#Show this to your English class if you want to horrify them with the depravity of human nature lololo

[fukia]

What have I done

Slight redesigns for my take on an aged up modern Simon. He’s also the type of guy your dad will tell you is bad news because of the way he appears despite being an absolute angel otherwise.

[douxreviews]

Parade's End - Series Review

"What I stand for is gone."

"But to live for. You have something to live for."

Without question, "Parade's End" is the best television miniseries I have seen in recent years. This five-part installment from 2012 is something as rare as a classic love triangle both expertly crafted and superbly acted, with a sentimental and optimistic ending which feels both earned and logical, while simultaneously addressing political questions, moral values and social class dimensions in such a way that it does not come off as shoehorned but rather as a vital element of the story.

The show is based on a series of World War I-era novels written by Ford Madox Ford. This review does not go into detail on all the storylines but nevertheless it does contain spoilers for the entire series.

The reason I came across this gem was me looking through the filmography of Adelaide Clemens. I was very impressed with her role as Tawney Talbot on the television show Rectify and I wanted to see more of her. Okay, so maybe I just thought she's one of the prettiest girls I've seen on screen over the last decade. Sue me. Anyway I wasn't disappointed.

The two other main characters of the drama are played by Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, The Hollow Crown) and Rebecca Hall (The Prestige, Transcendence). We all know they're talented performers and every single one of the cast brought their A-game to this series.

This is a very beautiful show, a wonderfully filmed BBC costume drama at its finest. One nice touch is how it often establishes the time frame for a given scene with people reading period newspapers, such as the famous article of Kerensky vowing to continue the war against Germany. The dialog sometimes comes across as a bit stilted, but I believe it's more of a conscious choice than anything, lending a certain formal way to how the characters speak, and it's often supremely clever, packed with the trademark English dry humor. It wasn't exactly hard to find stunning screenshots for it.

The protagonist of the show is Christopher Tietjens, who is probably the most perplexing character of the series. The two ladies competing for his affection - in their own and vastly dissimilar ways - are his wife Sylvia and the young, idealistic and well-educated suffragette girl Valentine Wannop, who is quite a bit below them on the social ladder.

Christopher is an anachronism, and this is that which drives the entire plot of the story. It defines his problems, drives the action and points to the solution of the piece. He represents the old values of the bourgeoisie. It would then be easy to dismiss him as a mere reactionary but this absolutely misses the point. Christopher embodies an idealized version of the morals of the bourgeoisie during and after the French revolution, the values of the class at a time where it was still a revolutionary force. He's actually speaking out in favor of the women's vote at a tea party even before he meets Valentine.

As she notes, Christopher is living in a "glass cabinet" - he is championing a class, a system of values and a society which no longer exists, and perhaps never truly did, more resembling the role of the perfect feudal lord. He is a devotedly ascetic, old-school moral man believing in leading by example and protecting the rights of those under his charge. More than this, he is invested in what he refers to as the "parade" - the sanctity of marriage and keeping up appearances so as to not disgrace oneself or one's peers. In one of his most confusing yet significant ramblings, he tells Valentine how he's joining the war to "protect the 18th Century from the 20th". No, Valentine, I didn't quite get that either.

In contrast, Sylvia Tietjens is a monster. It would be rather boring if she was just a monster, but she isn't. She's a spectacular monster, played with incredible panache by Hall. Sylvia is representing the rotten bourgeoisie of the beginning of the 1900's, the laissez faire attitude - the vampires and exploiters of men to the point of virtual slavery, spitting at those beneath her. She is completely amoral and depraved, even seemingly taking pride in being so. She's the embodiment of the upper class as a cancer. In her most comical and recurring theme she consistently accuses Christopher of being "too perfect" such as that she comes off feeling inferior to him, yet her response is never truly to attempt to better herself, but rather to provoke him into striking back and lower himself to her level with increasingly outrageous behavior, being unapologetically unfaithful and scandalizing him at every turn. I would think there are very few actresses who could pull off a line like "you forgave, without mercy" in a way that makes herself out to be the victim.

