#we created a world where a spell maintains the status quo

[supernova2395]

Not going to lie, I think the worst thing you can do to your narrative is build up to something and then not deliver it. It just devalues the rest of your story and leaves people going, “Then what was even the point of introducing this???”

[tvckerwash]

alright so I disliked season two as a whole, but one thing that was really :/ was the demonization of hextech and the almost…anti science stance they took with it. I'm not going to get into any of the actual rhetoric or anything because that's not the point of the post and I'm not really knowledgeable enough on the topic to speak on it anyway, so yeah.

with that out of the way I want to present an idea for an alternative narrative surrounding hextech that keeps the focus on the piltover/zaun conflict, whilst incorporating more aspects of league lore into arcane that I believe season one possibly set up a foundation for.

(utc bc it's a bit long)

firstly, it’s important to recognize that hextech is more than just a new form of technology—it’s an entirely new field of scientific study. in episode five heimerdinger says that scholars from around the world have come to piltover to study the hexgates, and therefore hextech, and that its “reignited passion for the arts and science.”

jayce mentions in episode five when showing heimerdinger the hexite gemstone and demonstrating its uses alongside viktor that the unrefined crystals were too volatile to be utilized outside of their laboratories. that is laboratories, plural. jayce and viktor are the creators of hextech, yes, and they likely understand it better than anyone else, but they are not the only ones who do. he mentions these laboratories again during the council meeting following jinx’s theft: 

more importantly however, he mentions that they have a refinery, and I’ll come back to that in a moment. 

it’s arguably established in episode two that the hexite crystals are a finite energy source, as we see the rune used by the mage be depleted of its energy following the teleportation spell. in episode six we also see technicians in PPE who are for the sake of this hypothetical narrative presumably checking the state of the crystals that power the hexgates and presumably replacing them as needed. 

in league, the hexite crystals originate from shurima, and while I wouldn’t put it past piltover to continue mining for them and importing them, that is ultimately unsustainable financially and physically in the long run. so, how do they solve the problem of ensuring that they will have a constant, steady supply of these crystals that have revolutionized and revitalized their society? 

easy, in league lore the hexite used to power all of the hextech devices are synthetic versions of the originals, so I propose the idea that at some point during the time skip jayce and viktor would’ve also figured out a way to synthesize synthetic versions of those crystals.

this creates another question though, how and where do they manufacture the crystals? as the sheer size of the hexgates means they would have to do so on quite a large scale. this is where the refinery mentioned earlier come in, as in league lore, the crystals were first used by clan ferros—who also exist in the arcane universe, being mentioned in episode two by elora as house ferros: 

so, on top of the existence of synthetic crystals I propose that a version of the hexcore foundry from league also exists in the arcane universe, and it should continue to be owned and operated by house ferros. 

the hexcore foundry would fit in perfectly in arcane’s narrative as it adds to the disparity and wealth inequality between piltover and zaun. not only do zaunites not have any access to hextech and currently reap none of its benefits, they’re the ones getting smothered by the pollution the foundry creates: 

Yet there were consequences—synthetic crystal manufacturing has long been rumored to heavily contribute to the Zaun Gray. 

the existence of the foundry and the chaos following jinx's attack is also the perfect opportunity to introduce camille ferros, an intelligence operative who’s main goal is to maintain the status quo of piltover:

Weaponized to execute outside the boundaries of the law, Camille is an elegant and elite operative who ensures the Piltover machine and its Zaunite underbelly runs smoothly. Camille's true strength is her adaptability and attention to detail, viewing sloppy technique as an embarrassment that must be put to order. Raised among manners and money, she is the Principal Intelligencer of Clan Ferros, tasked with cutting down her family's darker problems with surgical precision. With a mind as sharp as the blades she bears, Camille's pursuit of superiority through hextech body augmentation has left many to wonder if she is more machine than woman. 

I think she’d make an excellent sort of antagonistic force for various characters, including ambessa, as she’d be working against any attempts by jayce, viktor, caitlyn, and vi to better the lives of zaunites, but she’d also work with all of them and mel to combat ambessa’s meddling and maintain a delicate "peace" with zaun in the name of keeping her well oiled capitalist machine running undeterred.  

back to hextech, you may have noticed that camille is augmented, and her augmentations are specifically hextech augmentations. now, these cybernetics obviously don’t exist yet in arcane, so we’d be introduced to her before she becomes a cyborg, but this is how viktor’s arc would be continued after ditching the hexcore. he could be the one to create the very first hextech cybernetics since cybernetics, robotics, automation, and side of chemistry are all kind of his whole deal as the machine herald:

The herald of a new age of technology, Viktor has devoted his life to the advancement of humankind. An idealist who seeks to lift people to a new level of understanding, he believes that only by embracing a glorious evolution of technology can humanity’s full potential be realized. With a body augmented by steel and science, Viktor is zealous in his pursuit of this bright future.

viktor creating hextech augmentations and his love of robotics being introduced also means that blitzcrank and orianna—who are both made of hextech—could’ve been easily incorporated into the series in a way more faithful to their origins (or at all in the case of blitzcrank. I can't believe they shoehorned viktor's robot child in his new bio by saying he created them off screen during the timeskip. fuck you riot games), but since this post is already somewhat long diving deeper into how those characters could’ve come to be is for another post that I may or may not make. 

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #469

Top Ten Crazy WandaVision Theories

So all the while I was watching The Mandalorian I kept thinking, blimey, they’ve nailed this. There’s an oft-repeated problem with modern serial dramas, which is that they tend to tread water a little bit; despite being shorn of the network requirement of episodes being a certain length, or having a certain number of episodes in a season, there’s this in-built compulsion to make about a dozen 45-minute episodes. This is what scuppered the Marvel Netflix series in particular; there simply wasn’t enough story to cover the seasons, and as a result there was a lot of treading of water. This has also affected the recent Star Trek shows, although Discovery does show signs of pulling out of this “twelve-hour movie” mindset. Mando totally transcends this in a superlative way: each episode is basically an “adventure of the week” type thing (Mando versus spiders, Mando goes to the fish planet, Mando meets a Jedi, etc). But each episode also builds on the arc; he’s always on the same quest, and everything he does week by week furthers this quest. As much as I was looking forward to WandaVision, I kept reminding myself, there’s no way they can do this; no way these two shows – my most-anticipated shows from two of my most-beloved franchises – can hit the bar so successfully, back-to-back.

Well.

I’m not sure if WandaVision is quite the overall triumph The Mandalorian is, but they’re both pretty tremendous achievements in slightly different ways. Wanda manages to tell a rather unsettling story in the MCU whilst also doing a terrific job of parodying sitcom tropes; it works on a meta level as well as a practical one. Also, as far as puzzle-box type programmes go, this one has been doing an excellent job; week by week, you’re further intrigued by what’s going on in Westview; what’s real? Who’s behind it? is Vision still dead? Will Darcy get her own show? It’s a fantastic exercise in drip-feeding information, maintaining a degree of unease and suspense, and offering a compelling mystery. Will they keep it up until the end? I’ve no idea; the reveal at the end of episode seven wasn’t quite a jaw-on-the-floor moment but it was exquisitely done, with a theme song and everything. Even if the most obvious predictions end up being true and the finale becomes a relatively straightforward goodies-versus-baddies barney, I’ve got faith in everyone involved to at least give us something utterly compelling and thoroughly entertaining.

But what if there really is at least one huge surprise left up the show’s vibranium sleeve? Certainly, the reveal of Evan Peters as Pietro Maximoff – being, visually if not in character at least, the Fox/X-Men universe version of Wanda’s brother, rather than the Adam Taylor-Johnson version we knew from Age of Ultron – was a hell of a moment, seemingly bridging the gap between the MCU as we knew it and the previously Fox-controlled properties. Since then, there’s been this bubbling rumour (which I’ve tried not to read too much into by literally not reading too much; this is something I’ve divined from headlines or stray tweets, because I want to keep forging my way through WandaVision without a map) that there is another epic cameo approaching, on the level of Luke Skywalker popping up in the finale of The Mandalorian. That moment was something of a surprise, even though I had it rather spoiled by Twitter; despite muting as many words as possible to do with the show, “Luke Skywalker” still popped up in trending topics. I’ve learned my lesson, and I essentially forgo any social media (and a lot of other sites too) until I’ve seen the most recent episode. Anyway, what if this is true; what if there’s another character or moment that will rock the Marvel world to an even greater extent than The Other Pietro? If we’d be as surprised and delighted by something as much as we were by Luke making short work of those Dark Troopers? With this in mind, and being aware of the encroaching WandaVision finale, here are some predictions. What could happen? Who could we see? Which long-dormant plot thread will get resurrected? Read on to find out! And – spoiler warning – this has been revisited following the most recent episode; we are officially in the endgame now.

And I’m sure all of these are realistic and serious suggestions.

I Am Your Father: We have actually met Wanda’s parents at last; ordinary decent Sarkovian folk, it seems. But from where did her nascent witchy powers appear? What if, in a shocking last-minute twist, we discover her real father, and he’s played by… Ian McKellen! It was Eric all along!

SWORD versus Skrulls: a post-credit sting will reveal that – shock! – Tyler Hayward is, in fact, a SKRULL! Yes, finally, the shape-shifting buggers will get to be the baddies from the comics, as an up-to-no-good splinter faction of the beleaguered race makes its presence felt on the MCU, having successfully infiltrated world governments over the past thirty years. This will set up Samuel L. Jackson’s Secret Invasion series.

The Ultron of it All: there have been more mentions of Ultron in WandaVision than in any MCU property since, well, Age of Ultron. And now we have a custom-built all-white model of Vision, big as life and twice as creepy. What if – what if – shorn of his own psyche (his own soul?) and without an Infinity Stone to keep him upright, there remains in the hardware some remnant of everyone’s favourite sarky, genocidal mechanoid? Ultron returns! Screw you, planet Earth!

The Sorcerer Supreme is Not Happy: we know magic exists in the MCU because of Doctor Strange, so seeing Agatha and her family get their Hocus Pocus on in old Salem wasn’t too much of a surprise. But isn’t the Sorcerer Supreme supposed to keep an eye on magic use in the multiverse? I was half expecting Tilda Swinton to pop up in the flashback and bind Agatha with the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak. But now, with all the chaos magic Wanda is using in Westview, coupled with Agatha’s own spelling bee? Surely this has drawn the attention of somebody? Anybody? I mean, New York isn’t that far from Jersey, especially if you’ve got a sling ring, y’know?

No More Avengers: so Benedict Cumberbatch popping up wouldn’t be that much of a surprise (especially as Wanda is in the next Doctor Strange movie) but even if he’s not on Magic Police duty, wouldn’t an enhanced situation of this size draw the attention of one of the Avengers? Except – shock horror! – there are no Avengers! In a revelation that will set up the status quo of Falcon and the Winter Soldier, since the events of Endgame the Avengers literally don’t exist. So who will unite to save the world, not just from Wanda or Agatha, but also from the likes of SWORD? Well, right now, no one; but maybe that’ll change when the real villains appear…

No More Mutants: in the “House of M” storyline, Wanda very famously said “no more mutants” and it was so (more or less). Mutants don’t (seem to) exist in the MCU. But what if, at one point, they did? I don’t think this could have been Wanda’s doing, but what if in the past someone else had used magic to de-power/de-mutify the existing mutant population of Earth, and – basically – made everyone forget about it? And in the climax of WandaVision, well, “no more” is undone and – boom! – X-genes abound. This could even maybe set up some events in The Eternals, who I believe have some history with mutants in the comics (I’m really not very well-versed in Eternals lore)

Soul Stealer: so Wanda’s the Scarlet Witch, and a chaos magician, and super-enhanced courtesy of an Infinity Stone, but still: how did she create not one but three super-powered lifeforms? Where did they come from? Did she steal their souls? Is she leeching her own life-force to maintain them? I think we’ll discover a bit more about her powers and reveal that she’s drawing energy mutliversally, maybe from the Dark Dimension – maybe from Mephisto? I’d actually put money on Mephisto not showing up at all, despite his comic book connections to Agatha and Wanda.

Multiversal Madness: why that Pietro? He’s just a fake, just an automaton – right? But he’s still out and about spooking Monica whilst Agatha’s dealing with Wanda… yeah? And he looks like another Pietro from another universe (even if he doesn’t act like that). So… why? And who? I really, really think there’s some kind of multiversal craziness going on here, some force beyond Wanda (and Agatha!). Maybe it’s to do with Wanda pulling power from across the multiverse, maybe it’s… something else. Maybe we’ll get cameos from Lou Ferringo, Bruce Campbell, Spider-Ham and ROM the Space Knight. Hey, don’t forget: Transformers was a Marvel comic once! And they do have a Chaos-Bringer…

Wanda Did It: one of the prevailing theories/queries about WandaVision has been who’s behind it all. Wanda’s not powerful enough (or villainous enough), so who exactly did create TV Westview? Who brought Vision back, gave Wanda her sons? Well, the latest ep sure seemed to show that it really was Wanda All Along. The explanation being that she’s “the Scarlet Witch”, a presumably hella-powerful sorcerer and also (let’s not forget) imbued with Infinity Stoniness. But is she on her own really that strong, and would she – even in her despair – alter so many minds? What if there’s another Wanda, a Wanda prepared to go all-out, a Wanda who – after losing everything on her Earth is trying to recreate it by pooling her powers will another Wanda? An alternate universe, more damaged, more villainous Wanda – a Wanda who’s already said “no more mutants”, maybe; maybe even the Wanda from the Fox X-Men films (who AFAIK we’ve only seen as a little girl in her brother’s arms). That’s why Pietro looks like that, because she’s trying to rebuild her own life using the powers of this other Wanda. Two Wandas; two Witches. Dukin’ it out. And who can come to save the day, but the X-Men?

We’re All Doomed: giving credit to my brother for pointing me in this direction when he said “if there’s a big bad in WandaVision it either has to be someone very good at magic or very good at science”. Or… both? Think about it. Which character, if they cameoed in an MCU property, could possibly generate as much excitement as Luke Skywalker in The Mandalorian? No actor from the MCU; not even Downey. From another Marvel property? We’ve had a Fox actor already and with the rumours about Spider-Man: No Way Home, whether we saw Hugh Jackman or Tobey Maguire, I think that would be exciting but not as exciting. So I think it’s a character, not an actor. A character big and exciting enough to make us all squee. And which character from Marvel has never been seen in the MCU, is not necessarily expected any time soon, is very good at magic and very good at science? One. I’d say only one. Bring it on.

