Tumgik
#and once he was in a position of control he proceeded to build his cult to twist and exaggerate those things in horrible ways
Text
so i was infodumping about vatborn, as one does, and laying it all out i have come to the conclusion that mogadorians as a whole--vatborn and trueborn both--lean heavily toward varying flavors of autistic. and BOY does it explain a lot
#lorien legacies#mogadorians#LL trueborn#LL vatborn#LL tag#i have a lot a LOT of thoughts in me about this#but a tl;dr is that there are one or two very specific and common flavors of autistic that are held up as neurotypical in their society#and setrákus' angle of attack for manipulating them and getting them under his thumb was to use those common traits as an in#see: rigidity; justice sensitivity; and not being allowed any special interests/hyperfixations but war and cult shit and himself#among other things#and once he was in a position of control he proceeded to build his cult to twist and exaggerate those things in horrible ways#and also encouraged them to be Super Fucking Ableist even moreso than before toward autistics/cousins#who don't fit the Respectable Archetype#see: how they treat vatborn lol#which; as much as they try to act like the vatborn are ~gifted~ with different neurology that makes them Inferior#they are severely limiting the actual ways in which vatborn could contribute effectively beyond just being cannon fodder#because they don't work with their neurotypes because they don't want /vatborn/#they want trueborn who can also be disposable slaves 🙃#so instead of figuring out how to integrate them most effectively they just have to expend most of their efforts#herding vatborn into Doing What They're Supposed To by playing whack-a-mole with their brand of autism when they can't suppress it#and also setrákus is as good as he is at manipulating mogs in particular bc he is ALSO super fucking autistic in ways that line up with#their Standards for the good and acceptable leaderly honorable neurotype. whereas he consistently critfails at convincing non-autistics#to come around to his views or do what he wants. he has no clue how to vibe with allistics lmfao but mogs are fair game#i could go on but yeah i have Thoughts. i have thoughts#ableism cw
5 notes · View notes
route22ny · 3 years
Link
By Timothy Snyder
Published Jan. 9, 2021 - Updated Jan. 10, 2021, 10:12 a.m. ET
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version.
Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and implausible.
People believed him, which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in institutions different points of view.
In this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party disproportionate control of government. The most important among them, Mitch McConnell, indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its consequences.
Yet other Republicans saw the situation differently: They might actually break the system and have power without democracy. The split between these two groups, the gamers and the breakers, became sharply visible on Dec. 30, when Senator Josh Hawley announced that he would support Trump’s challenge by questioning the validity of the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz then promised his own support, joined by about 10 other senators. More than a hundred Republican representatives took the same position. For many, this seemed like nothing more than a show: challenges to states’ electoral votes would force delays and floor votes but would not affect the outcome.
Yet for Congress to traduce its basic functions had a price. An elected institution that opposes elections is inviting its own overthrow. Members of Congress who sustained the president’s lie, despite the available and unambiguous evidence, betrayed their constitutional mission. Making his fictions the basis of congressional action gave them flesh. Now Trump could demand that senators and congressmen bow to his will. He could place personal responsibility upon Mike Pence, in charge of the formal proceedings, to pervert them. And on Jan. 6, he directed his followers to exert pressure on these elected representatives, which they proceeded to do: storming the Capitol building, searching for people to punish, ransacking the place.
Of course this did make a kind of sense: If the election really had been stolen, as senators and congressmen were themselves suggesting, then how could Congress be allowed to move forward? For some Republicans, the invasion of the Capitol must have been a shock, or even a lesson. For the breakers, however, it may have been a taste of the future. Afterward, eight senators and more than 100 representatives voted for the lie that had forced them to flee their chambers.
Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.
Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise, allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism fell short of the thing itself.
Some of his lies were, admittedly, medium-size: that he was a successful businessman; that Russia did not support him in 2016; that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Such medium-size lies were the standard fare of aspiring authoritarians in the 21st century. In Poland the right-wing party built a martyrdom cult around assigning blame to political rivals for an airplane crash that killed the nation’s president. Hungary’s Viktor Orban blames a vanishingly small number of Muslim refugees for his country’s problems. But such claims were not quite big lies; they stretched but did not rend what Hannah Arendt called “the fabric of factuality.”
One historical big lie discussed by Arendt is Joseph Stalin’s explanation of starvation in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33. The state had collectivized agriculture, then applied a series of punitive measures to Ukraine that ensured millions would die. Yet the official line was that the starving were provocateurs, agents of Western powers who hated socialism so much they were killing themselves. A still grander fiction, in Arendt’s account, is Hitlerian anti-Semitism: the claims that Jews ran the world, Jews were responsible for ideas that poisoned German minds, Jews stabbed Germany in the back during the First World War. Intriguingly, Arendt thought big lies work only in lonely minds; their coherence substitutes for experience and companionship.
In November 2020, reaching millions of lonely minds through social media, Trump told a lie that was dangerously ambitious: that he had won an election that in fact he had lost. This lie was big in every pertinent respect: not as big as “Jews run the world,” but big enough. The significance of the matter at hand was great: the right to rule the most powerful country in the world and the efficacy and trustworthiness of its succession procedures. The level of mendacity was profound. The claim was not only wrong, but it was also made in bad faith, amid unreliable sources. It challenged not just evidence but logic: Just how could (and why would) an election have been rigged against a Republican president but not against Republican senators and representatives? Trump had to speak, absurdly, of a “Rigged (for President) Election.”
The force of a big lie resides in its demand that many other things must be believed or disbelieved. To make sense of a world in which the 2020 presidential election was stolen requires distrust not only of reporters and of experts but also of local, state and federal government institutions, from poll workers to elected officials, Homeland Security and all the way to the Supreme Court. It brings with it, of necessity, a conspiracy theory: Imagine all the people who must have been in on such a plot and all the people who would have had to work on the cover-up.
Trump’s electoral fiction floats free of verifiable reality. It is defended not so much by facts as by claims that someone else has made some claims. The sensibility is that something must be wrong because I feel it to be wrong, and I know others feel the same way. When political leaders such as Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan spoke like this, what they meant was: You believe my lies, which compels me to repeat them. Social media provides an infinity of apparent evidence for any conviction, especially one seemingly held by a president.
On the surface, a conspiracy theory makes its victim look strong: It sees Trump as resisting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Deep State, the pedophiles, the Satanists. More profoundly, however, it inverts the position of the strong and the weak. Trump’s focus on alleged “irregularities” and “contested states” comes down to cities where Black people live and vote. At bottom, the fantasy of fraud is that of a crime committed by Black people against white people.