Her weakness lies in how she gradually becomes absolutely obsessed with Christopher precisely because, after everything she does, she is still utterly unable to break him. In a ridiculous sense, Sylvia is in touch with her times and her social status - the predatory Capitalism, the subjugation of the colonies, the trampling of the working class under her iron heel and a life in shameless luxury - whereas Christopher is not. This is further indicated by the ire Christopher is drawing from his peers, precisely because of his devotion to his work, his utter inability to compromise his ideals and his brutal, acidic verbal beatdowns of other men in power who fail to respect or even be honest towards their subjects, leading him ultimately to be regarded as the most vile and debauched man in London due to slander from his enemies - an adulterer and a traitor to his country, none of it true. He can't even help doing his job well when it goes against his own interests, as evidenced by this brilliant piece of dialog between him and Valentine:

C- "The French were bleating about the devastation of bricks and mortar they've incurred by enemy action. I saw suddenly it was no more than one year's normal peacetime dilapidation spread over the whole country." A- "How wonderful!" C- "So the argument for French command of the Western Front gets kicked out of court for a season." A- "But weren't you arguing against your own convictions?" C- "Yes, of course. But Macmaster depends on me."

The third player, Valentine Wallop, is a symbol of the petty-bourgeois sympathizing with the plights of the proletariat amidst the increasing social contradictions of her age, which at this time and place were actually threatening her class with extinction. She's working for the vote for women and she's intensely pacifist. Her little brother, occupying a rather small role on the show, is a socialist and later a Bolshevik, writing her a postcard in Latin from the front, afraid it will get picked up by the censorship - "long live the October revolution!"

Where a lesser work would find this a golden opportunity to insert some synthetic plug against Communism, "Parade's End" significantly has Valentine exclaiming to her horrified mother, "well, it's enough to make anyone Bolshevik sending men and boys to murder each other in millions!" She is the least nuanced but most admirable of the three characters - outspoken, disrespectful of authority, perhaps a bit naïve and with a big heart.

This sets the stage for our drama - the love triangle between the moral traditionalist aristocrat, the corrupt would-be tyrant from his own class and the moral revolutionary commoner.

The conflict is symbolized by the Tietjens family tree at his grounds at Groby estate, where people from all walks of life have been hanging good luck charms for centuries. It is a symbol for tradition and the bond between the ruling class and its subjects. The tree's roots have grown too deep and wide and threaten to destabilize the very ground on which the estate is seated - another symbol for how the morals of times past have turned into obstacles for the needs of modern Capitalism - but in Sylvia's inimitable, shallow manner of thinking the main reason she wants to get rid of it is because it "darkens the view out the window". That, and out of spite for her husband, who dearly loves it and all it stands for - as he says, "young men and maidens have made their marriage vows under the Groby tree for longer than memory."

Her mother urges her to stay her hand and wait for her son to decide what to do with it once he is Lord of Groby but Sylvia bluntly states that his son will "grow up to be a Tietjens", so she won't even give him that choice. When she has the tree cut down with no sanction, that is the breaking point and the true conclusion of the triangle, in a single stroke showing Christopher that all the old values he lived for are dead.

In the end, Christopher chooses and chooses wisely. As his godfather told him on the field of battle, "well, there are no more parades for that regiment. It held out to the last man, but you were him", and as he himself says to Valentine, in a defining, game-changing piece of conversation: "My colours are in the mud. It's not a good thing to find oneself living by an outmoded code of conduct. People take you to be a fool. I'm coming round to their opinion."

The final shot of the series, with Christopher burning the last log of wood from the tree in the fireplace, dancing with Valentine at the post-war party with his fellow soldiers, is one of the most satisfying ends to any show I have ever seen.

It is good precisely because when I watched through this series for the first time, I fully expected Christopher to die in the finale, bleeding out in some ditch half-way to Belgium and setting up the standard tragic conclusion, as most of these great stories do - but this ending sends a powerful message. It is possible to change, and it is possible to find happiness even after you have let go of all your old baggage and sentiments. It is not a happy ending for the sake of it. It's a happy ending because ultimately that is what best serves the story.

There are of course many other characters in this drama - the timid, upstart Macmaster and his hypocrite mistress, Christopher's dad who commits suicide poisoned by false rumors about his son, the likable Irish priest most likely connected to the Irish Republican Army, executed on false charges of treason by Ulstermen, and Christopher's brother, who finally comes to understand him and take Valentine's side against his wife, and they are all well-crafted and well-played - but if I were to address them all, this would turn from an essay into a novel. You might as well go read the novels.

It's inspiring television. In one word, it's perfect.

Thomas Ijon Tichy

[potuzzz]

The Bible, and Why Thoughts Should Be Separated from the Original Source and its Backers

(((Forewarning: This post is a stream of thought. Don’t read if you’re expecting something that avoids the tangential and has a coherent structure)))

` ` ` ` `

     I don’t like hypocrisy--I’m guilty of it, as we all are, albeit I make it a point to avoid it.  And, sure, there are other (IMO) worse traits a human being can have.  But almost anybody would agree that hypocrisy is bad, and the hypocrite’s words are worthless at best, toxic at worst.