This actually became a lot more sensible than I’d intended! I was gonna go all-out, rolling in Muppet Babies, MODOK, HERBIE, the Phoenix Force, and basically the entire Patton Oswalt speech from Parks and Recreation. And whilst I think virtually none of these will (or should?!) happen, just imagine… man, I can’t believe we have to wait a week!

[jmtorres]

i listened to the 2014 radio adaptation of Good Omens; some variations:

--so radio's solution to all the important stuff in the narration was to cram it into dialogue, mostly. Crowley talks about himself ALL THE TIME because how else would you know he has a watch that can tell the time in 20 cities and also Hell. He casually tells Aziraphale about the time he slept all century including the part where he got up to go to the lav in 1832. (I am just picturing Aziraphale's ... face.) Also he talks himself through like all of his actions, from watering his plants to getting holy water out of his safe.

--in order to get Aziraphale's rare Bible collection out of book narration into dialogue, he and Crowley quote the Buggre Alle This Bible at each other, including the bit about "where is the flaming sword I gave unto thee" which Crowley takes great glee in Aziraphale's embarrassment about

--Agnes Nutter takes on part of the narration (and actually talks to Adam at one point). Also the opening bit about when the earth was created, those are Aziraphale's notes in I don't know what monograph he's writing but, *snicker*

--Aziraphale has caller ID?? so there's a bit where Crowley calls him (I forget which phone call it is; he doesn't call from the road about Armageddon at the beginning, he just shows up at the shop the next morning). anyway Aziraphale answers the phone, "Crowley," and Crowley asks how'd you know it was me, and Aziraphale snarks at him about his longstanding ability to anticipate his age-old enemy, and also that he has caller ID. (I'm so doubtful. I'd be more likely to believe Aziraphale never gave his phone number to anyone but Crowley, so Crowley is literally the only person who ever calls him.)

--their Arrangement seems much more "we do stuff with each other all the time, we've basically blown off Heaven and Hell entirely, we literally state our goal is to maintain the status quo" like there's much less of the....? like? reticence/denial that shows up in the show. i mean also the huge chunk of how their relationship across history was expanded in the show was not in the radio version, because it's not exactly spelled out that way in the book either. but like, Aziraphale needs much less convincing to go in on plan stop the antichrist, and weirdly their motivation about loving the world seems much more selfish?

--Aziraphale and Crowley spot the Dowling household's ads in the paper for nanny and gardener, and Aziraphale dibs gardener. Crowley complains about "have you ever seen me in a dress" and Aziraphale replies "Culloden, 1745" so there's a new one for the femme Crowley fan artists (please?)

--if you are into Nanny Ashtoreth/Brother Francis and/or how they basically raised Warlock, listen to the first episode at least! they are SUPER terrible at staying in character and just like directly bicker with each other over Warlock's head

--Crowley is smart/pragmatic enough to just drop the ansaphone tape with Hastur on it into the Ligur-holy-water puddle, so no more Hastur

--Crowley complains about Hell not telling him the M25 was more than like, vandalism. he was not expecting it to burst into flames me thinks

--the other four horsepersons are in the radio adaptation, if you were missing them from the show. as far as I recall the book (having listened to it twice recently, lol) their scenes are very faithful.

--oh hey you know that scene in the book when Aziraphale is trying to find someone to possess before he finds Madame Tracy, he ends up in a televangelist talking about rapture and is very judgmental about that? crowley hears his broadcast interruption on the radio. it's kind of sweet. (you have to assume the Bentley is just tuned to Aziraphale, because how else does its radio randomly pick up live tv from America.)

--Pepper gives Adam the pep talk that helps him overcome Satan! It is about choosing things for oneself and how she chose to be Pepper and not Pippin Galadriel Moonchild. It is super sweet.

--the audible version I listened to has a gag reel attached, including Crowley-actor's completely inability to pronounce Crowley with the long-O sound as gneil intended.

[magical-path-of-acoa-recovery]

It’s OK to Trust Sometimes

I learned early on that I cannot trust anyone.

Not even myself. Especially not myself.

The ‘don’t trust’ rule is a catchall rule that also includes other unspoken rules.

“Don’t make friends outside the family”.

“Nothing is wrong, everything is fine”.

“Do as I say, not as I do”.

“You must not be angry or sad”, which sounded like “Stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about”.

Addicts manipulate sometimes. They are driven to get their fix to survive and will do whatever it takes. Often they are adept at twisting situations to their own benefit wherever possible. So they lie, use anger, guilt, urgency, blame and self-pity. They need to keep the status quo so they can keep using or drinking.

This is the norm of someone in the death grip of addiction: denial, lying, and keeping secrets.

As a result, this behaviour causes mistrust. Is it any wonder that families of addicts have a problem with trust? Broken promises of the past tell us that trusting someone will backfire on us sooner or later. 

The Three Tarnished Rules

The three tarnished rules of a dysfunctional family – don’t feel, don’t talk, don’t trust – mean that we struggle with relationships. We avoid getting close to others. We especially can’t trust others or even talk to them. So, to keep ourselves safe, we have shut down our feelings and can’t feel them. Our romantic relationships are often a disaster. We either cling to others like a limpet or are so closed off we can’t maintain a relationship. I cling and end up smothering the other person.

This is what happened in my first two marriages. Now in my new relationship, ten years later, I panic momentarily if I feel that my partner is pulling away. I often need to talk to myself and remind myself that she has been trustworthy in the past. After all, this is a normal relationship with a healthy person who has healthy boundaries.

In the past, I closed myself off from myself and the world for protection. No wonder I felt apart from the world. I was. Tiny Buddha says

“Humans are social creatures, and we need human connection to feel alive and complete. When we cut ourselves off from this life-giving force because we are suspicious and don’t trust others, we harm ourselves more than any act of untrustworthiness we could experience”.

I have learned that I need to trust myself. If I hear that little voice that says “Hang on. This doesn’t feel right,” I listen. Sometimes I get it wrong, but sometimes it helps me avoid getting into situations that I shouldn’t get into. For example, when I just knew it was time to leave my workplace and set up on my own. Sure enough, two months later the business I had left went under.  

You can trust yourself. In your ability to handle whatever life throws at you. You have already handled the worst, and you are still here. If you have come through all the adversity that you did, you are already strong enough. If it helps, you can journal about your strengths. You can finally let go of the pain of the spell and not let it take up any more space. More about that here.

The past is the past. You have a future.  

Trust the Future

One good way of trusting the future is to stay exactly where you are.

Don’t move house, change jobs, get a new partner. There is only one reason to do any of these things - if you are unsafe.

If you are in a good relationship, stay in it! You may feel bored and stale, but this could be the spell ‘helping’ you cope with increased intimacy.

You can allow yourself to make plans for the future.

We are going to do a visualisation exercise. I'm assuming your current life is safe.

Read this first so you know what to do, then close your eyes.

You are soon going to see yourself living the same life in this house, doing the same job, loving the same person for the next five years. What does that look like, sound like, smell like? How does it feel? Do you feel stale or bored? In contrast, do you feel comforted or excited? Or do you have mixed feelings?

Or, if you are in a complete panic, can you see yourself living the same life for one year? What does that feel like?

Now close your eyes and really live it.

When you are ready, open your eyes.

If you are panicking, tell yourself that it's ok and normal to panic. It's important to realise that it's just the spell making you uncomfortable and telling you lies. We need to break the original spell by using the counterspell that we create by staying put.

If you need help with this, please go and see someone for support; you can speak up. If you have trouble speaking up, read this post. 

“People who are unwilling to trust in others (or the world, or themselves) have a challenging time planning for the future because they don’t trust that a) it will be good, or b) that it will exist. So counteract this mindset by allowing yourself to make plans for the future and build longer term commitments. Put down roots. It will serve your growing sense of trust well”.

Jordan Gray Consulting

Trust others

Ernest Hemingway once said “The best way to find out if you can trust anybody is to trust them.” This means that we can only trust others by practising trust.

I definitely don’t mean blindly trusting everyone with everything.

I mean watch them for a while first, asking yourself if they are worthy of your trust.

Do they do what they say they will?

Are they good at being diplomatic?

How do they handle others’ trust?

Then you can trust them with one thing as a test.

For example, you can try asking your partner to get you something specific from the grocery store like a brand and flavour of ice cream. If they don't have it in stock, tell your partner to text you and let you know.

To be clear, it's not about manipulating or testing your partner. In contrast, it's about laying out expectations and trusting that your partner will follow through.

If that works out ok, then you can trust them with more. Do this with others too. It’s ok to hold back at first, but it’s not ok to stay cut off. 

So, if you do these simple exercises, you'll be well on the way to trusting yourself. And others.

[pacack]

Smash Bros. and Politics

So, I was seeing an argument on twitter that claimed that games have become steeped in politics to the detriment of consumers.

I thought to myself, “Alright, I know a game that spans game history from 1980 to now that we can look at to determine whether games have really gotten more political with time.”

Spoiler: Only 9.375% of the franchises represented by characters in Smash Bros. avoid political themes. Games are intensely political and always have been.

Actual spoiler warning: This includes spoilers for the general plot and themes of basically every game franchise included in Smash Bros.

Trigger warning: The following essay contains references to violence, death, war, emotional abuse, racism, racial and cultural stereotyping, sexism, minority oppression, poverty, gangs, animal cruelty, religious hypocrisy, pollution, and climate change.

Mario: Traditionally avoids complex plotlines entirely (though some games break that tradition,) but even the most barebones plots have “ruler who thirsts for power is a bad person, while ruler who does not is a good person.”

Donkey Kong: The themes are all blatantly environmental. The main characters are heavily intertwined with nature, while the big bad steals natural resources, uses technology that pollutes and disturbs the local area, and evolves over time from a corrupt monarch to a gun-touting pirate to a mad scientist. The evolution of the villain’s technology in the first trilogy is sending the message that oppression evolves over time to become more sophisticated.

Zelda: Varies from game to game but ranges from “bad guy literally is transformed into a pig because he desires power” to “crisis brings grief and makes us contemplate our morality, but that should make us value the connections we have more.”

Metroid: Game revolves around a skilled and wholly independent soldier/mercenary/bounty hunter that happens to be a woman. Laced with themes of “a person who is profoundly and intentionally alone does not need to be dependent on others to define herself” and “scientific progress that is intended for the betterment of mankind can and will be used to wage war by those who seek to do harm.”

Yoshi: “Communities should help and protect even complete strangers from those who would do them harm.”

Kirby: Themes range from “greed of a ruler leaves kingdom in poverty” to “people who band together in friendship can overthrow those who possess power.”

Star Fox: Tyrannical mad scientist plans to form an oppressive empire by using technology. Do I need to explain that?

Pokémon: Treat animals as partners and friends and marvel at the wonders of the natural world. Bad guys include:

an organization that abuses animals

an organization who aims to destroy the environment

an organization that doesn’t appreciate the current world and plans to reshape it into one where emotional attachment doesn’t exist

an organization that criticizes the current state of affairs in legitimate ways to hide their real intentions of stripping the common man from their power to resist their planned dictatorship

an organization that values beauty and power above all else (criticizing the French elite specifically)

A gang that recruits desperate people who feel they don’t have a family

A supposedly humanitarian organization that is headed by a possessive and emotionally abusive mother who is obsessed with owning things, people, and animals rather than loving them.

Earthbound/Mother: Discusses complex themes about love of family, pain of loss of and rejection from that family, the trauma one suffers because of that pain, and the importance of people learning form that pain rather than using it as justification for hurting others.

F-Zero: People meet one-another and trade, develop new social ties, have intellectual exchanges, and share technology, but some begin to abuse the framework of the system that brought everyone together to make themselves lavishly wealthy. These elites then develop dangerous sports for their own entertainment that the common man is enticed to compete in to improve their societal standing.

Ice Climber: Two characters that are coded as Inuit-Yupik enjoy themselves by cooperating and competing with one another in nature. While simple, the theme of connection between people over a shared activity can’t be recognized as completely apolitical when they’re in a minority group.

Fire Emblem: A just ruler is forced into conflict with a neighboring despotic country and must balance their duty to defend their people with their understanding that it is the innocent common folk of the other country that will suffer in place of the unjust rulers who began the conflicts. The game centers around meeting new people, many of them from the other side, who themselves are multi-layered and kind, but who live difficult lives. The unjust rulers are defeated, but a greater threat then brings all the people together, despite their differences, for the common good.

Game and Watch: Man juggles, cooks, and plays games with his friends :)

Kid Icarus: An angel who has a disability that prevents him from flying must save the world when circumstances leave him as the only person capable of resisting. He succeeds and is recognized by being promoted captain of the guard for his ability, courage, and tenacity. From that point on, the support of others allows him to live his life without his mobility defining what he can and cannot do.

WarioWare: The main character (who was conceptualized because artists’ freedom to create was limited by corporate greed and its insistence on maintaining the status quo) is a greedy man who plans on creating a poor, easily made product to sell to people as a get-rich-quick scheme with complete disregard for artistic integrity.

Metal Gear: The entire series began as a political commentary on the manipulation of soldiers by politicians in the Cold War. The series delves deeply into the morality of war and the negative impact that it has on a person, as well as discussing peace, revenge, racial violence, genetic engineering, censorship, societal loss of a person’s knowledge when they die, misrepresentation of history, and generational knowledge and bias. The main character, Solid Snake, is a critical analysis of the action hero trope, and the deconstruction of his character archetype reveals his increasingly broken spirit as he comes to see his life as unavoidably entwined with conflicts and war.

Sonic: Evil scientist destroys and pollutes the environment and abuses animals in his scheme to gain power, leading to the animals themselves revolting and overthrowing him for his actions.

Pikmin: A middle-class working man who cares only about supporting his family is made to work in dangerous conditions and suffers hardships because of his company’s desire to maximize profits.

Animal Crossing: A kind community of people welcomes a stranger and helps them to build a new life with them, teaching them how to survive and thrive on their own.

Mega Man: Society has advanced to the point that robots are used in day to day jobs, and an ambitious scientist hacks into them and uses the technology to throw society into disarray, with hopes of establishing a dictatorship.