It’s not just that electoral fraud by African-Americans against Donald Trump never happened. It is that it is the very opposite of what happened, in 2020 and in every American election. As always, Black people waited longer than others to vote and were more likely to have their votes challenged. They were more likely to be suffering or dying from Covid-19, and less likely to be able to take time away from work. The historical protection of their right to vote has been removed by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, and states have rushed to pass measures of a kind that historically reduce voting by the poor and communities of color.
The claim that Trump was denied a win by fraud is a big lie not just because it mauls logic, misdescribes the present and demands belief in a conspiracy. It is a big lie, fundamentally, because it reverses the moral field of American politics and the basic structure of American history.
When Senator Ted Cruz announced his intention to challenge the Electoral College vote, he invoked the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the presidential election of 1876. Commentators pointed out that this was no relevant precedent, since back then there really were serious voter irregularities and there really was a stalemate in Congress. For African-Americans, however, the seemingly gratuitous reference led somewhere else. The Compromise of 1877 — in which Rutherford B. Hayes would have the presidency, provided that he withdrew federal power from the South — was the very arrangement whereby African-Americans were driven from voting booths for the better part of a century. It was effectively the end of Reconstruction, the beginning of segregation, legal discrimination and Jim Crow. It is the original sin of American history in the post-slavery era, our closest brush with fascism so far.
If the reference seemed distant when Ted Cruz and 10 senatorial colleagues released their statement on Jan. 2, it was brought very close four days later, when Confederate flags were paraded through the Capitol.
Some things have changed since 1877, of course. Back then, it was the Republicans, or many of them, who supported racial equality; it was the Democrats, the party of the South, who wanted apartheid. It was the Democrats, back then, who called African-Americans’ votes fraudulent, and the Republicans who wanted them counted. This is now reversed. In the past half century, since the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have become a predominantly white party interested — as Trump openly declared — in keeping the number of voters, and particularly the number of Black voters, as low as possible. Yet the common thread remains. Watching white supremacists among the people storming the Capitol, it was easy to yield to the feeling that something pure had been violated. It might be better to see the episode as part of a long American argument about who deserves representation.
The Democrats, today, have become a coalition, one that does better than Republicans with female and nonwhite voters and collects votes from both labor unions and the college-educated. Yet it’s not quite right to contrast this coalition with a monolithic Republican Party. Right now, the Republican Party is a coalition of two types of people: those who would game the system (most of the politicians, some of the voters) and those who dream of breaking it (a few of the politicians, many of the voters). In January 2021, this was visible as the difference between those Republicans who defended the present system on the grounds that it favored them and those who tried to upend it.
In the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have overcome the tension between the gamers and the breakers by governing in opposition to government, or by calling elections a revolution (the Tea Party), or by claiming to oppose elites. The breakers, in this arrangement, provide cover for the gamers, putting forth an ideology that distracts from the basic reality that government under Republicans is not made smaller but simply diverted to serve a handful of interests.
At first, Trump seemed like a threat to this balance. His lack of experience in politics and his open racism made him a very uncomfortable figure for the party; his habit of continually telling lies was initially found by prominent Republicans to be uncouth. Yet after he won the presidency, his particular skills as a breaker seemed to create a tremendous opportunity for the gamers. Led by the gamer in chief, McConnell, they secured hundreds of federal judges and tax cuts for the rich.
Trump was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally. He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that he might lose something.
Yet Trump never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military, some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators; supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or Gab. But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around.
The lie outlasts the liar. The idea that Germany lost the First World War in 1918 because of a Jewish “stab in the back” was 15 years old when Hitler came to power. How will Trump’s myth of victimhood function in American life 15 years from now? And to whose benefit?
On Jan. 7, Trump called for a peaceful transition of power, implicitly conceding that his putsch had failed. Even then, though, he repeated and even amplified his electoral fiction: It was now a sacred cause for which people had sacrificed. Trump’s imagined stab in the back will live on chiefly thanks to its endorsement by members of Congress. In November and December 2020, Republicans repeated it, giving it a life it would not otherwise have had. In retrospect, it now seems as though the last shaky compromise between the gamers and the breakers was the idea that Trump should have every chance to prove that wrong had been done to him. That position implicitly endorsed the big lie for Trump supporters who were inclined to believe it. It failed to restrain Trump, whose big lie only grew bigger.
The breakers and the gamers then saw a different world ahead, where the big lie was either a treasure to be had or a danger to be avoided. The breakers had no choice but to rush to be first to claim to believe in it. Because the breakers Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz must compete to claim the brimstone and bile, the gamers were forced to reveal their own hand, and the division within the Republican coalition became visible on Jan. 6. The invasion of the Capitol only reinforced this division. To be sure, a few senators withdrew their objections, but Cruz and Hawley moved forward anyway, along with six other senators. More than 100 representatives doubled down on the big lie. Some, like Matt Gaetz, even added their own flourishes, such as the claim that the mob was led not by Trump’s supporters but by his opponents.
Trump is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support. In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he is out of the way.
As Cruz and Hawley may learn, to tell the big lie is to be owned by it. Just because you have sold your soul does not mean that you have driven a hard bargain. Hawley shies from no level of hypocrisy; the son of a banker, educated at Stanford University and Yale Law School, he denounces elites. Insofar as Cruz was thought to have a principle, it was that of states’ rights, which Trump’s calls to action brazenly violated. A joint statement Cruz issued about the senators’ challenge to the vote nicely captured the post-truth aspect of the whole: It never alleged that there was fraud, only that there were allegations of fraud. Allegations of allegations, allegations all the way down.
The big lie requires commitment. When Republican gamers do not exhibit enough of that, Republican breakers call them “RINOs”: Republicans in name only. This term once suggested a lack of ideological commitment. It now means an unwillingness to throw away an election. The gamers, in response, close ranks around the Constitution and speak of principles and traditions. The breakers must all know (with the possible exception of the Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville) that they are participating in a sham, but they will have an audience of tens of millions who do not.
If Trump remains present in American political life, he will surely repeat his big lie incessantly. Hawley and Cruz and the other breakers share responsibility for where this leads. Cruz and Hawley seem to be running for president. Yet what does it mean to be a candidate for office and denounce voting? If you claim that the other side has cheated, and your supporters believe you, they will expect you to cheat yourself. By defending Trump’s big lie on Jan. 6, they set a precedent: A Republican presidential candidate who loses an election should be appointed anyway by Congress. Republicans in the future, at least breaker candidates for president, will presumably have a Plan A, to win and win, and a Plan B, to lose and win. No fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by faith.