     I understand the sentiment, but, for the sake of perspective, I would like to defend the hypocrite and morally defunct with this following post.

     Now, being well aware of Tumblr’s main demographic make up, I’m sure most people on here aren’t big fans of the Bible.

     Truth be told, if you look at the world through the lens of the disgruntled, orthodox Christians, their fears, grievances, and predictions ring quite true--I’m not saying I agree with them, I’m just saying, through their worldview, the notion that Christianity is losing ground steadily to sin and depravity has enough evidence (for them) to enforce this worldview firmly. Homosexuality running rampant, men and women rebelling against their “roles,” brown heretics invading their bastions of innocence to rape and pillage and steal jobs, hip hop becoming the most popular music to corrupt their children and brainwash them to do drugs and get piercings and show shoulders and kill babies and kneel for anthems, these same Jaxton’s and Peyton’s being forced by the Deep State Pedo-Ring to take a non-English language class and learn evolution, fiery Hell, they’re even calling this the “Common Era” instead of “Anno Domini.” I can see how the modern age looks like the setup for the Apocalypse, their Book of Revelation. The rapidly growing Internet, which was once an obscure, semi-useless sort of nerd thing, and then in popular movies for a decade or two was only referenced as some silly cat-joke platform, is slowly but surely becoming a very serious aspect of human life. You can’t make it far without a WiFi connection, not in society, not in business, not in leisure, nothing. And this new frontier, this fresh-faced future, here they have it the worst, constantly being belittled and called names and having mean science-y devil worshipers “debunk” their worldviews, whatever slimy libtard nonsense that all means.

     Orthodox Christians that use a religion--a somewhat neutral thing--to justify their their bigotry, the sort of Christians that fit the of bedrock for an otherwise atheist and secular alt-right probably ensure, if anything, that liberally-inclined youngsters like myself push themselves as far away from Christianity as a whole as possible. Christianity is a sort of thing that people here in America almost thought synonymous with race; you were born into it, and you died with it. I mean, hey, people can’t seem to wrap their mind around the idea that Islam isn’t a race. People would identify as being Christian, even though they never went to church (save maybe Easter and/or Christmas), didn’t pray unless gramps was around, and never read a lick of the Bible, let alone mulled it over. Nowadays, there’s a growing portion of young people that aren’t just apathetic and passive with their family or culture’s religion, they’re proud to actively reject it.

     Orthodox Christians have made a really bad name for themselves, their religion as a whole, their precious Bible, and, alongside it, anything and everything they associate themselves with, especially ideas and opinions.

     (Quick disclaimer: I’m picking on Christianity right now, but insert whatever religious or spiritual beliefs you like. It just happens to be the biggest demographic here and easiest example that comes to mind for what I’m trying to achieve in this post. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, Satanism, even atheism all are just ideas wreathed in metaphor (or “fact” when it comes to atheism) that are neutral on their lonesome, but are used for evil but society and the individual. Back to the program.)

     For the most part, I’m like, “serves you dumbass chauvinists right,” but I wouldn’t have made this post if I didn’t have mixed feelings about the deeper implications and consequences.

QUICK TANGENT TIME!

     Let’s say you have a...I don’t know...coworker, we’ll call him Fraxley (lol). So Fraxley isn’t most of everybody’s favorite. Ya’all work at a restaurant. He’s loud, obnoxious, entitled, immature, petty, judgmental, lazy, whiny, condescending, pretty much everything you’d dread in a coworker. But, one fateful day, you’re talking to your boss, Mrs. Boss. This is how it goes:

          Mrs. Boss: “Man, did you see the table by the restrooms?”

          You: “Uh, no, what happened?”

          Mrs. Boss: “Some party of two parents and their kids had a birthday party...not only did they leave a huge mess, but nobody used coasters, and now there’s horrendous watermarks all over.”

          You: “Reese’s Pieces, what?”

          Mrs. Boss: “Yeah, like the parents didn’t stop them or nothing.”

          You: “Damn...would degreaser or something help? I guess I’ll grab--”

          Mrs. Boss: “No no no, see, that’s the real problem, we’re out of all our cleaners and we can’t get any in here until next Monday.”

          You: “Ouch.”

          Mrs. Boss: “I guess just scrub it as best as you can. If Ownerpeople comes in tonight and sees it in that state, they’ll lose their shit.”

          You: “Okay, just let me see if--”

*Fraxley kicks open the front doors (letting in customers before you’re open), hocks a loogie on the window, flips a water bottle into the fryer, and blows Bongwater-flavor Juul clouds in your face that resemble Baroque architecture*

          Fraxley: “Sup, bitches. Heard we got some fuckin’ tabletop probs.”