Wii Fit: Fitness trainer teaches you how to exercise and become healthier :)

Punch-Out: A poor kid from the Bronx has dreams of becoming a star athlete, and his trainer, a kind, retired black boxer, trains and inspires him to achieve his dreams of having a better life. The international opponents in the game embody both harmless and harmful societal stereotypes of their cultures. The more ridiculous the stereotypes surrounding the group, the more ridiculous the opponent becomes. Ultimately the protagonist, a multiracial kid from one of the most diverse cities in the world, achieves his dreams and is respected globally for his skill and perseverance, reflecting the ideal of cultural harmony.

Mii: Customizable avatar characters play games :)

Pac-Man: Happy man eats food as cute monsters chase him around a maze :)…in a dramatic departure from the norms of the time in the industry, making the uncommon move of advertising to women by using cute, whimsical designs and appealing to and encouraging everyone’s common experience of eating. Avoided common themes of the time like violent space shooters, racing games, and sports titles, which were meant to appeal to young men.

Xenoblade: The plot revolves around predicting where the path you’re on leads you in the future and emphasizes heavily that there is nothing in life that decides your fate for you. Aims to explain that, while hardships in life can lead you to do the wrong thing, you always have the power to change that which seems destined in your life. It condemns those who use the hardships they’ve experienced to excuse wrongdoing and explains that a person has the power to learn and grow from those hardships instead.

Duck Hunt: You’re a duck hunter shooting down ducks with your trusty companion dog :)

Street Fighter: The continuity is a mess, but basically it boils down to an evil man being defeated by the honorable and pure philosophy of the protagonist. It involves different spiritualities that are a part of different martial arts and I’m not going to pretend to be qualified to talk about the cultural implications of them, but it generally discusses the morality of violence.

Final Fantasy VII: A soldier who lost his best friend in a battle long ago joins an ecoterrorist rebellion against a corporation that is draining the life force from the planet at the expense of energy. If I have to spell out the environmental themes there any more clearly you’re a moron.

Bayonetta: Sexual witch with guns sold her soul to demons and literally makes a living killing angels that are obsessed with the impending resurrection of God, the creation of a new world, and the destruction of the current one. Heavily inspired by and critical of Christianity, with the angels being named after virtues that they lack. The five main bosses in the game are the four Cardinal Virtues of Catholicism – Courage, Temperance, Justice, and Prudence – and the final boss is God herself, a self-centered and spoiled character that demands adoration from all. Contrasts the hypocritical, power-hungry, and overzealous forces of religion with the Bayonetta’s honest and unapologetic appreciation for worldly pleasures, her confidence in her autonomy, and her quest to understand her individuality.

Splatoon: Squid kids play paintball :)…except it’s actually a post-apocalyptic world where humanity died off due to climate change and cephalopods became the dominant intelligent life on Earth.

Castlevania: Heavy religious themes debating the worth of humanity as a man treks through a haunted castle to fight Dracula, a vampiric demon who keeps reincarnating and who occasionally quotes the Bible verbatim. Most games in the series center around the theme that, even though human life is fleeting, it is precious.

Persona: High school student goes into alternate world where his darkest subconscious thoughts manifest into a “persona” tied to him. Debates philosophical topics very, very heavily and questions the meaning of identity.

[osmw1]

Poison-Wielding Fugitive   Chapter 73

what would you like to read next? suggest titles for me to translate!

A handful of people ran away as soon as Veno issued his warning.

“Stay where you are! It is simply an empty threat to frighten you! The town only appears to be purified, but it is a mere trick on the eyes. And then, he will…”

Virage whistled, summoning the Bio Corpse Hydra to his side. And its back… split open? Virage then climbs inside.

“You cannot possibly touch me if I command my ultimate weapon from the inside!”

The priest’s voice came through the hydra’s mouth. It’s like he’s piloting that amalgamation as if it were a mech.

‘Judging by thine memories… ‘tis rather interesting.’

Hey, don’t get distracted by anime robots. Focus on the fight, damn it.

‘‘tis without a question that I am focused. Casting spells take time, even if I am filled with Mana. I have nothing practical to do in the meantime.’

Five minutes’ time to escape… you mean you need five minutes to cast this spell. Knowing the truth just spoils it for me. And why aren’t you using any poison anyway, Mr. Poison Dragon?

‘Oh, be quiet. ‘tis the same reason I had mentioned before. If I were to use my poison, no one will survive.’ “Now, my ultimate weapon, slay the dragon who corrupted the dragonslayers!” “Sir Elfé! He is mighty and righteous! Do not waver, men!”

Controlling the hydra from within, Virage repeated spewed noxious gas onto Veno. However, Veno’s Yggdrasil completely countered it. Virage’s followers attempted to do the same to the surrounding dragonslayers and townsfolk but were ineffective due to the same reasons.

“Damn you, you evil, deceiving dragon!” “You deserve nothing but death for your sins! Hurry, Sir Elfé!” “What makes you think you can tell me what to do?! And I know that much! The dragon cannot maintain this barrier forever!”

Virage and his goons struggled and struggled. But, I know. I know that their efforts against Veno’s Yggdrasil amounted to nothing.

“This is a miracle… o Sacred Yggdrasil… we have not misplaced our faith in you.”

Celes and her comrades continued to pray to Veno. Absorbing their prayers, the already stable Yggdrasil became stronger and more resistant. Five minutes have already passed during this exchange… and the magic was ready.

“Now… I have given you five minutes’ time. Virage, receive thy punishment for thy sins! I cast the almighty spell of destruction and the divine punishment upon Sodom and Gomorrah, Fire and Brimstone!”

As soon as Veno casted his spell, the skies swirled with grey clouds. A pillar of light penetrated through, striking straight down along with the crackling and rumbling of thunder and lightning.

“This magic is nothing compared to my—”

Virage commanded the Bio Corpse Hydra to defend itself, but Veno’s spell destroyed its defenses and pierced through the monster in an instant.

“Aughhhhhhhhhh!” “Wh—” “No w—” “Im—“

Virage and his assailants didn’t have enough time to cry out. By the powers of Yggdrasil, Celes and the other dragonslayers were once again protected from the great fire that raged from the lightning strike. Within ten seconds, the monster and men had been reduced to nothing but ashes. “Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah…”

The elf’s voice trailed until the fire fully consumed him. What was left was but a crater in the ground.

“Whew.”

Perhaps Veno was feeling generous after casting his spell. He used more Mana to fill in the crater and repaired the nearby buildings which had been destroyed by Bio Corpse Hydra.

“Ahh… that felt great. ‘tis very satisfying to finally unleash my powers.”

I could almost imagine Veno lighting up a cigarette after all that. It seems to me as if you’ve overdone it a little though, don’tcha think?

‘I am sure things shall be fine. I have restored the town to status quo ante bellum.’

I mean, I guess… Now then, it was time to clean up this mess. Surely, Veno could undo the magic casted on me, right? I now totally understood how it feels to be a spectator and I had had enough. Whatever it takes for you to return me to my world though.

‘Aye… then I shall… gah. It… seems that I am all out of Mana.’

You what?!

‘Perhaps we will need to… aaaaaaahhh’

Kersplash! Veno disappeared into a beam of light and I was switched back to the physical world. Then, I gently floated to the ground. Maybe it was because I was holding onto Karma Blaze. Luckily, I somehow landed safely.

“Yukihisa!” “Muuuuuuuuuuuuuu!”

Arleaf and Muu rushed over to my side.

“You did it! You too, Lord Holy Dragon!” “Muuuuu!” The world tree Veno spawned with his magic faded into the light as well.

‘Aye… however, the Mana I had been receiving from Karma Blaze stopped flowing.’ “Will Yukihisa turn into the Lord Holy Dragon again?” “Umm, y’know, me and Veno are totally separate beings, right, Arleaf?”

You don’t seriously think I’m the human form of Veno… right? We’ve already talked about this before, so she should understand.

“Oh… sorry. I didn’t mean it like that. I was wondering that because the Lord Holy Dragon had spoken how he couldn’t undo Forced Possession Summoning.” ‘Aye. But…’

Veno shifted his attention to Celes who had walked up to us.

“Cohgray, you really were the dragon…” “Like I said, it’s complicated, but I’m not actually the dragon, right?” “But if you had seen it… no, you are correct.” “Do you still want to duel? Though we found out how we’ve been had already…”

Celes silently shook her head. The rest of the dragonslayers followed suit as well. Wait… when did all of the people in Lif’el gather around us? This… is bad? I mean, we really did cause quite a stir.

‘Shall we escape? Though, thou art surrounded…’

I sat down and looked around…

“You need not be on guard, Cohgray. People have not assembled because they hold resentment towards you. Rather… yes, let me offer a prayer first then let me apologize afterwards.”

As the leader of the Dragonslayer Corps, Celes led her team and about half of the townsfolk in a prayer.

“Wh-What the…” “Umm…” “Y’all have made a real ruckus here.”

Wayne and Rurika showed up to the plaza.

“Uhh… what’s happening here?” “Well, this because you turned into the Holy Dragon, created a world tree, and saved the town, I s’pose.” ‘Hmm? What is the meaning of this?’ “And so what does this mean?”

Veno and I couldn’t quite make heads and tails of this situation, but Arleaf lightly cleared her throat and stood up along with Celes.

“Many of these people have found our lord, the Holy Dragon. He had appeared and brought salvation with him, saving the town from the brink of extinction. It is very much like a god had descended from the heavens.” “The others are us followers of the Teachings of the Sacred Yggdrasil. Our scriptures tell of a miraculous spell called Yggdrasil that will clear miasma, save the fallen, and protect the people. It is said that the one who casts the spell should be worshipped as a saint as well.”

Rurika raised her index finger and quickly added to the conversation.

“And then, the third religion in town is the Church of Saint Oevarl, a harmony of the other two. The name is a reference to a certain dragon, it seems.”

Saint Oevarl… your name is Veno Yveval, right?

‘Aye… but sayeth thou it to be similar?’

Well, yeah, it’s kinda similar. It’s not identical, of course, but if it’s a mixture between the two religions… well, it wouldn’t exactly be unreasonable.

“To sum it up, the magic used and the divine punishment we witnessed today is something of legends… even if it was casted by a dragon. I am sure the people who have observed today’s battle believe that it was the return of the saint.”

Ah… so in other words, Veno’s magic and the miracle of Karma Blaze roused up a few religions.

“Let us relay news to our countrymen, telling them that the culprit behind our afflicted family members was Elfé—or rather, it was the ancient elf by the name of Virage!” “Yeah!”

The dragonslayers all cheered while they were in the middle of praying to us.

“Then, the whole killing me thing…” “What do you take us for?! If we were to slay the dragon after it had called forth the world tree… we should be the ones punished.” ‘This proves that I had made the right decision in casting my spells, does it not?’

Sure, it does, Veno. Whatever makes you happy. But you and I both know that you only casted those spells ‘cause you were aching to try them out.

“Yeah… well, I’m glad that we’re good. Actually, Celes, we should probably hurry to save your sister. There might be more of Virage’s people coming after us.” “And even now, you still worry about me… you truly are a man of good character, Cohgray.”

Oops. Celes looked a little shocked.

“It’s the second coming!” “Lord Holy Dragon!” “The legends have come true!”

Everybody seemed to be overjoyed with how things turned out. They gather around me and tossed me in the air.

“Whoa! Hey, hold on!” “Eek!”

This is crazy!

“Please, hold on!” “Muu?!” “You two are with the Lord Holy Dragon as well, right? Up you go then!”

With that, people from all religions reveled together with the whole town for today’s monumental victory. There was a ceremony in the middle of all that celebration… at least it gave me a moment to speak to Celes and the rest of them. Well, the people of the Sacred Teachings have already sealed off the curse-ridden prayer altar yesterday and are now taking care of it. Veno told me he’d look further into the issue later. Oh, and it seems like Wayne’s issue was most likely related to the infectious altar too. A few days before symptoms started hitting him, his acquaintance showed up to his home with a Teachings symbol in hand.

what would you like to read next? suggest titles for me to translate!

contents: /ch001/ /ch002/ /ch003/ /ch004/ /ch005/ /ch006/ /ch007/ /ch008/ /ch009/ /ch010/ /ch011/ /ch012/ /ch013/ /ch014/ /ch015/ /ch016/ /ch017/ /ch018/ /ch019/ /ch020/ /ch021/ /ch022/ /ch023/ /ch024/ /ch025/ /ch026/ /ch027/ /ch028/ /ch029/ /ch030/ /ch031/ /ch032/ /ch033/ /ch034/ /ch035/ /ch036/ /ch037/ /ch038/ /ch039/ /ch040/ /ch041/ /ch042/ /ch043/ /ch044/ /ch045/ /ch046/ /ch047/ /ch048/ /ch049/ /ch050/ /ch051/ /ch052/ /ch053/ /ch054/ /ch055/ /ch056/ /ch057/ /ch058/ /ch059/ /ch060/ /ch061/ /ch062/ /ch063/ /ch064/ /ch065/ /ch066/ /ch067/ /ch068/ /ch069/ /ch070/ /ch071/ /ch072/ /ch073/ /next/

(leave me a tip on Patreon?)

[keevansixx]

Life is cold, beware of shrinkage.

Watched the movie "Downsizing". Not bad, fairly accurate description of the human condition....not so comedic as they wished to portray, but hey, they're only human...

so let's look at it a bit closer for the meta buried in this gem shall we?

 For one, there is the fantastical science of biochemical atomic restructuring, where they pump a chemical into you, and through some sort of radioactive exposure (kinda like a microwave, only the critters don't explode when you bake them for a short amount of time) the space between your atoms is reduced to 1/16th of your original atomic mass, rendering you about 3in tall with everything intact...well all the organic bits intact, all the inorganic or artificial bits of you remain the same size and must be removed surgically prior to downsizing. basically you get shrinky-dinked in a giant human microwave, and come out understanding the novel Gulliver's Travels on an entirely different level.  

For the other side of the coin, there is the economics of a thing.....since you are now only 1/16th your original size, your caloric consumption now equates to less that 1/32nd of your now Lilliputian anatomy, so basically a packet of crisps and a small thumbnail sized block of cheese could theoretically sustain you for well over a couple of months. Then there is the amenities of life....home, transportation, luxuries that no longer cost a small fortune, or your first born offspring, to acquire. Since you are now able to appreciate the irony of the ant and the giant boot, things just seem too good to be true in that new world.

Lastly, we come to the very edge of that coin....