Trump’s coup attempt of 2020-21, like other failed coup attempts, is a warning for those who care about the rule of law and a lesson for those who do not. His pre-fascism revealed a possibility for American politics. For a coup to work in 2024, the breakers will require something that Trump never quite had: an angry minority, organized for nationwide violence, ready to add intimidation to an election. Four years of amplifying a big lie just might get them this. To claim that the other side stole an election is to promise to steal one yourself. It is also to claim that the other side deserves to be punished.
Informed observers inside and outside government agree that right-wing white supremacism is the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. Gun sales in 2020 hit an astonishing high. History shows that political violence follows when prominent leaders of major political parties openly embrace paranoia.
Our big lie is typically American, wrapped in our odd electoral system, depending upon our particular traditions of racism. Yet our big lie is also structurally fascist, with its extreme mendacity, its conspiratorial thinking, its reversal of perpetrators and victims and its implication that the world is divided into us and them. To keep it going for four years courts terrorism and assassination.
When that violence comes, the breakers will have to react. If they embrace it, they become the fascist faction. The Republican Party will be divided, at least for a time. One can of course imagine a dismal reunification: A breaker candidate loses a narrow presidential election in November 2024 and cries fraud, the Republicans win both houses of Congress and rioters in the street, educated by four years of the big lie, demand what they see as justice. Would the gamers stand on principle if those were the circumstances of Jan. 6, 2025?
To be sure, this moment is also a chance. It is possible that a divided Republican Party might better serve American democracy; that the gamers, separated from the breakers, might start to think of policy as a way to win elections. It is very likely that the Biden-Harris administration will have an easier first few months than expected; perhaps obstructionism will give way, at least among a few Republicans and for a short time, to a moment of self-questioning. Politicians who want Trumpism to end have a simple way forward: Tell the truth about the election.
America will not survive the big lie just because a liar is separated from power. It will need a thoughtful repluralization of media and a commitment to facts as a public good. The racism structured into every aspect of the coup attempt is a call to heed our own history. Serious attention to the past helps us to see risks but also suggests future possibility. We cannot be a democratic republic if we tell lies about race, big or small. Democracy is not about minimizing the vote nor ignoring it, neither a matter of gaming nor of breaking a system, but of accepting the equality of others, heeding their voices and counting their votes.
Timothy Snyder is the Levin professor of history at Yale University and the author of histories of political atrocity including “Bloodlands” and “Black Earth,” as well as the book “On Tyranny,” on America’s turn toward authoritarianism. His most recent book is “Our Malady,” a memoir of his own near-fatal illness reflecting on the relationship between health and freedom.
***
Essay copied & pasted here in its entirety for the benefit of those stuck behind the paywall. Follow the link for the accompanying photos and captions.
44 notes · View notes
Link
Timothy Snyder [don't miss a word]
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy  seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version. Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in  the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he  would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly  claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his  rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the  various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and  implausible.                                                
People believed him,  which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to  educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they  already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make  sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for  tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and  enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented  demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware  of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a  system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that  no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in  institutions different points of view.                                                                                                                          
In  this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election  must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of  Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed  his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing  so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the  system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional  obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a  minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of  the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party  disproportionate control of government. The most important among them,  Mitch McConnell, indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its  consequences.                                  
Yet  other Republicans saw the situation differently: They might actually  break the system and have power without democracy. The split between  these two groups, the gamers and the breakers, became sharply visible on  Dec. 30, when Senator Josh Hawley announced that he would support Trump’s challenge by questioning the validity of the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz then promised his own support, joined by about 10 other senators. More than a hundred Republican  representatives took the same position. For many, this seemed like  nothing more than a show: challenges to states’ electoral votes would  force delays and floor votes but would not affect the outcome.
Yet  for Congress to traduce its basic functions had a price. An elected  institution that opposes elections is inviting its own overthrow.  Members of Congress who sustained the president’s lie, despite the  available and unambiguous evidence, betrayed their constitutional  mission. Making his fictions the basis of congressional action gave them  flesh. Now Trump could demand that senators and congressmen bow to his  will. He could place personal responsibility upon Mike Pence, in charge  of the formal proceedings, to pervert them. And on Jan. 6, he directed  his followers to exert pressure on these elected representatives, which  they proceeded to do: storming the Capitol building, searching for people to punish, ransacking the place.
Of  course this did make a kind of sense: If the election really had been  stolen, as senators and congressmen were themselves suggesting, then how  could Congress be allowed to move forward? For some Republicans, the  invasion of the Capitol must have been a shock, or even a lesson. For  the breakers, however, it may have been a taste of the future.  Afterward, eight senators and more than 100 representatives voted for  the lie that had forced them to flee their chambers.Post-truth is pre-fascism,  and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth,  we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create  spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts,  citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend  themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and  fictions.
Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not  very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir  Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is  no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek  emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction  between what feels true and what actually is true.Post-truth  wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last  four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking  fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position  has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to  treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher  Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of  patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My  own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise,  allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we  might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future  possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior  presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present  repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.Like  historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single  source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies  of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the  conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008  did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones.  The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old  pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks  to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a  pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part  these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe  in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to  believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such  personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone  else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted  adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as  he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created  an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism  fell short of the thing itself.
Some  of his lies were, admittedly, medium-size: that he was a successful  businessman; that Russia did not support him in 2016; that Barack Obama  was born in Kenya. Such medium-size lies were the standard fare of  aspiring authoritarians in the 21st century. In Poland the right-wing  party built a martyrdom cult around assigning blame to political rivals  for an airplane crash that killed the nation’s president. Hungary’s  Viktor Orban blames a vanishingly small number of Muslim refugees for his country’s problems. But such claims were not quite big lies; they stretched but did not rend what Hannah Arendt called “the fabric of factuality.”
One  historical big lie discussed by Arendt is Joseph Stalin’s explanation  of starvation in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33. The state had collectivized  agriculture, then applied a series of punitive measures to Ukraine that  ensured millions would die. Yet the official line was that the starving  were provocateurs, agents of Western powers who hated socialism so much  they were killing themselves. A still grander fiction, in Arendt’s  account, is Hitlerian anti-Semitism: the claims that Jews ran the world,  Jews were responsible for ideas that poisoned German minds, Jews  stabbed Germany in the back during the First World War. Intriguingly,  Arendt thought big lies work only in lonely minds; their coherence  substitutes for experience and companionship.In November 2020, reaching millions of lonely minds through social media, Trump told a lie that was dangerously ambitious: that he had won an election that in fact he had lost. 
