantly “struck by the weirdness of it all” (Letter 612, 32,415 AF), the inconsistent nature of his world. Some of his bodily processes still progressed as if they were moving forward in time, like the growth of his hair or toenails, but he felt no hunger, or thirst, and didn’t require anything to run his bodily engine. It was, he was, outside of the laws of physics—a machine in perpetual motion, while everything around him was still. As such, he no longer ate, drank, or used the toilet, except in the rare—until he would stop altogether—times he would indulge in food or beverage. When he looked up to the sky, the moon and the stars and the sun hung motionless.

“What heavenly strings hold them up, while I prance around earth, is a mystery as mighty as the universe’s great and enduring questions” (Letter 47, 410 AF).

Philippe would go on, filling most of his early letters and sparing no detail, to write of the juvenile and craven acts he would perform during his first weeks and months alone. I will say that the sins committed were primarily sexual in nature, Father Bernard, but I’ll leave those barbaric details up to your imagination. Granted, this period was short—an infancy in the time of Philippe, but, should his word be released, I suspect Philippian detractors shall give great credence to this period, to point to it and say, “ah hah! There he is, Philippe The Damned.” But, it seems clear to me, that just as a rebellious child tests his new world, so did Philippe, pushing it to the limits of human depravity, until he knew not what to do with himself.

“I tried to get it to start again today,” he writes, in his fourth letter, in the fourth year after the freeze. “Time, that is. I want out. I need out. I am going mad in this place. It is a purgatory. A hell, maybe. Thoughts of death often cross my mind and perhaps I am already dead. Already a soul wandering an afterlife. But how to start it again? Pepper lines my nostrils and I have sneezed a thousand different ways. I roar from the bottom of my guts, but still I am here alone.”

For 34 years, Philippe would wander the world, looking for answers to his time-stuck questions, but the world, in its stillness, remained silent. Then, one day, he had an awakening, a movement of spirit.

“I sit here in the Stuttgart Library, surrounded by once living vessels of knowledge, wondering: what does a man do with all this time? I’ve rowed the seven still seas, hiked windless deserts, explored the dark side of the earth, and laid low in the shadows of foreign lands. But looking around I realize that other lands lay at my fingertips. That the worlds created by man are near infinite. I have the unique chance to hear from them, speak to them across centuries, to open up their minds and explore what they want to show me. I’ve been granted an audience with all of mankind and I dare not waste it any longer” (Letter 5, 38 AF).

What would follow—and I’ll be brief with my summation, Father Bernard, because this is not my area of expertise—was an “Age of Consumption,” during the years 38 AF to 1786 AF. Philippe, during this period of consumption, roamed the world’s libraries, consuming every text known to man, including literature, biographies, plays, and poetry. He learned multiple languages (and would begin to write his letters in English), produced his own works of fiction (which are breathtaking, I assure you), he transcribed history, memorized and reproduced philosophical texts word for word—if his letters are free of embellishment—studied ancient rhetoric, until he finally, after a long and arduous battle with the subjective arts, made his way to science.

Objectivity, however, in a world like his, didn’t exist. The basic laws of physics weren’t congruent to the things he saw and experienced. Without that baseline to build a coherent understanding of his world, science was, at best, a doctrine from another land, and at worst, simple fairy tales that didn’t match up with his day to day knowledge.

Take letter 334, dated 1786 AF, which began with the words, “I now know death” and tells of an experience he had, which science would not dare take up or explain (and when has science ever touched upon a terrible, time-stopping sneeze?). Philippe was in a small rowboat, on the English Channel, when he slipped, hit his head, and plunged into the murky depths. While he cannot recall the events that took place immediately after, what he does know is that he regained consciousness, without any serious injury, on a shoreline near Dieppe, France, his boat nowhere in sight. Let me be candid, Father Bernard—does this not sound like a man being guided by the hand of a God?