Science, in all it's crazy mad glory, invents a way to physically reduce humanities footprint (figuratively) on the earth, and what do the rest of the primate powers do with this newfound ability? Why...they weaponized it, of course, shrinking dissidents, malcontents, and anyone whom does not agree with the "powers that be" and the status quo to 1/16th their original size, rendering them harmless to the greater powers, while the rest of the Lilliputian hordes live on in declining decadent old roman glory, living up to the oldest of vices in the newest of ways....(seriously, go watch the movie...it's like watching a microcosm of old roman history, complete with the slave quadrants and servant classes.) 

then throw into this mix the notion that the environment has already pushed passed it's tipping point, spelling out global Armageddon because all the methane trapped in the arctic is escaping it's icy bonds, and joyously rampaging back into the atmosphere like a frat party on a keg run, and the only way humanity can survive is for a small colony of tiny humans to bury themselves deep within a mountain like the dwarves of Moria, in a very high tech simulation of human existence complete with lighting, land, lakes, and tiny livestock...and seal themselves away for a few thousand years until the rest of humanity have died off, and the planet has had a chance to, once again, balance out back to factory defaults....

now here's the point where my brain takes a huge nosedive, and starts it's scathing run at the logic within the film, like a fat man chasing a bucket of chicken after a weight watchers day camp.

"Are you friggin kidding me? Science goes out of it's way to preform an impossible task, unheard of in the realms of human capabilities, and instead of taking the next step, and then the next step, and so forth and so on until you have found an amicable solution to a global problem, the ONLY solution they could come up with, in a room full of Nobel winners, top researchers, and other specialists was to say "All ya'll are fecked, we're going to dig ourselves a hole in the ground, stuff it full of food, booze, and women, then seal the doors behind us till the problem sorts itself out....so long, and thanks for all the fish!" really? seriously? {at which, in that portion of the film, I face palmed, and nearly rendered myself unconscious by accident} What about the stromatolites? Hmmmmmm? You science bastards were clever enough to figure out how to shrink a person, but you couldn't go gene splice a bunch of cyanobacteria, colonize it on huge screens, create huge towers to channel the air flow using thermodynamics, and basically scrub the methane out of the atmosphere using the very same creatures that pooped oxygen into the atmosphere in the first place millions of years ago, thereby allowing mammalian life to flourish after the first Sweet Meteor of Death took out Hobart Wash's favorite inevitable betrayal playthings? Or better still, what happened to that idea several years ago where you lot were going to send a small ring sat with a polarizing lens mounted in the ring, basically creating a big pair of sunshades that would float somewhere out beyond the lunar orbit, between the earth and the sun, and limit the amount of solar radiation the earth gets exposed to around the equator, and over the course of years, gradually cool the planet from reaching that dreaded thermal tipping point? sounds like a cheap fix to me, at least until you lot figure out how to resurrect that O2 pooping bacteria that disappeared millennia ago....geesh, keep it simple stupid!"

Has science really gotten that dumb? (at which point I realize that modern science is less and less about discovering the next frontier, and all the bounty it contains, and more about getting paid, finding tenure, and maintaining the status quo....sad. The next great big scientific discovery won't be made by a bunch of PHd's, doctorates, or tv celebrities....they are all too busy trying to get paid to care. No, the next breakthrough will happen by accident from a 12 year old, playing with stuff they really shouldn't be playing with, and interesting results will happen.....either that, or a old bald man playing in the tool shed, and accidentally dropping a jammy dodger into something else, and the eldritch horror he spawns will usher in an exciting age of rampant discovery for humanity. either way, science will get back on the ball again, and maybe I'll get to see my Jetson's sky car come to life before I die. but meh.....dream goals.) 

[maneaterwithtail]

Post-series fangbone ideas

These are for Fanfiction ideas not genuine second series level continuation

more the idea, let's have an idea see where takes us

Like all good episodic series the door is open for return of stuff

1. Mom of Bill gets Magic. Well it turns out that after Bill of the Magic Bill has lost all of his magic power, at least for now. Thooouuugh he seems to be able to pick up Shadow stepper tricks with regards to lighting and snuffing candles and such (munchkin)

I like it when big apocalyptic season or series finale changes actually change things. Even if we're going to go back to some familiar things I don't want things to just go back to the previous status quo. Now, while Mam of Bill may not know everything and she might not get her memory back, with regards to when she first learned about Fangbone in Mom of No Return, she also is a fiery redheaded Ginger. As a result of her encounter with Venomous Drool or the apocalyptic Showdown and the nestling effect... well now her powers are being awoken'd up.

This means that they can't just seal her memory because then she'll just inexplicably Rediscover her powers over and over again. So as a result she's going to get in on the magic stuff. And this can be an interesting point of contention and frustration, especially for Bill when he realizes what his decisions cost them. This can even segue into some adult stuff. What choices or events happened that made Mama Bill a single parent? How does she adapt to the life that Bill has been leading and how much of it she's missed and the consequences of the decisions he's already made?

And of course spell work spell work spell work

2. The now personally Sapient toe; who I'm going to assume as Morg actually gets dealt with relatively quickly. For one she's set up shop in Drool's old place and she's trying to gather all the villains. Only some of these guys aren't totally evil. Such as cyborg Mama Bill, Fred Bone, and so on. But what it does reveal is that all previous uses of the evil magic toe of Drool don't just go away. More importantly they can be reenacted by the toe. This leads to a much different situation particularly as Drool may be able to give them the inside track. At the very least he knows all the spells that they did. During the equivalent of a mid-season conflict Morg is permanently banished and then we have to deal with the Fallout

3. Whether after #2 above or just another implied conflict Bill in fact gets stuck on Skullbania and Fangbone gets stuck on Earth. I primarily want to do this because I want Bill the Beast to happen after he's gone a little bit feral having to survive the red wastes

4. Only after #1 or some equivalent; Bill Goodwin gets his magic back. In addition to this he started to train and understand more of the Barbarian stuff, as well as Shadow stepper stuff. This leads to more of a Princess of Mars situation as opposed to the previous circumstances. Bill is going to see if you can bring civilization and or Unity to The Realm of Skullbania or at least some of the barbarians now that they've had cause to reunite and helps ease tensions with a shadow steppers

5. Fangbone’s parents come back! and they're more like Leaf Erickson than they are some variation of Thundarr or similar. They have even in fact become noted explorers and ambassadors to a more civilized society that are beyond the red wastes and not located in Minkwater. And much more to Fangbone’s consternation he has a little sibling. I want to say sister, but I suppose that might be a bit cliche. But basically he has; dealing with the fact that his parents are back and the reality of the feelings and assumptions he's developed over time and disappointments over how they are met and not met. In addition to the fact that he's got a little sibling who has been able to spend more functional time with them and seen more of them as they currently are.

6. Hammerscab gets adopted. Perhaps by “The Caliphate” or similar or similar Advanced society that I hinted at in suggestion 5. Basically the clan of one thing has gotten her a lot of prestige in terms of fighting. But a clan cannot just be of one. You need to create Works, Legacy, and so on. Even for a clan noted for its Warrior leanings. The Caliph wants the skill and Power noted by barbarians under his or her rule. She adopts Hammerscab to act as a means of integrating that as well as aims to marry her to her son.

Emphasize or at the very least take the direction from Danger and Eggs and not the stereotypical, “Oh no, I'm going to be made to do girly things. I will act in complete Defiance at all times!”  Actually have Hammerscab want to have a family again. Effectively she's peaked at age whatever. After the defeat of Drool and maybe the secondary defeat of Morg and the big Clash of Clans that ends up with the Confederation and uniting... well she can't go around beating up every single Barbarian she sees or else she risks threatening the peace. But no barbarian Clan wants to take her and because of her history, as well as the shame of having to do so, or the threat of having her on a clan’s side. She spent so much time beating them all up especially when Drool was a consideration.

Obviously this will be a change much like Fangbone had to when he went to Earth. But at the same time they're also benefits from this change. This incidentally is why I'm undecided or leaning towards The Caliph being female so at the very least we Short Circuit the idea that she's being forced in the kitchen by some patriarchal figure.

To be fair I can understand this having to be a sort of post post series thing after all it's annoying when you introduce someone as the Ultimate Warrior and they don't even get some time to you know play that out for the audience.

7. Fangbone X Hammer scab. Obviously this would be when they're older maybe at the ripe older age of 13 or 14. Emphasis on the fact that she is in fact a year or so older and considerably more accomplished. Fangbone isn't going to eventually become stronger than her. She retains Ultimate Warrior status. Or at the very least in terms of the things that Fangbone may value she is ahead of him. If we combine it with the whole she-becomes-the-Caliphate- h e i r she eventually will become trained as a general with exceptional personal skill. In addition to this Fangbone is going to have to deal with the fact that while he's young and also somewhat accomplished he still has to figure out what he wants to do with his life whereas Hammerscab is more or less set for life at the ripe old age of 14 to the point that she's already set to retire to a life of idle hedonism, joy, and Authority as typically follows the fantasy Barbarian hero. which is why instead of getting the stereotypical seraglio fodder, and or groupies, she's decided to put feelers out for Fangbone worthy opponent and hero.

8. Masquerade broken. This is always a tough one because in many ways this can come off as a spiteful deconstructive as opposed to examining or fun deconstructive. But basically what happens when greater Authority and parts of the world start integrating and recognizing the fact that they have a new neighbor. A great example of stuff that can end up happening is... well actually I should probably put this under other ideas but in general what if Ms G actually manages to build some sort of rapport with the clan Elders of the Mighty Lizard Clan. So she decides that she's sick and tired of teaching the the 3G Class and instead goes all Doctors Without Borders or teachers without whatever- anyway she goes to Skullbania in order to teach the kids there and, of course, face all the challenges of that. She does not give up and go back, now appreciative of the new class, she stays and lives her two dreams. teaching and savage man associating. This way she can still be part of the plot and influence for Fangbone and Bill while the 3-g class gets to advance.

9. Okay and this just struck me right now. Bill Goodwin gets into an advanced class as opposed to the remedial one. Thanks to his improvements in 3rd grade. But Fangbone is still scheduled for a remedial class. How does he deal with the breakup of the three G Class that helped save the world? I guess the number one twist I want to do with this is at the end they do not get back together under the same roof. Though they do find new ways to maintain their friendship. Though often in clumps and groups if not the exact same. Circumstances can change friendships but friendships can also endure or make circumstantial change bearable

10. Melodica or more benign or neutral figures end up trying to immigrate to Earth. Especially as there's now more trade. This will probably make for a better run up to a Broken Masquerade. We also get to focus on situations and characters like Ingrid the forgemaster speaking of

11. If Bill gets to eventually become a wizard - Shadow stepper - Barbarian multi class then Fangbone is going to become an advanced class in the form of a Forgemaster. Very explicitly he gets taken on as an apprentice by Forgemaster Ingrid. Especially as he tries to use the shards of Glimmerslash to make a proper superweapon and learns to, you know, keep his love of building and forging and stuff but it mature it further.

12. A council of wizards meet. We get the original wizard from the graphic novels and of course our beloved Twinklestick. Maybe they're united to examine the situation that's happened with the world chain and we get a little bit of world-building and set up for all the organizations that exist throughout Skullbania as well as set up various magic types and how things work. Maybe they want to have a say in the fate of Drool? Maybe they need to do something about Morg? Especially as this allows us to introduce that niggling issue of politics. Because the Wizards while powerful and knowledgeable aren't necessarily good or wise and not necessarily on the Barbarian or Earth’s side completely. Quite the opposite. They can often do things for themselves which adds to a level of fear and complexity. As each of them is almost a power much as we call a nation a power unto itself

13. More investigation or happenstance over how Skullbania and Earth have been crossing over for so long. More lost tribes or other lost artifacts or possibly Cryptid monsters from deep under the Earth coming to attack I don't know but there's a lot you can go with with the idea of a lost age underneath Earth's feet or notice

14. The courtship of Ms. G and Axebear (and twinklestick...bad maneater, bad no doughnut)

15. A space shuttle accidentally flies into a portal and ends up in the moons and orbit of Skullbania. Really nothing all that deep here. A nice Adventure which can act as set up or just exploration of how the Skies of Skullbania are different and of course we get astronauts vs cavemen which is always awesome. Well actually they don't have to fight each other. The idea is that Bill and the other Friends of Skullbania are going to have to work together in order to coordinate things so that that way they can get the astronauts back home or at the very least prevent them from dying. Kudos if they end up on one of the four moons that Skullbania may or may not have

16. Hunting season. This is set during the Adventure summer or could easily fit in one of the wider ideas. But the idea is that with the portals still randomly opening Fangbone and Bill can't get everything. We introduce a set of hunters who have been able to get expanded licenses to go cross portal and make it something of an adventure for themselves. The story would deal with the fact that at first both will be resentful. Fangbone would come to admire the hunters as much as he mocks them, and Bill would eventually learn to share the glory and or Adventure. The idea is that things start out like a stereotypical don't kill Bambi's mom, and then later we get a feel for how these Hunters actually are and even that they're totally necessary or beneficial. And the funny part is that much like in Avatar it turns out having people with a similar mindset, applicable background, and beneficial hobby makes it easier for The Barbarians to relate to the Modern Men. Also I mean it's Monster Hunter only with Fangbone and licenses and whatever hunting is like in Canada

17. Fate of drool. We open on Wargrunt's decision/sentencing..... Wait

16b. Beastatorium Breakout. The hunters and or Bill or Bill with the hunters ends up fighting or captured and thrown into a beast of torium and then they fight their way out. Anyways

17 (con't) this is it the sentencing and the decision of the Fate of the evil slug wizard by the Clans of the red waste and more besides. Taking previous ideas or just using this as a framing device in order to give just enough advancement on who these people are how they live and everything that Drool has actually done. And this is when he's looked over the cited and then his fate is sealed by their judgment. 

Anything could happen here? Someone could speak in the defense or others could try to make it a kangaroo court.  We could make up any sorts of court system that we want. it could be a Council of Elders. It could be a presentation. It could be a trial by combat. It could be any number of things

@cordset has a series of shorts and in one of them discusses a possible fate of Drool where he's basically death by a thousand cutted with his eyes torn out by the Champions who ultimately bested him, Fangbone and Bill. Really this is just too much fun and too wide to imagine just any one thing. Though of course expect complications from the fact that Drool is in fact Mighty lizard plan and for him to use that connection as best he can along with the fact he's a victim of oath breaking.

 And if people think that tribal societies don't have lawyers or fast talkers 

oh you sweet summer child. so long as there are groups of people there's going to be someone who uses their mouth in order to make things sway. I probably steal a practical Cameo idea from Neil gaiman's Sandman. Bernie Capax was apparently Ye Tribal/Barbarian dude grew up to be an immortal whose schtick was he's a lawyer. Technically his name was indicative of the fact that he was a talker but he grew up riding woolly mammoth.