This lie was big in every pertinent respect: not as big as “Jews run  the world,” but big enough. The significance of the matter at hand was  great: the right to rule the most powerful country in the world and the  efficacy and trustworthiness of its succession procedures. The level of  mendacity was profound. The claim was not only wrong, but it was also  made in bad faith, amid unreliable sources. It challenged not just  evidence but logic: Just how could (and why would) an election have been  rigged against a Republican president but not against Republican  senators and representatives? Trump had to speak, absurdly, of a “Rigged  (for President) Election.”
The  force of a big lie resides in its demand that many other things must be believed or disbelieved. To make sense of a world in which the 2020 presidential election was stolen requires distrust not only of reporters  and of experts but also of local, state and federal government  institutions, from poll workers to elected officials, Homeland Security  and all the way to the Supreme Court. It brings with it, of necessity, a  conspiracy theory: Imagine all the people who must have been in on such  a plot and all the people who would have had to work on the cover-up.Trump’s  electoral fiction floats free of verifiable reality. It is defended not  so much by facts as by claims that someone else has made some claims.  The sensibility is that something must be wrong because I feel it to be  wrong, and I know others feel the same way. When political leaders such  as Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan spoke like this, what they meant was: You  believe my lies, which compels me to repeat them. Social media provides  an infinity of apparent evidence for any conviction, especially one  seemingly held by a president.
On the  surface, a conspiracy theory makes its victim look strong: It sees Trump  as resisting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Deep State, the  pedophiles, the Satanists. More profoundly, however, it inverts the  position of the strong and the weak. Trump’s focus on alleged  “irregularities” and “contested states” comes down to cities where Black  people live and vote. At bottom, the fantasy of fraud is that of a  crime committed by Black people against white people.It’s  not just that electoral fraud by African-Americans against Donald Trump  never happened. It is that it is the very opposite of what happened, in  2020 and in every American election. As always, Black people waited longer than others to vote and were more likely to have their votes challenged. They were more likely to be suffering or dying from Covid-19, and less likely to be able to take time away from work. The historical  protection of their right to vote has been removed by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, and states have rushed to pass measures of a kind that historically reduce voting by the poor and communities of color.
The  claim that Trump was denied a win by fraud is a big lie not just  because it mauls logic, misdescribes the present and demands belief in a  conspiracy. It is a big lie, fundamentally, because it reverses the  moral field of American politics and the basic structure of American  history.
When Senator Ted Cruz  announced his intention to challenge the Electoral College vote, he  invoked the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the presidential election  of 1876. Commentators pointed out that this was no relevant precedent,  since back then there really were serious voter irregularities and there  really was a stalemate in Congress. For African-Americans, however, the  seemingly gratuitous reference led somewhere else. The Compromise of  1877 — in which Rutherford B. Hayes would have the presidency, provided  that he withdrew federal power from the South — was the very arrangement  whereby African-Americans were driven from voting booths for the better  part of a century. It was effectively the end of Reconstruction, the  beginning of segregation, legal discrimination and Jim Crow. It is the  original sin of American history in the post-slavery era, our closest  brush with fascism so far.If the  reference seemed distant when Ted Cruz and 10 senatorial colleagues  released their statement on Jan. 2, it was brought very close four days  later, when Confederate flags were paraded through the Capitol.
Some things have changed since 1877, of course. Back then, it was the Republicans, or  many of them, who supported racial equality; it was the Democrats, the  party of the South, who wanted apartheid. It was the Democrats, back  then, who called African-Americans’ votes fraudulent, and the  Republicans who wanted them counted. This is now reversed. In the past  half century, since the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have become a  predominantly white party interested — as Trump openly declared — in  keeping the number of voters, and particularly the number of Black  voters, as low as possible. Yet the common thread remains. Watching  white supremacists among the people storming the Capitol, it was easy to  yield to the feeling that something pure had been violated. It might be  better to see the episode as part of a long American argument about who  deserves representation.
The  Democrats, today, have become a coalition, one that does better than Republicans with female and nonwhite voters and collects votes from both labor unions and the college-educated. Yet it’s not quite right to  contrast this coalition with a monolithic Republican Party. Right now,  the Republican Party is a coalition of two types of people: those who  would game the system (most of the politicians, some of the voters) and  those who dream of breaking it (a few of the politicians, many of the  voters). In January 2021, this was visible as the difference between  those Republicans who defended the present system on the grounds that it  favored them and those who tried to upend it.In  the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have  overcome the tension between the gamers and the breakers by governing in  opposition to government, or by calling elections a revolution (the Tea  Party), or by claiming to oppose elites. The breakers, in this  arrangement, provide cover for the gamers, putting forth an ideology  that distracts from the basic reality that government under Republicans  is not made smaller but simply diverted to serve a handful of interests.
At  first, Trump seemed like a threat to this balance. His lack of  experience in politics and his open racism made him a very uncomfortable  figure for the party; his habit of continually telling lies was  initially found by prominent Republicans to be uncouth. Yet after he won  the presidency, his particular skills as a breaker seemed to create a  tremendous opportunity for the gamers. Led by the gamer in chief,  McConnell, they secured hundreds of federal judges and tax cuts for the  rich.
Trump  was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His  objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally.  He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly  why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires  devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of  lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his  admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short  of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a  truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that  he might lose something.
Yet Trump  never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military,  some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made  the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators;  supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but  those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police  force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a  blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white  supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or  Gab. 
But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats  to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the  right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe  that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring  institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters  to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none  appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what  their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable  insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around.
The lie outlasts the  liar. The idea that Germany lost the First World War in 1918 because of  a Jewish “stab in the back” was 15 years old when Hitler came to power.  How will Trump’s myth of victimhood function in American life 15 years from now? And to whose benefit?