After this event, one thing was clear to Philippe: it was the end of any illusions he had regarding the power of science to explain his world. “This event has reminded me, as I often forget, that I know nothing of where I am, who I am, or what I am. Only that I am trapped here with nothing but time ahead of me. I understand now that not even death can be my escape.”

Philippe’s ostensible death would engender a period of great confusion. This era, as I had mentioned previously, Father Bernard, I call, “The Great Rambling,” though others are partial to calling it the “Philippian Dark Ages.” While it precedes my area of study, I believe it precipitates it. I will, first of all, grant you (and others) that this is a period of somewhat incoherent thought, the ravings, perhaps, of a madman, but there are glimmers of truth throughout this period of writing.

For example, this section of letter 448, in 23, 418 AF: “Time. Time. Time. All I have is time and nothing else. An abundance of time. Man-made time. But what is time with no point to compare it to? Does it exist? I move forward but nothing else does. Is a point on a map a point if there is nothing but infinity in either direction? Where does it exist without context? Do I exist? Am I existence? Questions lead me nowhere because I am nowhere in time. I am the man from nowhere. No context. No place to go, no place to be. A whisper with no ears to hear me. Writing to no one. Writing to not-me, future-me, current-me, past-me. Who am I? Why was I chosen? Why am I here? Is it my goal, my purpose, to explore the far reaches of madness? To discover what one is capable of, when he has the time to build it, to achieve it? I have no wants, no goals, no far-fetched future to strive to. How can I achieve anything when there is no one to advance my achievements, no one to build upon them, no one to clap their hands at hard-fought sweat. What is man without another? A void. I am a void. I am a hiccup. I am an error of God, who forgot one of his lonely creatures in the crevices of time. Will he one day remember me? Will he one day pluck me from this place? Would he deem me worthy of the context of time? Or is that his goal? Am I here to learn, so that I can bring back my troubles to mankind? Lift them up from an opium of time, through a time-stuck seance, and give them the word of Philippe, all that I’ve learned, all that I know, for them and them alone. Am I conduit for God. Is this his purpose at work? Or am I systematic error of the universe? Is there a difference?”

Tell me, Father Bernard, am I imagining it all? Or is there is an inkling here, a sparkle of something akin to a religious moment, where our dear Mr. Audiarde begins to understand his greater purpose. I read his words and see a dull blade being sharpened by time. He begins, like a wandering prophet, to understand his purpose. His eyes glaze over, and God speaks to him, through him. Is not God one and the same—a creature out of time? Take his statement, “Will he one day remember me? Will he one day pluck me from this place?” He understands his damnation, this purgatory of time-stuck cleansing, but still, he moves forward without any destination. Is he being tested, as many who have heard the word of God have been tested before? Are these the words of the Almighty, coming through our dear Mr. Audiarde? Have they found their way to me, so that I, Father McFerrin, could share them with the world? Am I, with my own humble beginnings, being called to be the messenger for God? Am I being tested?

Perhaps this is the kernel of truth that I was looking for when I set out to write to you, Father Bernard. I did not see it until now, had not realized my own potential purpose in these machinations of God, but here we are. I can feel a spirit moving from within me, and I am now, as these words spill out onto the page, trembling with anticipation, but let us not stop here. Let us move on to perhaps his greatest work! The Treatise, dated 43,526 AF, was the 775th piece of writing penned by Philippe. In this work, his handwriting is slightly altered, as if it were written in haste, or as if a great wave of inspiration filled his spirit, and propelled his hand movements. It is on the longer side, at 98 pages, but not near the longest of the Philippian letters. It begins with a short story, a parable perhaps, titled “Do Geese See God?” about a young child who glimpses his own relative mortality while caring for a dying goose. In the final moments, the young protagonist sees his own reflection in the eyes of the goose, and he understands, for the first time in his short life, that all things must die. It is as if, Father Bernard, he is himself a god coveting the brief lives of us mere mortals, looking upon us from the heavenly altar of non-time, and creating his own fictional universe, where death is real and everywhere. While it is a moving experience for the reader, I believe its true audience is our dear Philippe himself, who is suffering from an eternity of stillness, yearning for mortality. With no end in sight, his only recourse is to instead warn us, which he does in the next section, the heart of the treatise. Here is one part, Father, in his own words.