          You: “Yeah.”     

          Mrs. Boss: “...Hi, Fraxley, could you--”

          Fraxley: “Well, Brossolini, if you don’t want to be an epic NPC fuckin’ retard about it, toothpaste works great for watermarks on wood. Makes that bitch moannnn. J to the S, G.”

          Mrs. Boss: “Fraxley, could you clock-in and put some ice in the bin?”

          Fraxley: “UghhHHGHhh. What’s up with you, sour tits?”

          Mrs. Boss. “Now.”

          Fraxley: “Meesa no likey. *winks coyly at you* Later, buddy.”

. . . 

      So, the question is, what do you do?

     Most people would ignore Fraxley, and for good reason. But his tip, his two cents, his wisdom (which, keep in mind, didn’t even originate from him!) shouldn’t be automatically discarded.

     Here’s another quick example. Read some of these quotes:

          “Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”

          “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”

          “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”

          “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

     Not my like, all-time-favorite, Earth-shattering, epiphany-inducing quotes, but still pretty wise, huh? Worth a mulling over? Worth soaking in, and applying to your life and your perspective, from time to time, eh?  Certainly, I believe I can apply, say, the last quote, to current-day politics. I can apply the first one to nearly every single second of every single day.

     I found these quotes by this Google search: “quotes from hitler”

     Yep!

     Words to me are kind of like children. The context of their parents is important, but, ultimately, they are their own individual beings, and shouldn’t be judged for neither the goodness nor the evil their parents have wrought on this world.

     You see, sort of, what I’m trying to say about the Bible? Really, anybody and anything, but for this discussion, the Bible?

     I have my own personal spiritual beliefs and worldview that I would like to think is particularly unique, one which doesn’t fit me smoothly into any predetermined box.  When it comes to the events of the New and Old Testament, I have mixed feelings. The Old Testament...I believe nearly all of it is more or less a metaphor. As for the New Testament, I believe Jesus was alive. Less surely, I believe he was the most powerful human being we’ve witnessed (or an extraterrestrial/extradimensional being, or something), a practitioner of magic that we all have the potential for, deep down somewhere. He’s a Level 99 person, whereas most of us never get past Level 4 to 7 or something along those lines. I believe many of the events in Jesus’s life, as recorded, did happen, and along the way, some areas were perverted by both his humanly human apostles recording them, as well as the numerous translations and re-writes and edits that have happened in the last 2000 years, with a fat ol’ margin for both accidental error and malicious, egotistic inserts.

      So as we can see, I’m already biased in part to favor some bits of the New Testament, and even be patient enough and curious enough to think about the Old Testament. It probably doesn’t help that I was raised Muslim, in America no less, so I probably have some learned sympathy for Abrahamic religions in general.

     Now, I’ve only ever really dug into the Book of Mark, thanks in totality to an Intro to New Testament class I took in college (it was either that or some even more presumably boring garbage). As for the rest of the Bible, I know the general events (as most of us do) of the Old Testament, I was challenged to read a bit of the Book of Job during a (horrifying) Ouija experience, and other little bits here and there have come to me by chance. I’m no expert. But, my bias acknowledged, it really makes me sad that some people are never going to consider a single word in the Bible as anything other than a weapon that has been used against them. It has some excellent metaphors, lessons, and stories that not only can be applied in simple day-to-day life, but I have found myself applying to my understanding of human psychology and the human condition, of my internal journey towards actualization and self-understanding, of love and hate and chaos and order, and my understanding (or accepted lack thereof) of the universe and reality I inhabit, the life within it, and the events after.

     What’s also important to add, is the Bible isn’t the skeleton of my beliefs and perspective. It’s not some major slice of the pie, it’s just a few Lego bricks in an enormous set that took me years to construct. Without it, sure, it’d likely be much the same, but in some ways, it wouldn’t. My fundamental ability to accept teachings from the Bible, both because of my subconscious bias for it and despite my growing conscious bias against it, are what have caused me to accept a wide berth of teachings, that, had I remained close-minded and say, only trusted celebrities I like and factual science (whatever the fuck factual means anymore), my enormous structure would instead be a trifling, misshapen, tragic little thing.

     The same thing that allowed me to accept the Christian Bible, to just entertain its ideas, has also allowed me to garner wisdom and knowledge from all sorts of celebrities, musicians, artists, politicians, generals, prodigies, and scourges both in my day and age, and throughout history, not just the ones I happened to like but even the ones that struck me the wrong way.