On  Jan. 7, Trump called for a peaceful transition of power, implicitly  conceding that his putsch had failed. Even then, though, he repeated and  even amplified his electoral fiction: It was now a sacred cause for  which people had sacrificed. Trump’s imagined stab in the back will live  on chiefly thanks to its endorsement by members of Congress. In  November and December 2020, Republicans repeated it, giving it a life it  would not otherwise have had. In retrospect, it now seems as though the  last shaky compromise between the gamers and the breakers was the idea  that Trump should have every chance to prove that wrong had been done to  him. That position implicitly endorsed the big lie for Trump supporters  who were inclined to believe it. It failed to restrain Trump, whose big  lie only grew bigger.
The breakers  and the gamers then saw a different world ahead, where the big lie was  either a treasure to be had or a danger to be avoided. The breakers had  no choice but to rush to be first to claim to believe in it. Because the  breakers Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz must compete to claim the brimstone  and bile, the gamers were forced to reveal their own hand, and the  division within the Republican coalition became visible on Jan. 6. The  invasion of the Capitol only reinforced this division. To be sure, a few  senators withdrew their objections, but Cruz and Hawley moved forward  anyway, along with six other senators. More than 100 representatives  doubled down on the big lie. Some, like Matt Gaetz, even added their own  flourishes, such as the claim that the mob was led not by Trump’s  supporters but by his opponents.Trump  is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is  the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By  now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last  weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he  will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to  provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see  Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still  around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support.  In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the  myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he  is out of the way.
As Cruz and Hawley  may learn, to tell the big lie is to be owned by it. Just because you  have sold your soul does not mean that you have driven a hard bargain.  Hawley shies from no level of hypocrisy; the son of a banker, educated at Stanford University and Yale Law School, he denounces elites. Insofar  as Cruz was thought to have a principle, it was that of states’ rights,  which Trump’s calls to action brazenly violated. A joint statement Cruz  issued about the senators’ challenge to the vote nicely captured the  post-truth aspect of the whole: It never alleged that there was fraud,  only that there were allegations of fraud. Allegations of allegations,  allegations all the way down.The  big lie requires commitment. When Republican gamers do not exhibit  enough of that, Republican breakers call them “RINOs”: Republicans in  name only. This term once suggested a lack of ideological commitment. It  now means an unwillingness to throw away an election. The gamers, in  response, close ranks around the Constitution and speak of principles  and traditions. The breakers must all know (with the possible exception  of the Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville) that they are participating in a  sham, but they will have an audience of tens of millions who do not.
If  Trump remains present in American political life, he will surely repeat  his big lie incessantly. Hawley and Cruz and the other breakers share  responsibility for where this leads. Cruz and Hawley seem to be running  for president. Yet what does it mean to be a candidate for office and  denounce voting? If you claim that the other side has cheated, and your  supporters believe you, they will expect you to cheat yourself. By  defending Trump’s big lie on Jan. 6, they set a precedent: A Republican  presidential candidate who loses an election should be appointed anyway  by Congress. Republicans in the future, at least breaker candidates for  president, will presumably have a Plan A, to win and win, and a Plan B,  to lose and win. No fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by  faith.Trump’s coup attempt of 2020-21, like other failed coup attempts, is a warning  for those who care about the rule of law and a lesson for those who do  not. His pre-fascism revealed a possibility for American politics. For a  coup to work in 2024, the breakers will require something that Trump  never quite had: an angry minority, organized for nationwide violence,  ready to add intimidation to an election. Four years of amplifying a big  lie just might get them this. To claim that the other side stole an  election is to promise to steal one yourself. It is also to claim that  the other side deserves to be punished.Informed  observers inside and outside government agree that right-wing white  supremacism is the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. 
Gun  sales in 2020 hit an astonishing high. History shows that political  violence follows when prominent leaders of major political parties  openly embrace paranoia.Our big lie  is typically American, wrapped in our odd electoral system, depending  upon our particular traditions of racism. Yet our big lie is also  structurally fascist, with its extreme mendacity, its conspiratorial  thinking, its reversal of perpetrators and victims and its implication  that the world is divided into us and them. To keep it going for four  years courts terrorism and assassination.
When  that violence comes, the breakers will have to react. If they embrace  it, they become the fascist faction. The Republican Party will be  divided, at least for a time. One can of course imagine a dismal  reunification: A breaker candidate loses a narrow presidential election  in November 2024 and cries fraud, the Republicans win both houses of  Congress and rioters in the street, educated by four years of the big lie,  demand what they see as justice. Would the gamers stand on principle if  those were the circumstances of Jan. 6, 2025?To  be sure, this moment is also a chance. It is possible that a divided Republican Party might better serve American democracy; that the gamers, separated from the breakers, might start to think of policy as a way to  win elections. It is very likely that the Biden-Harris administration  will have an easier first few months than expected; perhaps  obstructionism will give way, at least among a few Republicans and for a  short time, to a moment of self-questioning. 
Politicians who want  Trumpism to end have a simple way forward: Tell the truth about the  election.America will not survive the  big lie just because a liar is separated from power. It will need a  thoughtful repluralization of media and a commitment to facts as a  public good. The racism structured into every aspect of the coup attempt  is a call to heed our own history. Serious attention to the past helps  us to see risks but also suggests future possibility. We cannot be a  democratic republic if we tell lies about race, big or small.Democracy  is not about minimizing the vote nor ignoring it, neither a matter of  gaming nor of breaking a system, but of accepting the equality of  others, heeding their voices and counting their votes.
9 notes · View notes
strvngcrs · 4 years
Text
Tumblr media
『 adam brody. forty. cis male. he/him. 』 oh heavens, is that DANIEL ABRAMS from FAIR LANE i see roaming around mapleview? minnie may’s always calling them -BROODING & -EVASIVE. i happen to think they’re not that bad! they’re a pretty cool HORROR AUTHOR and every time i’ve seen them, they’ve always been +DEBONAIR & +ELOQUENT. i hope i see them around again! 
classically rolls in ridiculously late bc i forgot i had to work last night & then proceeded to sleep in today wooo !!  good afternoon ghouls, it’s ya girl maia, finally here to deliver the definition of hot mess with good intentions.
GENERAL
FULL NAME.    daniel elijah abrams.
NICKNAMES.    dan, danny.
AGE & BIRTHDATE.    40 years old ; may 4, 1980.
GENDER & PRONOUNS.    cis male ; he/him.
ORIENTATION.    heterosexual.
MARITAL STATUS.    estranged.
RELIGION.    jewish ( non-practicing ).
OCCUPATION.    horror author.
INSPIRATION.     bill denbrough ( it ), donnie darko ( donnie darko ), lucas scott ( one tree hill ), stephen king.
PHYSICAL
HAIR COLOUR.    black.