So I'm stealing that. Barbarian Immortal Lawyer....fine Advocate amongst the Clans who believes in defense of all before accusation. or just for a buck- I don't know - we have for some reason an elaborate Stone City along with whatever the fuck the shadow steppers are so I can make an immortal lawyer Barbarian.

think how many myths and fantasy stories center around conclaves and judgments.

18. The return of Bill's dad. Either he's divorced and he swings by up on learning everything that's happened, maybe in a custody battle. Or he's dead and as a result of magic, portals, and either his wife and child being red heads, or what have you, he comes back for a quick Day of the Dead sort of deal. Either way we get a feel for the father that we've never seen. This is more a brief encounter as opposed to the long-term that I have with regards to Fangbone’s parents coming back into the picture. Ultimately Bill is his mother's son. This is just going to give us a glimpse of that as well as get a feel for the parent that we haven't seen before, that's all.

19. A human from Earth starts to meddle in the Affairs of Skullbania to aggrandize themselves. Think of this as the opponent of Bill and Fangbone being one of those isekai protagonists.

20. Gate: Thus the Canadian Army (which does totally exist I will not make jokes about it.) Fought Here. basically an actual military incursion happens and maybe they have to break out rules old tactics or at least the people who used to fight and work under him like the dragons of the razor worms and the Orcs And the trolls in order to have a chance in order to knock back the advance so that way they can sue for peace and prevent them from being suffocated like the First Nations

21. Eddie gets hawked by shadowsteppers. I want to be ninja kid finally gets to be trained as a ninja. I mean really it kind of writes itself fell with the complication that eventually he gets trained by Sid who decides to be legit with him.

22. Dibney teaches electronics and basic mechanical engineering to a set of Alchemist and together they end up producing something so awesome that it changes their reputation amongst Skullbania.

23. Patti and Stacy join the hunters, get loot for interests

24. Robert contracts all the were-diseases. Well first he gets bitten by one cursed animal. Then he gets exposed to another curse and then another and eventually he figures out his own Solution by exposing to him all he's eventually able to put in a balanced and gain the ability to shape-shift into them all. That's maintaining his bit with clothes but giving him something more to do with it seeing as he's constantly shape shifting out of them, with, of course, the aside by twinklestick "you could learn to shape-shift with your clothes" and Robert's all like “what would be the freedom in that?"

25. The debut of fangbone’s spirit Beast. Not his Battle Mount the spirit Beast that was hinted at the end of the first episode that ultimately never really showed up. It is led by the sque-claw of Bill who ultimately ends up bonding with it and that's probably the way he ends up getting his magic back because when he got magic his Spirit Beast got some and it held it in trust like a squirrel storing nuts for the winter.

26. Mama Bill starts dating again. Not any of the Canon characters or not any I can think of with fit so it's a new person. And it's a man well male something. I don't know she just doesn't give me that lesbian vibe even with her constantly in a polo shirt and being all Athletics and stuff. No extra complication or twists needed or at the very least this person will be from Earth and pretty much on the level. That is to say he's dating Ms Goodwin so that he can date Ms. Goodwin. Of course he's going to have conflict with Bill because while he's a pretty good boyfriend he's not quite daddy material yet. And Bill isn't exactly starving for parental and similar role models. In addition to the whole oh my God he's dating my mom. We of course get input from fangbone. Kudos if think Bill's mother is so awesome that she's entitled to the affections of many suitors. Her waffles should bring all suitors to your yard. basically more fun scenario and premise to play with

27. Fangbone changes look/gets pants. Starts existential crisis. It ends with  Fang and the other Refugee barbarians letting Fangbone know he can wear wore skirts or pants however he likes.

28. Hammerscab buries parents and gets closure with clan. Really just an excuse in order for us to close that particular Gap as well as explore where she came from and Adventure she's had since then

29. Not a lot of Bechdel passing in my setups am I? I don't want to compensate with a girls night out but maybe something where at the very least as mom of bill becomes more aware of magic and ms. G gets more into axebear pants or the mighty lizard Clans heads we get more interaction between the few but still rather kick ass women that make up the cast. I guess maybe Ms Goodwin could follow Hammer scab on her reconciliation Quest with her clan.

30. Redemption of wargrunt. This shouldn't be too hard she was more opportunistic than necessarily ambitiously mad with power in fact you could view her as a what could have been for Fangbone if he stayed isolated in his drool watch and started to resent those he wanted to protect and surrender to the power of the toe.

31. Fangbone gets into an art contest that's a bit more Regional. I mean really this kind of also writes itself. I mean aside from elaboration the guy has very little discipline with his art so expect a lot of snubbing and him learning how to deal with that and him taking joy in having to create art because he likes to create art. Of course we can throw in the usual Billy Elliot subplot where he wants to impress his clan dad's either his actual father who maybe approves and this fills him with Shame, axebear, ingrid (atypically unable to deal as a forgemaster things must have purpose to be worthy of making, gets over it)

Eventually the various role models of fangbone come together and support him and his display even though he doesn't win the big prize yada yada the real prize is all the friends and approval and love and skill we made along the way. Axebear reveals that he too has a love of art because he carved the great statue of stone back and has been the great tale keeper before he was eventually the clan Elder and fighter.

32. Girls night out. Miss G hooks up with Mama Bill and some of the other ladies who are into this skullbaniasstuff and we get a sense of how the hell they're dealing with their lives being so messed up by it all and yet the real takeaway is that Miss G for all that she complains rides in this environment and would not choose anything else. Highlights are goblin spa. A portal opening to the past where Miss G gets in her spear Warrior outfit and fights off some dinosaurs again. Ingrid set some traps gets pissed off by the makeshift weapons and then make some more. Mama Bill helps Ingrid apply for some sort of technical or vocational school so that that way she can increase her engineering and similar skills. Eager in fact to go back to Skullbania to share what she's learned and create her own Guild to increase the technical ability of Forgemaster's and similar. We meet Dibney's parents also?

33. Dibny finally gets to live the dream he always wanted and get to interact with proper Robotics. This could be a genuine crossover but probably a portal gets opened to a more scifantasy or space opera setting. Nearly gets turned into robot. Comes back instead web commutes to do the job.

34. Selina works with fangbone on art project? Basically she needs a personality and some highlights and the closest thing I can recall that was the sink about her was when she made that paper mache Boulder with fangbone broke his leg and at the very least it's good to have at least one character on the cast that you can expand out the way you want to and also have some guidelines on how to do that.

@bossgamerbest @cartoonemotion @redstreak489 @pirateshenani @pitopishi @alcharlie @rubyreddraws @g-00lden

What are your thoughts in your ideas? Not just on these ideas but once you would do on your own or you were hoping to see? Well so I could use some feedback or encouragement on my adaptation project

[williams7860-blog]

The global professional recruitment industry is valued at $428 billion while the market for self-employed or individual service providers is simply too unorganized and informal to account for 1. Job-hunters are constantly on the prowl to get a job, something substantial so that their livelihood is stable and can be improved.

Unfortunately, the major professional networking and service websites are failing them by not verifying or securely maintaining professional data.

So the dedicated team at TrustLogics is out to provide a one-stop solution.

Flooded with Applications

As a recruiter, you are constantly sorting through random or irrelevant applications provided by job portals or staffing agencies. You are forced to sift through them one by one with the hope of stumbling onto a few great candidates.

On quite a few occasions, you end up settling for sub-par candidates due to a lack of a highly qualified talent pool on a portal, inadequately experienced candidates, or the sheer frustration of being stuck in a long-drawn-out, slog-like search process.

Fake Résumés

Long before our present era of fake news came to be, fake résumés or professional credentials have been negatively affecting the global hiring industry.

To stay one step ahead in the desperate rat race of getting a decent job, job-seekers are going to extraordinary lengths to ‘artificially’ enhance their achievements, skills, certifications, educational qualifications, etc.

Some of the biggest job portals on the Internet rarely do anything to verify or validate the bold claims of most job-seekers.

The major responsibility of ensuring that a candidate is really what she/he claims to be lies with the already frustrated recruiters, who end up turning to iffy third-party background verification services quite frequently.

The Dilemma of Plentiful Choice

If you are a job-seeker or a recruiter, which job-portal do you swear by? Naturally, most tend to stick to the biggest ones. But what if your particular sector or geographical region is better served by a different platform?

Unfortunately, the age of the Internet has given birth to the problem of too much choice. While looking for a job, you are confronted by at least half a dozen massive job portals which operate across the world. The big ones are further supplemented by a pack of others who are all holding their own because of slightly differing features and options.

So which platform do you optimise for?

Most of these platforms are basically walled gardens that don’t allow job-seekers to export or share their profile and reputation to external users.

So one would have to create, optimize, maintain and be active on several different platforms so as to not miss out on that all-elusive, ideal job opportunity.

How long can you possibly keep up with this?

No Trusting the Service Providers

Let us spare a thought for the oft-forgotten self-employed or individual service providers.

They don’t really feel comfortable and look out of place on the major professional platforms.And even the numerous job portals that tend to specialize in individual service listings require investment in terms of ideal ad placement and optimization.

Service requestors tend to eye them suspiciously due to a lack of background verification. In fact, this is one of the biggest reasons why service websites, the middle-men in this sordid affair, exist.

Oh, by the way, did I mention that service websites will set you back 30–40% more than when you contact an individual service provider directly?

The unorganized nature of this marketplace has led to the centralization of power to a few middle-men which results in service providers scraping for any odd job interspersed by long spells of idle time.

The Breaking Point

It is obvious that the status quo in the recruitment industry, for what it’s worth, cannot be allowed to exist any longer.

While the rest of the world is harnessing innovative technology to solve some of the simplest problems, recruiters and job-seekers are still abiding by processes which are outdated, inefficient, and unfair for the many, not the few.

Solution: TrustLogics

This is why I, with the help of a dedicated group of professionals, have decided to offer a better alternative for the recruitment industry in the form of TrustLogics.

TrustLogics is a patent-pending disruptive platform where job-seekers, individual service providers and recruiters can get in touch with each other while maintaining complete control and security over their verified data.

With 50,000 active users and counting, the platform is growing at a rapid pace. Recently, we announced the signing of an MoU with the government of the Republic of Suriname 2. The aim of this agreement is to improve the job hiring and recruiting processes for all the jobseekers and students of Suriname.

This platform will be further developed on a hybrid blockchain foundation (Ethereum and Hyperledger) to ensure complete transparency and security of verified professional data.

Srinivas Dubba

Founder & CEO, TrustLogics

[lindyhunt]

10 Universal Writing Rules from The Onion’s Founding Editor

“If you want to create a great piece of writing, you have to be in total control of the reader’s experience,” said Scott Dikkers, The Onion’s founding editor and longest-serving editor-in-chief.

Dikkers held the position from 1988 to 1999, then from 2005 to 2008, and again from 2011 to 2013. He’s also a screenwriter and a #1 New York Times best selling author with more than twenty books to his name.

During his tenure, The Onion evolved from a local print magazine in Madison, Wisconsin, into a satirical juggernaut. Today, it’s a globally renowned media house with nearly 20 million social followers and over 10 million monthly visitors.

We were speaking over the phone. I was interviewing Scott to better understand his approach to writing, the process he uses to engage and connect with readers.

“The reader is a puppet and the writer is pulling the strings,” said Dikkers.

“The writer’s job is to manipulate the reader’s emotions, to push their buttons — and if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re never going to succeed, whether you’re writing satire or anything else.”

Needless to say, if anybody knows how to write great content — content that readers can’t help but to consume, share, and come back to again and again — it’s Scott Dikkers. He grew The Onion from a seed in the dirt to a brand that commands attention around the world.

This article is about the writing principles that enabled his success.

Scott Dikkers, On Writing

The Onion is a humor publication. Its content is satire. That is, the jokes have something to say about the world, about society, politics, and people with power.

Over the years, Dikkers has punched up and published thousands of articles that have made readers laugh — and think. And like any professional editor, he’s maintained his standards by following a set of guidelines.

In his book, How to Write Funny, Scott details his process, explaining how to create hilarious writing at an elite level. And while some of his techniques are specific to crafting jokes, many are also applicable to any writing discipline.

Dikkers and other talented humorists are playing by the same engagement rules as are copywriters and content marketers.

In other words, the tenants of humor writing are transferable to lead-gen articles and columns, landing pages and emails, web pages, video scripts, and speeches.

Because every writer’s goal is identical: control the reader’s experience.

When you have control, you have leverage to deliver the message in an engaging and compelling way, a way that sells. And whether you’re selling a product or a service, a belief system or a joke, following these writing principles will help you reliably hook, engage, and compel readers.

Ready for a master class? Let’s dive in …

1. Concept is king.

“What’s going to make your content stand out?”

For a long time, The Onion was a physical weekly newspaper distributed for free on the street. So, in the early days — before anyone cared enough about the brand to seek it out — the success of every issue hinged on the strength of its headline.

“I knew we had to grab people’s attention with the concept, the headline,” said Dikkers. “I knew we had to put the joke first so that people were laughing before they even picked up the paper.”

Decades later, the internet has only reinforced this principle.

“We live in an attention economy where there are billions of online articles to read,” said Dikkers. “But when the headline really speaks to you — when it addresses a personal problem or promises to answer a burning question — you’re going to click it. You’re going to read that article.

“Your concept — and I would equate that with your headline or title — is the flag you’re raising, it's the shingle on your door. And if it’s not a good concept or the right concept, then you’re sunk before you’ve even written a word.”

How do you know what the “right” concept is? Start with your target audience:

What pleasures are they seeking?

What pains are they trying to assuage?

2. The key to quality is quantity.

“Basically, 95% of everything we create is garbage.”

When The Onion grew to about six or seven staff writers, each one was expected to bring 20 headlines to a weekly brainstorming meeting.

“We quickly realized that the quality of our ideas increased with the number of ideas people brought in,” said Dikkers. “When you have six high-performing comedy writers coming up with 20 ideas each, you’re gonna walk away with a dozen headlines that are just solid, I mean really funny — and that practice is still in use at The Onion.”

Today’s team examines several hundred headlines every week, picking only a dozen or so for publication. Late-night talk shows follow the same strategy: selecting their best monologue jokes from a place of abundance.