     I liked Sun Tzu, because why not, so I got to absorb bits of The Art of War, but I’ve also learned some wisdom from current day American generals who bomb my cousins. I never reached a high enough edge level at any point to consider entertaining Satanism into my lifestyle, but hey, Satanism has some interesting things worth a good mull, or even quoting in everyday conversation. People might look at me like I’m mad, but if you past the skins these jewels are shrouded in, you get to reap the intriguing beauty within, without compromising your core self in the process.

     I watch an unhealthy amount of YouTube at times--when I’m at my highest functioning, I limit it to drives to and from work. I like a lot of progressives, unsociopathic intellectuals, hip-hop commentators, and the like (links on names): Shaun, Jeffrey Almonte, ContraPoints, Academy of Ideas, D Respect, hbomberguy, TD Hip Hop Media, probably a few others.

     Emphasis on progressive. It’s hard for me to relate and appreciate much else--I don’t want someone mindlessly parroting pop-woke garbage, I just want someone with a little bit of soul and a lotta bit of brain, and I do well to forgive and forget when the aforementioned have opinions that differ from my own.

     But, a while last month, I was recommended a channel: Alternative Hypothesis.

     Now, silly ol’ me, read that as, “Oooh, someone who’s very likely counter-culture, possibly a little pretentious but let’s give’em a listen.”

     Basically, emphasis on ALT.

     I only got through about 5 or 6 videos, but see, that’s the thing. I could recognize the guy was well spoken, good at structuring a video and articulating a point. It wasn’t complete laughable swill like Ben Shapiro or Sargon of Akkad. This guy actually made me stop and think some pretty wild ass shit, like, “was slavery really that bad?” Fucking horrifying, right? Don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty sure I’m not a great debater, but I had enough sense to debunk his videos both logically and morally. But he really challenged me and my viewpoints. Made me stop in think. Now you might think, “well, it’s not like you’re black so you don’t exactly have a lot of eggs in that basket,” and I get why you’d think that. Even I double-checked myself on that. But I will let almost any of my core beliefs be challenged, and I don’t think that makes me a pushover or weak, morally or mentally or otherwise. If anything, it strengthens my resolve, and makes my beliefs feel more mine, and less insecure attempts to fit into a mold. I’ve let myself attack whites, suburbanites, Muslims, Arabs, rappers, specifically white rappers, writers, artists, men, the insecure, the dark (of head, not skin), the indecisive, Americans, talkers, introverts......these are all things that are me. If I’m critical of anyone at all, it’s me.

     Funny thing, I actually vaguely remember a quote that went something like, “Don’t defend your attacks on your character you know are wrong, or you’ve already lost.”

     I don’t really remember where that quote originated, whether it was the Bible or the Daily Stormer or Gandhi or Jake Paul, but it’s reminding myself right in this very second that I’m okay, I don’t need to justify shit, I going on a cutting-edge ramble or something, and I just need to be self-satisfied and go on my merry way. And I need that right now. I don’t care where it came from.

     Go read the Bible. The same book (Book of Leviticus) that forsakes homosexuality does the same with eating fat, eating pigs, wearing mixed fabrics (aka wearing most of anything nowadays), cutting your hair, touching weirdly specific things, getting your red wings, adultery, incest, mixing crops, getting tattoos, blasphemy, and working on Sunday. Obviously, a load of this is trash. Don’t get hung up on the little ugly bits.

     I recently finished reading Stranger in a Strange Land. The author obviously had a couple stupid worldviews, mainly general sexism and a part where a female character chimes in that 9 out of 10 rape victims were essentially asking for it. If I were the stereotypical over-sensitive, virtue-signalling young’un in today’s day and age, I would’ve thrown the book right then and there against a wall and lit the place on fire, vowing to purge every word I had read thus far from my mind. Instead, I kept reading, and the book is fucking amazing. I will look past the author’s glaring flaws, which we all have, and instead of sheltering myself from the real world, I got to add another excellent artwork to my experiences. Go read Stranger in a Strange Land, it’s about Martian Jesus.

     Stop having knee-jerk reactions--if you’re forming a demonized version of me in your head when you read me writing phrases like “over-sensitive,” or “virtue-signalling,” or “knee-jerk,” or my imaginary character Fraxley saying “retard” or “bitch,” you’re doing yourself absolutely no favors, in the short nor the long term. The world and its wisdoms are not PC. You can retain your morals and still absorb a wealth of knowledge from an individual that might be the antithesis of your beliefs. I literally think true progressivism, minus all the ulterior motives and “justified” cruelty, is nearly synonymous with morality. If this post has upset you, please get your head out of your ass. I’m telling you because you need to hear it, not because I want to put you down or assert superiority or any dumb shit, I literally want to see you and our planet succeed.

          I love you.