EYE COLOUR.    dark brown.
BUILD.    athletic.
MARKS.     freckles scarcely spread across his entire body.
TATTOOS.    none.
PIERCINGS.    none.
HEIGHT.    5'11".
FACECLAIM.    adam brody.
PERSONALITY
ZODIAC.    taurus.
ALIGNMENT.    chaotic neutral.
HOGWARTS.    ravenclaw.
LABEL.    the arcane.
POSITIVE TRAITS.    cheeky, debonair, driven, eloquent, resilient, solicitous.
NEGATIVE TRAITS.    brooding, evasive, inquisitive, sarcastic, stoic, stubborn.
HOBBIES.    smokes like a chimney while writing until he forgets what day of the week it is, dabbles in hunting & fishing (thanks @ his dad), labels all crime / thriller genres as ‘predictable’ but continues to watch them, obsesses over & relentlessly criticizes his own work, drinks heavily & passionately plays moonlight sonata or fur elise as if he’s betoven’s disciple.
BACKGROUND
PLACE OF BIRTH.    california.
CURRENT RESIDENCE.    mapleview, north carolina.
NATIONALITY.    american.
ETHNICITY.    ashkenazi jewish.
PARENTS.   judith miller & mr abrams.
SIBLINGS.    mia miller.
BIRTH ORDER.    eldest.
CHILDREN.    penelope abrams.
EDUCATION.     university of california, los angeles; bachelor of arts in english.
LANGUAGES.    english, some spanish & french.
HISTORY
EARLY LIFE.    born to THE judith miller and some newspaper editor, daniel was raised by the latter and notoriously abandoned by the former. well, not completely abandoned - there’s an old shoebox containing a few letters as proof - but that was the only source of communication in their otherwise absent relationship. while little danny boy didn’t fully understand why he couldn’t see his mother, he sought out an alternative solution by watching her movies. his father wasn’t aware, at first, and dan created this extravagant fantasy of the person he thought she was based on the roles she played. however, once papa abrams found out his son was watching these movies (which were probably not fit for children in the first place lmao oop), he begrudgingly revealed the bitter truth. being forced to come to terms with the fact that his own mother willingly abandoned him with his father, daniel didn’t fully understand what it meant; he couldn’t properly process why. the hurt of absent mother was expressed more out of anger, feeling as though there must have been something wrong with him. there were fewer and fewer letters sent to judith until he gave up altogether and thus, dan’s out of control behavior was born.
TEENAGE FEVER.    SUICIDE MENTION TW.  he struggled in school. his emotions betrayed him. instead of relishing a happy childhood, daniel found himself pushing everyone away, getting into fights, sneaking out late at night to run around the city streets with his friends and get into all sorts of trouble with them. he couldn’t count on his hands how many times the police picked him up and brought him to his dad’s doorstep. it only got worse once one of his best friends was found dead, written off as a suicide, though it didn’t add up in dan’s eyes and seemed so much more sinister. the young man was nearly deemed to be a lost cause, until he discovered his passion for writing. 
                                  language arts or literature was the last thing anyone would ever think to group with daniel abrams. but his english teacher noticed how well he could articulate his thoughts and feelings on paper, and submitted one of his pieces to a writing contest, which earned dan the win and a cash prize. bewildered by a talent he hadn’t even realized was in him, daniel embraced it. he started writing in a journal ( which he kept safely tucked away beneath the mattress of his bed ), documenting every feeling and thought as a way to express his emotions in a more productive manner. this talent earned him a full ride scholarship to ucla with a major in literature and plans of diving into some sort or creative writing career or perhaps becoming an english teacher, to follow in the footsteps of his high school teacher who he came to idolize.
                                  mere days into his freshman year, however, his high school sweetheart showed up in the middle of the night at his dorm with a positive pregnancy test. it was then the chaotic world as he knew it turned a new leaf, revealing a silver lining in the form of their daughter, penelope, who daniel hadn’t a clue, just yet, would save him. and so a shotgun wedding was quickly planned around the pair, both families either completely supportive or in utter disbelief. it was quick, it was cheap(ish), and it was stressful as all heck. but they were young, and in love, and were looking forward to starting a family together, despite it being a little earlier than initially planned.
“ADULT”HOOD.    fast forward five years, and they’re signing divorce papers. fortunately, it wasn’t messy. the two had simply grown apart as they matured in their respective ways, and remaining together was only causing a rift to develop between the two. the last thing they wanted, for the sake of their daughter, was built up resentment to tear the little family apart. his wife, who daniel initially thought to be the love of his life, blossomed into an absolute goddess; she was ambitious and knew exactly what she wanted. daniel, on the other hand, was still somewhat caught up in his ‘bad boy’ habits of drinking excessively and his career was still pretty up in the air. the two just didn’t compliment each others’ lifestyles anymore.
                                   daniel moved out but remained in california, settling for a bachelor’s apartment where he was able to have penelope every weekend. during this time, he finally cracked down and worked on finishing a novel he’d started years prior. within a year, he found a publisher who took interest in his grotesque works, and by the time daniel was twenty seven, his first bestseller hit the shelves, changing his life for the better with the ability to provide for his daughter without stress of landing another odd job ever again.
                                   as his fame increased, so did his desire to slink back into the shadows away from the limelight. at first, he enjoyed the wholesome book signings by day and grungy celebratory benders by night. but it grew old pretty fast and he certainly didn’t want to end up as another washed up shmuck. so, on a whim, daniel decided to move out of california completely, removing himself from the toxic lifestyle he’d grown accustomed to and shacking up on a beautiful piece of land in the rocky mountains of north carolina. the serenity and scenery certainly aided in his inspiration, as well as his unacknowledged lowkey addictions slowly being rehabilitated from his bloodstream.
OLD YELLER.    now, in his utmost prime at forty years old, he’s written numerous cult classics, a few of which have successful movie adaptations. he was lucky enough to land himself in a second marriage, though.... that one is now deteriorating as well because he literally doesn’t know how to maintain a healthy relationship. he received full custody of his daughter when she was sixteen, under the unfortunate circumstance of her mother’s untimely death. although they’d been separated for nearly twenty years, daniel was still very much affected by the loss, more so empathetically for penelope. he’s still hooked on the drink, though he’s definitely calmed down quite a bit from when he was a young buck. basically a messy, depressy old soul who uses sarcasm to deflect his true feelings.