“This is how professionals work,” said Dikkers, “because they understand that most of what they write is dreck.”

3. Omit needless words.

“The shorter the better.”

Superfluous words take up space, slow down the reader, and dilute the message.

“Any time I edit a joke, I look for ways to reduce,” said Dikkers. “Cutting even a single syllable can make the joke punchier, better.

“But this applies to all kinds of writing because when you trim the fat, you get to the core of your message. And sometimes, after you’ve cut everything, you could realize that you weren’t really saying anything at all — and while that realization might be sad, it’s also very valuable.

“Because if you don’t have a message, why are you writing in the first place?”

4. Ruffle some feathers.

“This is how your message will stand the test of time.”

Satire is divided into a couple categories, which are based on two ancient Roman satirists: Juvenal and Horace.

Horatian satire, generally, is not offensive. It’s acceptable to all strata of society because it’s relatively gentle and light-hearted, designed to amuse people and get a laugh. It’s foolish and innocent and superficial, like a court jester.

Juvenalian satire, on the other hand, pushes buttons. It addresses perceived social evils, poking holes in the status quo. It defends the marginalized and speaks truth to power. It’s bitter and dangerous and important, like 1984.

“Thing is, Horatian satire isn’t really remembered because it’s toothless,” said Dikkers. “It might get a lot of laughs today but it’s not going to live in our cultural memory. Only satire that angers or offends people will be remembered.”

What is your content’s message? What’s your goal?

5. Don’t fall in love.

“Kill your darlings.”

If you get so attached to an idea (e.g., a headline; a turn of phrase) that you’re unwilling to 1) hear feedback on it and 2) move onto something new, then you’re “in love.”

This happens a lot, especially to new writers with a small body of work. After all, the less work you have to your name, the more weight each new idea holds.

“When a writer has just one idea, it causes their soul to feel crushed when someone critiques that idea in a way that makes them doubt it,” said Dikkers. “They link that idea with their personality and, in turn, take any feedback as a personal slight against them.”

Avoid falling in love with any one idea. It’s unproductive, a distraction that’ll keep you from giving the audience what they want or need.

Serve your readers, not yourself.

6. Be specific.

“Detail almost always makes writing better.”

Specificity doesn’t necessarily call for verbosity. Instead, it demands clarity: crisp imagery that uses one or more of the five senses to paint a mental picture.

The Catcher in the Rye, for example, is saturated with specificity:

He came over and stood right in my light. “Hey,” I said. “I’ve read this sentence about twenty times since you came in.”

Notice how Salinger gives the reader incredible context — how he illustrates a clear physical and metaphysical image — using only a handful of words.

“Whether you’re writing humor or anything else, the same rule applies: use specific detail,” said Dikkers. “These little pieces of specific detail are critical because they help the author paint a picture that enables the reader to feel an emotion.”

And almost all writers should strive to conjure an emotional response, as it’ll compel people to take action: to laugh, to hit the like button, to take out their credit card and make a purchase.

7. Proofread.

“It’s a mode of conveying professionalism.”

Mistakes, even little ones, set something off in an editor’s brain — and it’s never anything good.

“When it comes to submitting — because many people get jobs in comedy by submitting a packet of jokes or sketches — you might’ve done all the hard work of learning how to write comedy and you’re perfect for the job,” explained Dikkers, “but if you don’t take the time to proofread it for grammar and spelling and syntax, there are plenty of other qualified, hilarious people who will. And they’ll get hired.

“Proofing your work is an easy way to increase your chances of achieving your goal, whether that’s connecting with readers or getting a life-changing job.”

8. Show, don’t tell.

“You’re going to be so much more effective at engaging an audience if you do.”

This concept can tie a knot in your brain because, as a writer, all you do is “tell” the reader things, right? How can you “show” people something by merely using black letters on a white page?

“It’s easy to say, ‘Bob is mean,’” said Dikkers. “That’s telling. You’re telling the reader what the character’s traits are. But if you show the character’s traits, it’s so much more engaging for the reader. So, instead, you’d say, ‘Bob just stabbed a baby through the heart!’”

Using an example, analogy, or any number of literary devices is just a better way to communicate information. It paints an image that conjures a feeling, an emotion — and that’s what readers want.

“If you want to write engaging content,” said Dikkers, “you need to take one step back, hide your message, and instead just show what you think and feel. Let the audience get there on their own.”

9. Make it accessible.

“Your writing needs to be understandable to just about every level of reader.”

If your writing is too dense, too complicated or confusing, most people won’t read it. As a writer, the onus is on you to compel people to read.

“Your work needs to reference things that people can understand without caveats or prerequisites,” said Dikkers. “It should be an easy-on ramp to the superhighway of your writing.”

Authorial intent, or the need to interpret the underlying meaning of an author’s work, has no place in the attention economy. As a 21st century writer, your priority is to ensure the audience understands you — and if they don’t, it’s your job to think, How can I make this more clear?

10. Know your joke and make sure the reader knows your joke.

“Always be in control.”

When you give a speech, you’re supposed to say what you’re going to talk about, then you talk about it, and then, at the end, you tell the audience what you talked about. In other words, be explicit. Make sure your point is unambiguous.

Of course, this principle applies to all writing.

“As a humor writer, you have to know your joke’s subtext,” said Dikkers. “You have to know what funny filters you’re using to elucidate that subtext and how you’re organizing your joke to make sure the audience is laughing at the right thing and time.

“You need to control as much of the experience as possible in order to make it all work.”

This is also true for copywriters and columnist, novelists, screenwriters, and playwrights. In fact, writers in every discipline must understand their topic, their audience, and the purpose behind their work.

Without that information, the puppeteer is pulling strings in the dark.

“Here’s the thing, Eddie,” said Scott.

I turned up the volume on my phone.

“Readers want to know they’re in the hands of a master who is going to manipulate them,” he said, “the way Spielberg does in his movies. He takes you on a ride, through the highs and lows. “Audiences love that. Readers love that. They want to be taken for that ride.”

Want more world-class writing advice from Scott Dikkers? Click HERE to preview his book, How to Write Funny, one of the best writing manuals I’ve ever read.

[nicholemhearn]

NATIONALISM AND XENOPHOBIA, REDUX

Morgan Marietta’s and Will Wilkinson’s replies to my essay on nationalism could hardly be more different. The differences bear not only on how we account for Donald Trump’s surprising political success, but on the purposes and procedures of social science.

Like my essay, Marietta’s extends the principle of interpretive charity to Trump supporters. In my view, interpretive charity should be the first principle of social science. If anything, however, I think that Marietta takes interpretive charity a bit too far by endorsing nationalist sentiments as morally legitimate. It’s true that if we use interpretive charity to try to understand ideas with which we disagree, we might become proponents of those ideas. Indeed, one of the advantages of interpretive charity is that it can change our minds. Conversely, if a scholar of nationalism, for example, fails to agree with the ideas of nationalists, it seems at least possible that this is because he has failed to understand those ideas. If I really comprehended why you believe X, I would have to understand all the considerations that led you to believe X, and I’d have to understand them in the same way you do. But, having achieved this mind meld, shouldn’t I, too, believe X?

Not necessarily. I may know of counter-arguments against X that you don’t know about, and these may lead me to disagree with X even when I completely understand your reasons for agreeing with it.

I think this is the case with nationalist beliefs. One can be fully charitable toward these beliefs even while noticing that they tend to be inculcated very early, among children, through symbols (such as the national flag) and biased information samples (such as the media’s massive overweighting of attention to the citizens of one’s own cfdountry rather than people who live elsewhere). By the time someone is capable of thinking critically about her own nationalist assumptions, she may find it hard even to identify them—and unnecessary, too, since everyone around her will tend to take the same assumptions for granted.

Thus, while I argued, in the spirit of interpretive charity, that nationalism is distinct from xenophobia, I also maintained, and continue to maintain, that nationalism is morally indefensible: most nationalists have simply failed to think about the arbitrariness of the group loyalties that were pre-rationally constructed for them long ago. 

Interpretive charity is not Wilkinson’s project. He argues that a significant proportion of Trump supporters are xenophobes beholden to an irrational hostility to foreigners. I’m suspicious of such explanations because they tend to demonize “the other”—in Wilkinson’s case, Trump supporters—which is exactly what Wilkinson accuses Trump supporters of doing (when it comes to foreigners).

Demonization amounts to a confession that one has failed to understand the other on his or her own terms. This usually means that social science has failed. Not always, though. It’s possible, in a given case, that people’s behavior or their ideas are so irrational that they can be explained only by appealing to influences of which they are unaware, and which they would deny if they were asked about them. In such cases, we may need “deep” psychological theories to explain “the other.” Like the authoritarian-personality theory of Trump’s support, which I discussed in my last post, the xenophobia theory posits a subterranean psychological force that has erupted in the form of Trumpism.

This isn’t inherently unbelievable, but the evidence for it is weak; and there is strong evidence against it. My essay advanced nationalism as an alternative to xenophobia in partial explanation of Trump’s support. Nationalism fits the available evidence better, and it’s interpretively charitable. A good test of interpretive charity is whether those whose actions or beliefs you’re trying to explain could accept your explanation. It’s doubtful that many Trump supporters would accept Wilkinson’s explanation of their actions and beliefs, but they would probably accept the nationalism explanation. For this explanation suggests that support for Trump is consistent with the “commonsensical” nationalist presuppositions of everyday politics. The xenophobia theory, in contrast, is not only interpretively uncharitable and weak in evidentiary terms, but it conveniently locates Trumpism far away from the “liberal” traditions of everyday politics—where it can safely be vilified without threatening the status quo./span>

Trump as Deep Nationalist

Marietta’s essay begins by underscoring the fact that Trump constantly and unreflectively appeals to the interests of “America” as the supreme good. Marietta is willing to call the basis of these appeals an ideology: “deep nationalism.” By this, Marietta means that Trump’s nationalism is the prism through which he seems to view nearly every policy issue—at least those issues in which he takes an interest.

The four most important of these are immigration, U.S. relationships with foreign allies, military policy, and international trade. All one need do is listen to what Trump says, as Marietta has done, to discover a connective ideological thread among these issues: nationalism. At the same time, Trump’s “deep nationalism” explains his lack of interest in a host of policy issues that preoccupy conservative and liberal ideologues, such as Obamacare, the minimum wage, regulatory policy, global warming, income inequality, tax rates, etc., ad infinitum. These latter issues do not easily lend themselves to “America-first” analyses, and thus are not clarified by the deep nationalist lens through which Trump (and, both Marietta and I suggest, many of his supporters) view politics.

I think Marietta is making an excellent point. Nationalism does seem to function for Trump in an ideological manner, at least in the sense in which political scientists tend to use this term: as a master heuristic that orients the ideologue politically, organizing most or all of her political ideas. However, at the risk of quibbling, I think Marietta dilutes the power of this analysis of Trumpian nationalism by describing it not only as an ideology, but also as a branch of conservatism, as a symbol, as an identity, and as a value. Let me say a few things about each.

Trump and Conservatism

Marietta’s conception of conservatism strikes me as too schematic. I know many conservatives who do not see society as fundamentally fragile and in need of social glue, and many who do not care about anything like “ordered liberty” or a golden mean between freedom and authority. Marietta’s description fits certain conservatives, such as Straussians, but they are a tiny band of intellectuals without any discernible popular influence. At the mass level, standard journalistic depictions of three main groups of conservatives—Tea Partiers (small government/constitutional conservatives), cultural conservatives, and foreign-policy conservatives—do not seem to be in need of updating, at least not yet.

What Trump’s surprising popularity does show, I think, is that nationalism unites many conservatives of all three types—along with many non-conservatives, too. The transcendent appeal of nationalism makes considerable intuitive sense, as nationalism is more elemental than the ideologies that attract well-educated and politically literate adherents. It’s so basic that small children can understand it. Indeed, no matter how little you know about politics, it is likely that you were indoctrinated with nationalism when you were a small child. Trump, indoctrinated in the same way, and having learned little else about government, policy, or history in the meantime, is the ideal exponent of the most simplistic possible political ideology: that of “America first.”

This ideology offers its adherents a key to understanding the otherwise-confusing world of politics, even if they lack much interest in or knowledge of it. The key is to ask oneself whether a politician intends to put the interests of “Americans” before those of “foreigners.” The question of whether the mere intent to help Americans will accomplish the objective (let alone the question of whether Americans deserve priority over non-Americans) goes unasked. This immensely simplifies what would otherwise be a complex world of public policy: the world of policy debate. In policy debate, what is at issue is usually whether a given proposal that sounds as if it will serve the interests of Americans (for example) will actually do so. The answer is rarely as straightforward as deep nationalists believe. But this is part of the appeal of deep nationalism, which has little to do, as far as I can tell, with conservatism.

Nationalism and Symbolism

Part of the way nationalism gets inculcated is through the apotheosis of symbols such as the American flag. These symbols acquire emotional resonance, and this emotional resonance may help to explain why people turn “naturally” to their nationality when they think about politics (especially insofar as they know relatively little about it). So a full analysis of the cognitive role of nationalism might very well need to explore the emotional power of nationalist symbols. Such an investigation would have to go beyond both hyper-rationalist (rational-choice- inspired) theories of political heuristics and the irrationalist, psychological understandings of politics that I’ve been trying to challenge in my ongoing series of essays, where I have pushed back against accounts of Trump voters as xenophobes and authoritarians.

For this very reason, however, it is important to spell out carefully how the emotional or a-rational appeal of nationalism is connected to its cognitive function. Until we succeed in doing that, I worry about the confusion that might be created if we use the language of “symbolism” to describe nationalism, since this language currently connotes the groundlessly emotional. My position is that nationalism is illogical, but that the lapse in logic is not apparent to people who have been indoctrinated with nationalist presuppositions. It would be unfair—uncharitable—to say that they are irrationally clinging to nationalism, in the sense that they somehow know it is wrong. But to say that nationalism is symbolic may suggest something similar: that nationalism is merely an empty screen onto which people project their irrational desires. I don’t think Marietta is saying that, but it’s a connotation of calling nationalism “symbolic” that I think it’s best to avoid.

Nationalism and Identity

The same worry colors my reaction to using the language of “identity” to describe nationalism. There’s no denying that nationality is probably the central “identity” of most people in the modern world—at least in the bare sense that, if asked “who they are,” they are likely to answer “an American,” “a Mexican,” etc. Yet, without doubting the existence of national identities (in people’s heads), I wonder how important “identities” are to people who have not been influenced by academic discussion, where identity politics has been extremely important for several decades.