“My dear reader. You who are the legions of the unstuck. Those fortunate souls who are cursed with a short 70 to 90 years. To the universe you are nothing but a whisper in the wind. You will create nothing. You will be nothing. You glimpse life. You grasp out to take it and before you can grab hold, your fire is put out, never to see flame again. This ephemeral gasp at life is both your noble curse and your salvation. You’ll find reminders of your mortality appearing in all aspects of life, in every society, on every mountain and at the bottom of every bog. You’ll think about it on rainy days and dark nights, when you’re tucked into bed or when you look into your lover’s eyes. Unlike me, who is damned to exist outside of time, you are mortal and your time is short. Do with it as you like. I give you permission. I give you the freedom but with an offering of hope. There is more to this world than what you simply experience, more than you can fit into a day. Life is full of the wondrous and the strange and I am here, a prophet whispering from another land, to tell you not to fear it. Because none of this is real. What is real is beyond you, beyond all of this, and beyond me. I know not what to call it except Godliness, and it is everywhere.”

I can still remember the first time I read these words, Father Bernard. I was, as I am now, overrun with emotion, taken back by their bluntness. At first, I tried to bury them beneath a lifetime of church-borne theology, where there were no more prophets, and no more words of God, but who am I to shun this man? Who am I to say that this isn’t the word of God speaking through Philippe Audiarde? Who am I to say this isn’t an act of self-sacrifice, to guide the world home?

As you know, I am only a man of God. I have known nothing but a life of devotion and faith. I have dedicated my whole life to one text, only to discover another, as true and rich and improbable as any that came before it. But to be told, with such sincerity, the conviction of which could only be borne out of forty four thousand years alone in a purgatory, that there is something more than this life, something close to God, as I have always known, has cryalistized in my mind an act of truth.

How could I, now that I know this, turn away from this man? Do I not have an oath to God, and not the Church? Isn’t that where my allegiance lies, Father Bernard? Isn’t that where yours lies, as well? Is it not my duty, as a servant of God’s will, to spread his word far and wide? And hasn’t Philippe suffered more than any prophet before him? He has lived an eternity, unanswered. Who would I be to not heed his words? To let the words of this man, my prophet, disappear with the wind. To come so close to Godliness, only to turn my back on it. I would be a coward, not deserving of the title of Father. I would be no man of God. I would be nothing. No one. But with this, it is an opportunity to show the spirit of God that resides within me, to become the bearer of Philippe’s words, which are holy and true, purified by an eternity of time, and spread them forth.

And so, my answer has become clear and my purpose is all but done. With my help, acting as the messenger of a prophet, a new age will be upon us and it will be the Philippian age. And our good Church, if it is acting in the interest of God, and not its own motives, will recognize it for what it is: a new path forward, closer to His Holiness, with the venerable Philippe at its helm.

I have only one question left, Father Bernard: Are you with me?

Signed, Father McFerrin on the holy day of May 10th, 1894.

submitted by /u/moloch1 [link] [comments] via Blogger https://ift.tt/2yi0mtk

[raceandspeculation]