CONNECTIONS
ESTRANGED WIFE.    first marriage was a bust, and the second is turning out to be no better. they haven’t hit rock bottom just yet, in his opinion (which would be finalizing a divorce lmao), and he’s unsure if they should work things out or not but also really.......doesn’t wanna go through the process of another divorce. plus he likes her and deep down adores their bickering. the reason(s) why things started falling apart between them can be discussed of course. lowkey debating on whippin this up as a big official wc but.... if anybody already here would like to snag it, i would 100% mclove it.
COLLABORATORS.    literally anyone he’s worked with over the years, whether they be fellow authors, publishers/publicists, journalists, screenplay writers, etc. yeehooo the possibilities are endless !!
FOLLOWERS.    anyone hooked on his books, whether devout fans from his early beginnings or people who newly discovered his fictional writings.
FORMER CLASSMATES.    could be from high school or university, but he was in california for the better part of his life aka not a mapleview native. former friends to foes & anything in between. dan’s that one kid who spiked the punch bowl at all the dances and years later probably snuck in party favors to snort off the bathroom sink during their high school reunion lmao whew !!
ANYTHING.    literally anything. i’m my groggy state of mind on my lack of creativity rn so please, i’m beggin. if daniel can enrich your characters’ lives in any way, shape, or form, hit me up and we’ll hatch a plan.
15 notes · View notes
multiverseforger · 4 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Norman was born in New Haven, Connecticut as the son of wealthy industrialist Amberson Osborn. Amberson, a brilliant student in the fields of science, became an alcoholic after losing control of a manufacturing company and fortune, and became physically abusive toward the family. Norman quickly came to despise his father, resolving to be a better breadwinner while developing early homicidal tendencies as a means of relieving the stress of his father's abuse.[41]
In college, where he studied chemistry, business administration, and electrical engineering, Norman meets his college sweetheart, eventually getting married and have their son Harold "Harry" Osborn. In his adulthood, with the help of his college professor Mendel Stromm, he co-founds the chemical company Oscorp Industries and establishes himself as CEO and President. The company was hugely successful, and Norman re-gained the wealth that he had lost during his childhood. However, his wife becomes ill and dies when Harry is barely a year old,[42] the stress of which pushes Norman to work harder, leading him to emotionally neglect Harry.
Hoping to gain more control of Oscorp Industries, Osborn accused Stromm of embezzlement and has his partner arrested and shares in his company sold to him. Searching his former mentor's possessions, Norman discovers an experimental strength/intelligence enhancement formula, but in attempting to create the serum, it turns green and explodes in his face. The accident greatly increases his intelligence and physical abilities as intended, but also has the side-effect of driving him into self-destructive insanity, just like his father from years ago.[43]
The original Green GoblinEdit
Norman Osborn as Green Goblin on the cover of Secret Invasion: Dark Reign vol. 1 #1 (December 2008). Art by Bryan Hitch.
Norman adopts the Green Goblin identity with the goal of being the leader of organized crime in New York City, and intends to cement his position by defeating Spider-Man. Acting on his own as the Goblin, or through his employment of other super-criminals such as the Headsman,[44] he would harass Spider-Man many times, but fail to achieve his goal.[45] Soon, Stromm returns from prison, and attempts to exact revenge on Osborn using an army of robots, but Norman is saved by Spider-Man, and Stromm apparently dies of a heart attack.[46]
In order to discover his nemesis's secret identity, Osborn exposes Spider-Man to a gas that nullifies the hero's spider-senses. This allows Osborn to stalk Spider-Man until he learns that his nemesis is Peter Parker, a college student and his son's classmate and friend. While Parker is going about civilian life, Osborn surprises and knocks Parker out with an asphyxiation grenade, taking the youth to his waterfront base. After unmasking himself to Parker, the latter goads him into recounting how he became the Goblin, and uses the time to break free. In the ensuing battle, Spider-Man accidentally knocks Osborn into a mass of electrical wires, wiping out his memory. Feeling sorry for his nemesis, and wishing to avoid the shame that would befall the Osborn family (especially Parker's best friend Harry), Spider-Man destroys the Goblin costume in the resulting fire and tells the authorities that Osborn lost his memory while helping to defeat the Goblin.[47]
Soon, Osborn is troubled by repressed memories of the Goblin and Spider-Man. After a presentation on supervillains by NYPD Captain George Stacy restores Osborn's memory, he experiences a brief return to his Goblin persona. While abducting Parker's friends and threatening Parker's elderly aunt, he is exposed to one of his own "psychedelic bombs", causing a relapse of amnesia.[48]
Later, Osborn stumbles upon an old Goblin hideout which, again, restores his memory. However, the shock of seeing Harry hospitalized, overdosed on drugs, causes Osborn's amnesia to return once more.[49] After the final restoration of his memories, the Goblin kidnaps and takes Gwen Stacy to a bridge.[50][51] During Spider-Man's rescue attempt, Osborn knocks Gwen off the bridge, resulting in the girl's death. Spider-Man, traumatised and obsessed with revenge, tracks the Goblin to his hideout, and in the ensuing battle, Osborn is impaled by his own goblin glider.[52]
ReturnEdit
While Osborn lies in the morgue, it is revealed that the Goblin formula gave him a previously-unknown healing factor which restores him to life; in the process of sneaking out, he kills someone with a similar physique to himself to feign his death. No longer suffering from bouts of amnesia, Norman escapes to Europe, where he can move freely and unnoticed (later revealed he was in France for some time). During this time abroad, believed dead by the general public, he orchestrates several plots, including replacing May Parker with a genetically altered actress,[53] and faking his own son's death (after Mephisto's manipulations of the timeline);[54] prior to the timeline change, Harry's corpse, at one point, was exhumed and tested.[55]
Most significantly, however, he utilizes his fortune to build a vast network of criminals, spies, dupes and co-conspirators to help engineer what would be an almost impossibly complex and meticulously planned plot to destroy Spider-Man's life. To achieve this, he's the leader of the Scrier cabal, taking as his pawns Seward Trainer, Judas Traveller, the Jackal and the cyborg Gaunt, all of whom he utilizes to carry out revenge against Parker. It is this group of individuals who are crucial in duping Parker into believing that the youth is actually a clone of himself created by Jackal,[56] while claiming that the clone – who comes to be known as Ben Reilly – is actually the original.[57] Frustrated by Parker's perseverance despite everything that's been inflicted,[58] Osborn publicly reveals that he's alive on Halloween. During the battle that ensues between the two, Osborn attempts to kill Parker by impaling his nemesis with his goblin glider. When Reilly sacrifices himself to save Parker from Osborn (and immediately deteriorates upon death as all of the Jackal's clones do), Parker discovers of actually being the original. During this same period, Osborn was also responsible for the murder or abduction of Peter & Mary Jane's newborn daughter, after one of his allies apparently caused the stillbirth of the baby.[19]