National identity can be very important in helping people to organize their thoughts about politics. Yet thinking about politics isn’t all that important to most people. So we may mischaracterize the situation if we project onto such people an obsession with their national identity. Similarly, identity itself may not be important to most people. Non-intellectuals’ answer to the question of “who I am”—namely, that I am the person behind my eyeballs—may feel so unproblematic that the very question of identity is a non-issue for them. The language of “identity” may inappropriately import the preoccupations of academics into our understanding of mass politics.

Nationalism and Values

Unquestionably the ideology of nationalism takes certain values for granted, but I don’t see the sense in calling nationalism a value, as Marietta does. Nationalism—the ideology—is not itself valued by nationalists (except perhaps by those who derive so much meaning and purpose from it that they love it for its own sake—members of the alt-right, for example). Nor, at least in the American context, does it seem right to say that “the nation” is valued, as such, by nationalists. There is no tradition of extolling “the American nation” as if it were an end in itself. But that’s what I take a value to be: an end in itself.

Nationalism and Egalitarianism

Even more important than Liah Greenfeld’s distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism, cited by Marietta, may be her observation, in Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, that nationalism is inherently egalitarian—within the borders of a given nation-state. Thus, the end in itself that is presupposed by nationalism is the equal worth of the lives of one’s conationals. In this view, rather than being a value, nationalism is premised on a value: the equal worth of one’s fellow citizens. (The causality may run from the establishment of a nation-state to the presumption of equality among its citizens, but this is probably because the idea of nationality implicitly contains the presumption of equality.)

Since I share Greenfeld’s view, I resist Marietta’s suggestion that nationalism embodies a value that competes with egalitarianism. It seems to me that nationalism is a form of egalitarianism; and that it is, in fact, the form that egalitarianism almost always takes in the modern world.

However, nationalist egalitarianism is self-contradictory in limiting itself to equality among the human beings who happen to live within historically arbitrary national borders, while treating the lives of those outside those borders as if they have no worth. This is what makes nationalism illogical. Its tacit definition of who should be treated equally is arbitrary.

Wilkinson’s reply illustrates the illogic. So let me analyze his response before turning, in conclusion, to Marietta’s qualms about the psychological practicability of cosmopolitanism.

The Nationalist Scapegoat: Xenophobia

Wilkinson is an egalitarian and extols the egalitarianism that nationalism makes possible within the borders of a nation-state. Yet, according to nationalism, equality stops at those (arbitrary) borders. Viewed from outside of those borders, nationalism is inescapably inegalitarian.

Wilkinson is aware of this problem but does not really address it. Instead, he presses hard on the distinction between nationalism and xenophobia, with xenophobia taking the rap for inegalitarianism. But even if xenophobia did not exist, nationalism would remain inegalitarian from the perspective of those outside a given nation-state’s borders.

This isn’t just a philosophical issue. Non-xenophobic nationalism can easily justify the immigration restrictions that Wilkinson opposes, as well as the trade restrictions and the foreign-policy isolationism that Trump advocates (or used to advocate, before being enlightened about its adverse consequences by his generals). Such policies can be seen—indeed, are seen, every day, in the normal state of our political discourse—as serving the interests of our fellow citizens, not as punitive exercises directed at despised outsiders. This is the political discourse that I am trying to get us to examine critically. Insisting that Trump is set apart from this discourse, because instead of nationalism he appeals to xenophobia, inadvertently blocks an examination of the discourse itself. It entrenches the complacency with which nationalism—“good,” non-xenophobic nationalism—is typically viewed, because it contrasts this type of nationalism against its evil, xenophobic twin. Yet both types of nationalism can produce the same policies—the very ones Wilkinson opposes.

How Non-Xenophobic Nationalism Works

A nice example of how this works is suggested by Wilkinson’s odd paean to the GDP growth that could be unleashed by open borders. It almost reads as if Wilkinson thinks that open borders are justified by the contribution of migrant laborers to the stock of global wealth. (There’s gold in them thar migrants—trillions and trillions of dollars of it!) But what if migrants contributed little to GDP? What if they reduced it? By Rawlsian standards at least, their contribution to or subtraction from GDP does not matter. What matters is that migrants, frequently among the least advantaged people in the world, would be helped by open borders. I think Wilkinson means to say this, because he asserts that most of the GDP gains would go to the poor. It is that fact that matters, not the sheer fact that “trillion-dollar bills” are allegedly being left on the proverbial sidewalk by closed borders.

Why, then, do developed countries close their borders? Wilkinson points out that closed borders are “constantly re-affirmed” by the democratic polities of the West. But what exactly is the political dynamic of “liberal-democratic institutions” that accounts for this?

The answer, I believe, is nationalism, which is taken for granted in the politics of Western countries (and all other countries). From a nationalist perspective, the welfare of one’s conationals is what matters; the welfare of “foreigners” does not. To sustain the high wages of one’s conationals, then, closed borders, tariffs on manufactured goods, and trade wars are often thought to be justified—not because nationalists want to hurt workers or would-be workers in other c from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/nationalism-ethnocentrism-redux/

[hudsonespie]

Distributed Shipbuilding for an Unmanned Fleet

[By Collin Fox]

Increasingly powerful strategic competitors and a flat defense budget call to mind this pithy quote, often misattributed to Winston Churchill: “Gentlemen, we have run out of money; now we have to think.” The United States Navy’s historical annual shipbuilding budget can either maintain the fleet size at status quo or build a hollow force with more ships. Wargames suggest that either such fleet, as part of the joint force, would not prevail in a conflict with China. This troubling consensus has spurred the Navy to develop Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) and to overhaul the fleet in order to implement the new operational concept.

Budget justifications portray Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicles (MUSV) as both “attritable assets if used in a peer or near-peer conflict” and “key enablers of the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations concept.” American industry must build these and other key enablers even faster than the enemy can attrite them, but where? To overcome the limited capacity of American shipyards in pursuit of this requirement, Congress should develop a distributed shipbuilding industrial base through a variety of structured incentives.

Seeing First, Shooting First: the Quality of Quantity

Skeptics of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans may wonder how a small, attritable, unmanned, and presently unarmed vessel has become a “key enabler” in the Navy’s foremost warfighting concept. MUSVs will initially support “Battlespace Awareness through Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Electronic Warfare (EW).” Scouts have always been the eyes of the fleet, enabling the commander to see the battlespace better than the enemy, win the critical ISR fight, and then fire effectively first. In the age of hypersonic anti-ship weapons, taking that first accurate shot is more important than ever. DMO relies on having many sensor nodes that are widely distributed in order to see first and shoot first, but the enemy will attrite many of these scout-sensors as they navigate the maritime battlespace. The fleet will need an abundance of these scouts to begin with, and will need to acquire more at the rapid pace of attrition through a prolonged conflict.

This raises the industrial base problem, or as it were, the opportunity: How many vessels can be built, how quickly, and where?

Industrial Capacity, Lost and Gained

Eleven American shipyards cranked out 175 Fletcher-class destroyers during the Second World War – over 400,000 tons of just one class of combatants – even as the arsenal of democracy produced incredible quantities of auxiliaries, vehicles, aircraft, weapons, munitions, and many other warships. Most of those shipyards have long since closed; those that remain have little spare capacity. After COVID-19’s fiscal devastation plays out, the paltry seven ships authorized in FY21 may represent the underwhelming high water mark of the “terrible twenties.”

China has the maritime industrial base to surge into dominant overproduction. The United States clearly does not, and even struggles to coordinate routine peacetime maintenance between sea services. This industrial asymmetry could spell disaster: The U.S. Navy could not repair battle damage, conduct maintenance, replace lost ships, and grow the fleet during a prolonged war with China. The industrial base just isn’t there, and shipyards take far longer to build than ships.

The existing shipbuilding base must be strengthened to maintain the legacy force structure and continue to produce substantial warships, from aircraft carriers down to the corvette-sized large unmanned surface vessel (LUSV). The shipbuilding expansion for smaller vessels such as the medium unmanned surface vessel (MUSV) must not compete for the already limited industrial capacity. The Congressional Research Service concurs, noting that such unmanned vessels “can be built and maintained by facilities other than the shipyards that currently build the Navy’s major combatant ships.” But if not existing shipyards, then where? This seeming challenge offers a unique opportunity to both grow the shipbuilding defense industrial base and broaden the sea power political base through distributed manufacturing.

The factors that have traditionally concentrated production within a shipyard have shifted over the past few decades: Computer aided design (CAD) allows engineering teams to span continents and work around the clock on the same project. Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) machines create parts that fit together as precisely as they appeared on the monitor, even if the parts came from facilities thousands of miles apart. Supply chain engineering then brings these disparate parts into a faster and potentially more robust assembly process.

However, the feasibility and economy of transporting large and heavy objects has changed little. Size matters: just because a given component or subassembly can be produced down the road or across the country does not mean that it should be. Until recently, the vessels that mattered in naval warfare – or even their major subassemblies – were just too big and heavy for overland transport. Vessels that could be transported overland lacked the range and payload to count for much in combat. The convergent effects of miniaturization, automation, and fuel efficiency have changed that calculus, as exemplified by the Sea Hunter’s increasingly capable autonomy and 10,000 nautical mile range. The Sea Hunter and future MUSV classes will indeed contribute to the fleet in meaningful ways, yet at 45 to 190 feet long, they can also be transported (in whole or in part) from places that only Noah would recognize as a shipyard. 

The Navy should develop and incentivize a more robust and distributed shipbuilding industrial base by expanding far beyond traditional shipyards and deliberately incorporating non-traditional suppliers. Not only would such an expansion increase competition and manufacturing capacity, but it would also allow ship production to quickly accelerate in crisis or war. Thanks to digital manufacturing, such a shift in production could happen overnight, unlike the laborious retooling and retraining process that civilian factories undertook to produce war materiel in the previous century.

Many different American manufacturing facilities with advanced industrial tools, such as large CNC routers, CNC welding machines, and 3D printers, could produce the bulk of each attritable vessel. Such facilities could even produce complete knockdown kits for metal-hulled MUSVs, or partial kits for the innards of composite-hulled vessels. The hulls of the latter, like Sea Hunter and Sea Hunter II, could be produced by any maritime, automotive, or aerospace company with the space to store a large mold and the competence to pop out the composite hull forms on demand. Facilities with appropriate workforce and machinery would assemble these widely sourced components into major subassemblies for larger MUSVs, ready for final assembly in the shipyard. These facilities would likewise assemble vessels on the smaller end of the MUSV range, up to about 70 feet and 40 tons, for direct transport to a launch site and subsequent deployment.

All of this would require a large number of small- and medium-sized manufacturers to participate in a responsive and agile defense logistics supply chain. Few would use such words to describe the defense logistics supply chain today; improving it will take foresight, investment, naval initiative, and congressional action.

A Vincent-Trammel Act for the 21st Century

Industry has long lamented how hard it is to work with the Department of Defense. Many small companies vote with their feet after a few failed attempts, forgoing the DoD’s labyrinthine processes, extensive contracting requirements, and uncertain – if sometimes substantial – cash flows. A dwindling number of prime contractors act as a lucrative boundary layer between the byzantine defense acquisition requirements and the subcontractors, who find their niche exotic technology far easier to understand than defense contracting. Building a broader shipbuilding industrial base will require creative incentives and even fiduciary seduction to break through this status quo.

Inspired by the Department of Transportation’s very modest Small Shipyard Grants program, the proposed Distributed Manufacturing for Seapower Grants program would offer partial grants, competitively bid, to small companies for the purchase of advanced manufacturing machinery. However, this industrial equipment subsidy would also come with a contractual catch to integrate the manufacturer into the defense supply chain, or even – if required – compel production on the subsidized equipment. Some portion of the equipment subsidy would be recouped through an initially reduced contractual profit margin, reflecting the government’s capital financing investment, after which a higher profit margin would apply.

As with any contract, the incentives would be critical for success. This scheme would incentivize small manufacturers to join the defense industrial base with an initial contract and the means to perform it, while also establishing the relationship and familiarity to the larger process that can produce many items beyond the parts and pieces of modest vessels such as the MUSV.

The challenges of defense logistics are less about producing a part and more about the rest of the supply chain. Punching out a widget is just the beginning.

Creating Responsive Supply Chains

The Navy can help start improving the industrial base now by drafting modest vessel designs that incorporate manufacturing speed and ease of production as key performance parameters, and then contract a few of each model as a means to mature the design. The program office would also establish supply chain management targets and constraints for production optimization, such as required vessel deployment location, shipping costs, required installation date, manufacturing base health, item cost, and net time to build.

After receiving congressional budget appropriation for producing a given vessel, the program office would send requisitions for specified parts, subassembly production, and final vessel assembly to an automated clearinghouse, where these jobs would be offered to the capable manufacturers. Those manufacturers would bid on each job. If no one bids for a given job, the program office could compel manufacturing but pay a higher profit margin for the option. The winning bid may not be the lowest nominal bid because it should be the lowest total cost to government, to include considerations of production speed and shipping costs. All of these considerations would be continually integrated into the optimization model through machine learning.

Inspired by the Military Sealift Command’s turbo activation drills, the program office would hold component production drills and then stockpile the resultant knock-down kits near shipyards within vessel self-deployment range of likely trouble spots. The systems and internal components of a composite-hulled vessel – the engines, steering gear, sensors, electronics, etc. – would be assembled into compact kits, ready for the hulls to come out of molds and join them at the assembly site. Turbo activation for final vessel assembly from these pre-assembled kits would demonstrate the ability to churn out vessels at an incredible pace, and also help further refine the production process. In wartime, this process would be exercised in earnest to meet the furious pace of naval attrition.

With a demonstrated competence in rapidly producing, assembling, and deploying these vessels, the Navy could forego the anticipatory construction of a large fleet of wasting assets, which eat up operations and maintenance funds as they slowly degrade pierside.

Policy Engineering and Distributed Political Operations

Shipbuilding has an understandable association with maritime states, which can limit its political appeal for certain landlocked constituencies. Although the proposed expansion in the defense shipbuilding industrial base has a strategic logic founded in resiliency, competition, and flexibility, the investments and skilled jobs accompanying this expansion far beyond the usual maritime districts would also broaden the congressional shipbuilding caucus. Witness how the F-35 program spread economic benefits throughout 45 of the 50 states, gathering predictably broad congressional support. The LCS program did one better, in defiance of all programmatic logic, by never even down-selecting to a single seaframe. The LCS program’s budgetary-political logic, on the other hand, was airtight: All else being equal, an industrial base that is widely distributed will receive better budgetary consideration, particularly if it has concentrations in certain key districts.