The Other Inside

Kayla Wilson ENG 3690 Prof. Smalls 2/22/17

           In a movie about aliens and extraterrestrial life form, it would seem obvious to one what the ‘other’ would be. The Other is a literary trope that dates back to long before man envisioned themselves with aliens bursting forth from their chest. The Other was at first the ‘noble savage’ who was not European and therefore pure from the decadent downfall that Europe considered itself suffering from. The Other was Frankenstein’s monster, different in appearance from its creator and therefore subjected to fear and disdain. Dating back to the 1800’s and beyond, the Other has always been something to fear and attempt to eradicate. Because the Other was not the same as the protagonist, they were looked down upon. When first considering the Alien film series, the role of the Other seems easy to point out. The role of the Other is that of the aliens,  the Xenomorphs, and they are blasted and killed at every turn. The aliens, however, are not the only Others in the film. Within the universe created for the Alien franchise we see a few characters that are revealed to be androids and therefore are not human even though they look to be in appearance. The treatment of the Other from the first Alien movie to the treatment of the Other in Alien: Resurrection shows how the bias one might have against the Other affects interactions and stretches to more than just the aliens that Ellen Ripley is so determined to kill. Through examining the role of the Other in these two films, nuances of the human behavior and perception then become more apparent.

     The main Other in Alien does, indeed, appear to be the Xenomorphs. Right off the bat they are bursting out of the chests and killing the crew which cements their place as the evil Other. The human’s disgust for them seems well rooted in the fact that they are a danger to their way of life. The Other in this instance is a threat and therefore must be eradicated. Because the Other is considered unnatural by the human protagonist, it should not be allowed to exist. In “Ripley as Interstitial Character: White Woman as Monster and Hero in Alien Resurrection”, Caroline J. Picart describes the Other as “the scapegoat, whose sacrifice is necessary in order for a conventional closure to occur” (pg.2). The alien is not seen as a mother figure trying to reproduce but instead as a monster. Humans often place their own survival so highly that they do not stop to consider how their actions are harmful to other species. If a human kills a cow to survive that is considered fine, but a Xenomorph who attempts to use a human for survival is something out of a horror movie. In addition to the Xenomorphs, the android Ash is also introduced in this film. Even in 1979 when technology was not as advanced, robots were something to fear and mistrust. Throughout the course of the film, Ash is revealed not only to be a science officer but an android who has an ulterior motive. He considers the crew of the Nostromo to be expendable means to an end and is dispatched just as gruesemly as the aliens were. Ellen Ripley, the female Warrant Officer turned hero, is just as distrustful of Ash as she is of the aliens and he receives just as little mercy in the end. His end goal did not need the survival of Ripley, and his motives are easy to brush aside as evil and corrupt. Both examples of Otherness in this film are shown in an antagonistic light. Their goals do not align with that of the heroes and because of that they meet untimely ends, their deaths being something to celebrate.

      By the time we get to Alien: Resurrection in 1997, some crucial things have changed. For one, Ripley herself is now a part of the Other. After Ripley’s death in Alien3 we now find her a clone who has not only been born but also hosted an alien parasite in her. Her DNA has been altered with that of the aliens and she is no longer pure and removed from the Other. That aside, we still see Ripley push the Newborn into space even if the act makes her tearful. Ripley’s final words in the film that she is now a stranger on Earth are true. She is the Other, and yet, she is not. Joss Whedon, who penned the script, did not create a hero that was purely Other. Although Ripley was altered she retained some of her memories. Her new outfit was a strong contrast to that of the first three films and signaled change without rendering the character unrecognizable. “What is new and disturbing is the symbiotic relationship with sexual connotations,” Pamela Church Gibson wrote, “established and developed in this series between the central protagonist and this unsettling Other. Despite- or perhaps because of- its liberal persuasion” (You’ve been in my Life So Long, 37). Ripley and the Other are tied together throughout the course of the film series and by the time Resurrection has come, the Other has impacted more than just Ripley’s perception. We also see this new Ripley, the eighth clone of Ellen Ripley, interact with one who is revealed to be an android. Annalee Call is an Auton who is at one point going to kill Ripley in cold blood but later is saved by Ripley. Like Ash in the first film, she has a goal and seems determined to make it to it no matter what the cost. That changes, however, and Call and Ripley are seen to be the last two and even share an intimate moment. Call’s treatment as an Auton shows that Ripley has changed her view of androids some, which could be related to the fact that Ripley herself has changed.

     From Alien in 1979 to Alien: Resurrection, we see a sort of shift. At first, the Other is described only as evil. Ash is an android and he is conniving. The aliens are trying to kill the human. The space between them and us are quite wide and obvious to see. By the time we reach the fourth movie in the franchise, however, the lines have been cleared. Both Ripley and Call, the two main characters, contain Other like qualities. The viewer, however, accepts them, as the protagonists. I believe that this relates back to the fact that humans are scared of what is not like them. The Xenomorphs are drastically different from us in appearance, and their physical form does play into the perception of them and makes people focus on them as monsters instead of creatures also trying to stay alive. Even though Ripley and Call have drifted into the Other as well, the viewer accepts both as they are white women. They do not look like the Other and there is some way to suspend the disbelief that the beautiful Winona Ryder is something that was actively disliked in the first film. Ripley’s accumulation of Otherness is part of her character growth and development, not something that signals that she should be killed because she has alien modifications.

        Tess Williams discussed the Creature from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in her piece “Arrival of the Fittest”. The Creature itself is a very clear depiction of Otherness, as he is hated for his appearance and form even though he possesses a functioning mind and emotions. Even before he opens his mouth the villagers flee in fear. If the Xenomorphs had not been monstrous in form, would they have received the same initial fear from the humans? It is likely that they would have since they were trying to kill the people, but their form alone is enough to distinguish them as the Other that we are supposed to despise and hate in contrast to the Other like Call and Ripley that we can understand. Williams wrote “the monster created by the scientist is a patched and seamed entity or body holding the paradox of life in death and death in life. The creature is simultaneously powerful and vulnerable” (135). The lines between life and death have been blurred with Call and Ripley. The idea of having a Ripley clone was derived from the fact that Ellen Ripley had sacrificed herself in the previous films. To see her character once more even though she had clearly died was like seeing Victor Frankenstein bring his creation to life. Call, as an Auton, had a belief in God but also knew that she could not move on to the afterlife. They appear to be living and breathing humans, but the innate Otherness about both of them set them apart exponentially.

       Through looking at the reception to the Other in both Aliens and Alien: Resurrection we see how the Other is considered vile and unwanted but becomes more acceptable when it is in a form that is more relational to that of the human being. The human mind fears what it does not understand and Ripley’s slow slide into Otherness allowed the audience to travel with her. She possessed acidic abilities by the time the fourth film came out, but her new leather appearance was only part of the development of a woman who we had seen grow throughout the course of her adventures. Even in cases where the Other is not so different from us except for in form, they are not treated the same. People have long held prejudices against those not like him, and when considering the treatment of the Other from the first Alien film to Resurrection we see how perception shapes interactions. At the end of the day, we ourselves are the Other in some scenarios. There are always others around us who are different than we are, and to judge them based on a purely physical level or because of their differences is isolating. Instead, the film franchise gives us a chance to know the Other on a deeper level and consider the Xenomorph Queen as a mother trying to protect her children, a story that runs parallel to Ripley’s journey to protect her people. We see through the films not how we can become the Other, but how we always were the Other. We work to promote our own survival no matter what the cost, even though that may make us seem monstrous in actions at times. Hopefully, one does not have to die and get cloned to reach a deeper understanding of the Other, but instead only has to look outside of their own self for a moment and consider that which the Other goes through.

WORD COUNT: 1781

                                                                           WORKS CITED

Picart, Caroline J. “Ripley as Interstitial Character: White Woman as Monster and Hero in Alien Resurrection." Dropbox, Inc., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Gibson, Pamela. “You’ve Been in My Life so Long I Can’t Remember Anything Else.” Ed. Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarejo. Keyframes: Popular Cinema and Cultural Studies (2001): n. pag. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney Weaver. 20th Century Fox. 1979. Film

Alien: Resurrection. Dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Perf. Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder. 20th Century Fox, 1997. Film.

Williams, T. (2016). Arrival of the fittest. Cultural Studies Review, 22(2), 132-148. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/csr.v22i2.4580