With a growing bipartisan consensus that the nation needs a larger Navy to meet growing global security challenges, the time to act is now.

Lieutenant Commander Collin Fox, U.S. Navy, is a foreign area officer who recently served as the Navy and Air Force Section Chief at the Office of Defense Cooperation, U.S. Embassy, Panama. He earned a master of systems analysis degree from the Naval Postgraduate School and a master of naval and maritime science degree from the Chilean Naval War College. He has also published with the U.S. Naval Institute and War on the Rocks.

from Storage Containers https://maritime-executive.com/article/distributed-shipbuilding-for-an-unmanned-fleet via http://www.rssmix.com/

[nicholemhearn]

NATIONALISM AND ETHNOCENTRISM, REDUX

Morgan Marietta’s and Will Wilkinson’s replies to my essay on nationalism could hardly be more different. The differences bear not only on how we account for Donald Trump’s surprising political success, but on the purposes and procedures of social science.

Like my essay, Marietta’s extends the principle of interpretive charity to Trump supporters. In my view, interpretive charity should be the first principle of social science. If anything, however, I think that Marietta takes interpretive charity a bit too far by endorsing nationalist sentiments as morally legitimate. It’s true that if we use interpretive charity to try to understand ideas with which we disagree, we might become proponents of those ideas. Indeed, one of the advantages of interpretive charity is that it can change our minds. Conversely, if a scholar of nationalism, for example, fails to agree with the ideas of nationalists, it seems at least possible that this is because he has failed to understand those ideas. If I really comprehended why you believe X, I would have had to assemble all the considerations that led you to believe X. But, having assembled those considerations, shouldn’t I, too, believe X?

Not necessarily. I may know of counter-arguments against X that you don’t know about, and these may lead me to disagree with X even when I completely understand your reasons for agreeing with it.

I think this is the case with nationalist beliefs. One can be fully charitable toward these beliefs even while noticing that they tend to be inculcated very early, among children, through symbols (such as the national flag) and biased information samples (such as the media’s massive overweighting of attention to the citizens of one’s own country rather than people who live elsewhere). By the time someone is capable of thinking critically about her own nationalist assumptions, she may find it hard even to identify them—and unnecessary, too, since everyone around her will tend to take the same assumptions for granted.

Thus, while I argued, in the spirit of interpretive charity, that nationalism is distinct from xenophobia, I also maintained, and continue to maintain, that nationalism is morally indefensible: most nationalists have simply failed to think about the arbitrariness of the group loyalties that were pre-rationally constructed for them long ago.

Interpretive charity is not Wilkinson’s project. He argues that a significant proportion of Trump supporters are xenophobes beholden to an irrational hostility to foreigners. I am suspicious of such explanations because they tend to demonize “the other”—in Wilkinson’s case, Trump supporters—which is exactly what Wilkinson accuses Trump supporters of doing (when it comes to foreigners). Demonization amounts to a confession that one has failed to understand the other on his or her own terms. This usually means that social science has run aground. Not always, though. It’s possible, in a given case, that people’s behavior or their ideas are so irrational that they can be explained only by appealing to influences of which they are unaware and which they would deny if they were asked about them. In such cases, we may need “deep” psychological theories to explain “the other.” Like the authoritarian-personality theory of Trump’s support, which I discussed in my last post, the xenophobia theory posits a subterranean force that has erupted in the form of Trumpism. This isn’t inherently unbelievable, but the evidence for it is weak; there is powerful evidence against it; and there is an interpretively charitable alternative, nationalism (as opposed to xenophobia), for which the evidence is compelling. The nationalism theory can explain Trumpism in terms that its own adherents would probably accept as accurate. Another advantage of this theory is that it shows how Trump’s support is congruent with the nationalist presuppositions of everyday politics. The xenophobia theory is not only weak in evidentiary terms, but it allows us to conveniently locate Trumpism far away from “liberal” traditions, where it can be vilified without threatening the status quo.  

Trump as Deep Nationalist

Marietta’s essay begins by underscoring an important and neglected fact: that Trump constantly and unreflectively treats the interests of “America” as the supreme good. Marietta is willing to call the basis of these appeals an ideology: “deep nationalism.” For, in addition to being pre-rational, Trump’s nationalism seems to be the prism through which he views nearly every policy issue—at least those issues in which he takes an interest. The four most important of these are immigration, U.S. relationships with foreign allies, military policy, and international trade. All one need do is listen to what Trump says, as Marietta has done, to discover a connective ideological thread among these issues: nationalism. At the same time, Trump’s deep nationalism explains his lack of interest in a host of policy issues that preoccupy conservative and liberal ideologues, such as Obamacare, the minimum wage, regulatory policy, global warming, income inequality, tax rates, etc., ad infinitum. These latter issues do not easily lend themselves to “America-first” analyses, and thus are not clarified by the nationalist lens through which Trump (and, both Marietta and I suggest, many of his supporters) view politics.

Marietta makes an excellent point. Nationalism does seem to function for Trump in an ideological manner, at least in the sense in which political scientists tend to use this term: as a master heuristic that orients the ideologue politically and organizes most or all of her political ideas. However, at the risk of quibbling, I think Marietta dilutes the power of this analysis of deep nationalism by describing it not only as an ideology but also as a branch of conservatism, as a symbol, as an identity, and as a value. Let me say a few things about each.

Trump and Conservatism

Marietta’s conception of conservatism strikes me as too schematic. I know many conservatives who do not see society as fundamentally fragile and in need of social glue, and many who do not care about anything like “ordered liberty” or a golden mean between freedom and authority. Marietta’s description fits certain conservatives, such as Straussians, but they are a tiny band of intellectuals without any discernible popular influence. At the mass level, standard journalistic depictions of three main groups of conservatives—Tea Partiers (small government/constitutional conservatives), cultural conservatives, and foreign-policy conservatives—do not seem to be in need of updating, at least not yet.

What Trump’s surprising popularity does show, I think, is that nationalism unites many conservatives of all three types—along with many non-conservatives, too. The transcendent appeal of nationalism makes considerable intuitive sense, as nationalism is more elemental than the ideologies that attract well-educated and politically literate adherents. It’s so basic that small children can understand it. Indeed, no matter how little you know about politics, it is likely that you were indoctrinated with nationalism when you were a small child. Trump, indoctrinated in the same way, and having learned little else about government, policy, or history in the meantime, is thus the ideal exponent of the most simplistic possible political ideology: that of “America first.”

This ideology offers its adherents a key to understanding the otherwise-confusing world of politics even if they lack much interest in or knowledge of it. The key is to ask oneself whether a politician intends to put the interests of “Americans” before those of “foreigners.” The question of whether the mere intent to help Americans will accomplish the objective (let alone the question of whether Americans deserve priority over non-Americans) goes unasked. This immensely simplifies what would otherwise be a complex world of public policy: the world of policy debate. In policy debate, what is at issue is usually whether a given proposal that sounds as if it will serve the interests of Americans (for example) will actually do so. The answer is rarely as straightforward as deep nationalists believe. But this is part of the appeal of deep nationalism, which has little to do, as far as I can tell, with conservatism.

Nationalism and Symbolism

Part of the way nationalism gets inculcated is through the apotheosis of symbols such as the American flag. These symbols certainly acquire emotional resonance, and this emotional resonance may help to explain why people turn “naturally” to their nationality when they think about politics (especially insofar as they know relatively little about it). So a full analysis of the cognitive role of nationalism might very well need to explore the emotional power of nationalist symbols. Such an investigation would have to go beyond both hyper-rationalist (rational-choice- inspired) theories of political heuristics and the irrationalist, psychological understandings of politics that I have been trying to challenge in my ongoing series of essays, where I have pushed back against accounts of Trump voters as xenophobes and authoritarians.

For this very reason, however, it is important to spell out carefully how the emotional or a-rational appeal of nationalism is connected to its cognitive function. Until we succeed in doing that, I worry about the confusion that might be created if we use the language of “symbolism” to describe nationalism, since this language currently connotes the groundlessly emotional. My position is that nationalism is illogical, but that the lapse in logic is not apparent to people who have been indoctrinated with nationalist presuppositions. It would be unfair—uncharitable—to say that they are irrationally clinging to a viewpoint that (in some sense) they know is wrong. But to say that nationalism is symbolic may suggest that it is merely an empty screen onto which people project their irrational desires. I don’t think Marietta is saying that, but it’s a connotation of calling nationalism “symbolic” that I think it’s best to avoid.

Nationalism and Identity

The same worry colors my reaction to using the language of “identity” to describe nationalism. There’s no denying that nationality is probably the central “identity” of most people in the modern world—at least in the bare sense that, if asked “who they are,” they are likely to answer “an American,” “a Mexican,” etc. Yet, without doubting the existence of national identities (in people’s heads), I wonder how important “identities” are to people who have not been influenced by academic discussion, where identity politics has been extremely important for several decades.

National identity can be very important in helping people to organize their thoughts about politics. Yet thinking about politics isn’t all that important to most people. So we may mischaracterize the situation if we project onto such people an obsession with their national identity. Similarly, identity itself may not be important to most people. Non-intellectuals’ answer to the question of “who I am”—namely, that I am the person behind my eyeballs—may feel so unproblematic that the very question of identity is a non-issue for them. The language of “identity” may inappropriately import the preoccupations of academics into our understanding of mass politics.

Nationalism and Values

Unquestionably the ideology of nationalism takes certain values for granted, but I don’t see the sense in calling nationalism a value, as Marietta does. Nationalism—the ideology—is not itself valued by nationalists (except perhaps by those who derive so much meaning and purpose from it that they love it for its own sake—members of the alt-right, for example). Nor, at least in the American context, does it seem right to say that “the nation” is valued, as such, by nationalists. There is no tradition of extolling “the American nation” as if it were an end in itself. But that’s what I take a value to be: an end in itself.

Nationalism and Egalitarianism

Even more important than Liah Greenfeld’s distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism, cited by Marietta, may be her observation, in Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, that nationalism is inherently egalitarian—within the borders of a given nation-state. Thus, the end in itself that is presupposed by nationalism is the equal worth of the lives of one’s conationals. In this view, rather than being a value, nationalism is premised on a value: the equal worth of one’s fellow citizens. (The causality may run from the establishment of a nation-state to the presumption of equality among its citizens, but this is probably because the idea of nationality implicitly contains the presumption of equality.)

Since I share Greenfeld’s view, I resist Marietta’s suggestion that nationalism embodies a value that competes with egalitarianism. It seems to me that nationalism is a form of egalitarianism; and that it is, in fact, the form that egalitarianism almost always takes in the modern world.

However, nationalist egalitarianism is self-contradictory in limiting itself to equality among the human beings who happen to live within historically arbitrary national borders, while treating the lives of those outside those borders as if they have no worth. This is what makes nationalism illogical. Its tacit definition of who should be treated equally is arbitrary.

Wilkinson’s reply illustrates the illogic. So let me analyze his response before turning, at the end, to Marietta’s qualms about the psychological practicability of cosmopolitanism.

The Nationalist Scapegoat, Xenophobia

Wilkinson is an egalitarian and extols the egalitarianism that nationalism makes possible within the borders of a nation-state. Yet, according to nationalism, equality stops at those (arbitrary) borders. Viewed from outside of those borders, nationalism is inescapably inegalitarian.

Wilkinson is aware of this problem but does not really address it. Instead, he presses hard on the distinction between nationalism and xenophobia, with xenophobia taking the rap for inegalitarianism. But even if xenophobia did not exist, nationalism would remain inegalitarian from the perspective of those outside a given nation-state’s borders.

Thus, non-xenophobic nationalism can easily justify the immigration restrictions that Wilkinson opposes, as well as the trade restrictions and the foreign-policy isolationism that Trump advocates (or used to advocate, before being enlightened about its adverse consequences by his generals). Such policies can be seen—indeed, are seen, every day, in the normal state of our political discourse—as serving the interests of one’s fellow citizens, not as punitive exercises directed at despised outsiders. This is the political discourse that I am trying to get us to examine more critically. Insisting that Trump is set apart from this discourse, because instead of nationalism he appeals to xenophobia, inadvertently blocks an examination of the discourse itself. It entrenches the complacency with which nationalism—“good,” non-xenophobic nationalism—is typically viewed by contrasting it against evil, xenophobic nationalism. However, both types of nationalism can produce the same policies—the very ones Wilkinson opposes.

How Non-Xenophobic Nationalism Works

A nice example of the inegalitarian logic of non-xenophobic nationalism is contained in Wilkinson’s odd paean to the GDP growth that could be unleashed by open borders. It almost reads as if Wilkinson thinks that open borders are justified by the contribution of migrant laborers to the stock of global wealth. (There’s gold in them thar migrants—trillions and trillions of dollars of it!) But what if migrants contributed little to GDP? What if they reduced it? By Rawlsian standards at least, their contribution to GDP does not matter. What matters is that migrants, frequently among the least advantaged people in the world, would be helped by open borders. I think Wilkinson means to say that, because he asserts that most of the GDP gains would go to the poor. It is that fact, not than the “trillion-dollar bills” left on the sidewalk by closed borders, that matters.

Why, then, do developed countries block the world’s least advantaged from migration?

Wilkinson points out that closed borders are “constantly re-affirmed” by the democratic polities of the West. But what exactly are “the political dynamics of the liberal-democratic institutions” that account for this?

The answer, I believe, is nationalism, which is taken for granted in the politics of Western countries (and all other countries). From a nationalist perspective, the welfare of one’s conationals is what matters; the welfare of “foreigners” does not. To sustain the high wages of one’s conationals, then, closed borders, tariffs on manufactured goods, and trade wars are justified—not because nationalists want to hurt workers or would-be workers in other countries, but because they want to help their fellow citizens at home.

Foreign workers, as such, are invisible in the political discourse of the nationalist status quo. The policies to which Wilkinson objects are of long standing; Trump did not implement them. These policies display a callous indifference to foreigners (nationalism) but not hostility toward them (xenophobia). The fact that closed borders hurt potential immigrants is never praised, as it surely would be if substantial numbers of voters supported closed borders out of xenophobia. The fact that closed borders hurt “foreigners” simply goes unnoticed—just as we would expect if from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/nationalism-ethnocentrism-redux/