Returning to his former seat of power, Osborn regains control of his business and also buys out the Daily Bugle, humiliating former friend and societal peer J. Jonah Jameson as the latter no longer has control over the newspaper. He also torments Ben Urich and demands a retraction over an exposé of his time as the Goblin, providing faked evidence that he never was the supervillain, despite Urich's extensive research.[59] However, he saves his most sadistic treatment for Peter, acting not only as a constant reminder of all the pain he's inflicted on his nemesis over the years, but a looming threat that could strike at any time. This build-up of pressure eventually makes Spider-Man snap by savagely beating the civilian and non-resistant Osborn in front of the latter's CCTV, which, combined with Osborn convincing the Trapster to frame Spider-Man for murder, results in Spider-Man being a fugitive again.[20] To get around this, Peter adopts four new identities, using two of these identities to convince Trapster to expose Osborn's scheme,[60] and provide fake evidence that the individual that beat up Osborn was an impostor.[61]
For a time, Osborn retires his costumed persona and uses a stand-in so as not to be suspected of being the Green Goblin.[62] This fifth Goblin kidnaps Norman's grandson and clashes with the wanted and injured Spider-Man.[63] Norman also crosses paths with Roderick Kingsley and initiates a hostile takeover of Kingsley's corporate empire, in retaliation for raiding the Goblin's arsenal and identity.[64] While his stand-in is masquerading as the Goblin, Osborn joins a cult, hoping to receive great power from the 'Gathering of Five', which will grant the participants Power, Knowledge, Immortality, Madness or Death, but while he believes that he will receive Power, he is instead given Madness, which worsens his already mental instability, and threatens the world with genetic bombs. It is during this time that Peter learns May is alive and Osborn's actress died in May's place. Osborn's complete madness is evident, as he hallucinates unmasking and killing Peter; yet in reality Peter easily defeats him. He is rescued from custody thereafter by his cabal of henchmen.[65]
A few months later, the highly unstable Osborn has partially regained his sanity with the help of anti-psychotic drugs. He comes to see Parker as the son he had always wanted and attempts to have Parker take on the Green Goblin mantle using physiological torture, but ultimately fails.[66] Osborn's next plan involves using Flash Thompson drive drunk a truck into Midtown High School, resulting in an accident that causes Thompson brain damage. This successfully enrages Parker into what Osborn anticipates will be a climactic battle. During this confrontation, the emotionally weary Parker tells Osborn of being tired of their constant battle, and declares a truce.[67]
Osborn's Goblin identity is revealed to the public once again through an investigation by Jessica Jones, after Osborn murders one of the reporters from the Daily Bugle. After a battle with Spider-Man and Luke Cage, Osborn is arrested and sent to prison for the first time.[68] However, things were far from over. From behind bars, Osborn again masterminded a plan against Spider-Man. This time, he has MacDonald "Mac" Gargan as Scorpion kidnap May. The plan was for Spider-Man to break Osborn out of prison in exchange for Parker's aunt's life. Peter reluctantly agreed and with the help of the Black Cat proceeded to break Osborn out, only to have twelve of his greatest enemies waiting on the outside.
Osborn had assembled a team of supervillains. However, Mary Jane Watson had contacted S.H.I.E.L.D., and the villains were faced not only by Spider-Man, but the combined might of Captain America, Iron Man, Yellowjacket, Daredevil and the Fantastic Four. During the fracas, the Goblin manages to escape and kidnap Mary Jane, taking Peter's love interest to the George Washington Bridge in order to replay the murder of the last love interest. However, Doctor Octopus intervenes, attacking the Goblin. Spider-Man is able to save Mary Jane after a bolt of lightning sends the two villains into the river. Following some verbal clues from the Goblin, Peter also discovers where he had hidden May, and rescues the latter as well. It is revealed that Osborn sent Peter a letter before the fight, thanking Peter for giving his life meaning and purpose, but Peter never received the letter due to moving to a different residence.[69]
Years after Gwen's death, it is revealed that Osborn had a one-night stand with Gwen after being overwhelmed by his charisma, which led to Gwen's pregnancy with his illegitimate twin children. Osborn thus has three motives for killing Gwen; revenge against Spider-Man, to prevent Gwen from talking of their affair and creating a scandal, and to take their children to raise by himself, thus being his ideal heirs. Mary Jane was the only person who knew of their encounter and their children's existence prior to Gwen's death, despising Osborn for his immoral behaviors long before discovering he's the villainous Goblin. Gabriel and Sarah (who rapidly aged to adulthood years because of the Goblin formula in their genes) return to attack Peter as Osborn has the twins believe that Peter is the twins' father who abandoned the two and responsible for Gwen's death to which Peter learned the details of Gwen's past with Osborn and the twins from Mary Jane. Peter is able to convince Sarah of Osborn's villainy, the truth of Sarah's paternity and circumstances of Gwen's death, and stabilized the Goblin physiology with a blood transfusion due to Peter's blood type matching Sarah's. Meanwhile, Gabriel personally learns the truth of his relation to Osborn after watching a video message at one of the Goblin lairs, aligning with his father to stabilize his own condition using a variation of the Goblin formula at the cost of sanity.[70]
H.A.M.M.E.R. and the Dark AvengersEdit
Norman Osborn as Iron Patriot on the cover of Dark Avengers vol. 1, #1 (December 2008). Art by Mike Deodato Jr.
Osborn attempts to distance himself from his Green Goblin persona after being prescribed medication for his mental state. During the "Civil War" over the Superhuman Registration Act, Osborn is appointed director of the Thunderbolts superhero team, now tasked to apprehend anyone who resists registering.[71] While in this capacity, he directs the Thunderbolts to apprehend or kill Spider-Man,[72] but after Mephisto changes reality, Harry Osborn is alive once more, and no one (including Norman) knows Spider-Man's secret identity.[73] In the end, Spider-Man manages to evade this coordinated attack and escape.[74]
During the "Secret Invasion" by shape-shifting extra-terrestrials, the Skrulls, Osborn shoots and kills the Skrull queen Veranke.[75] He leverages this widely publicized success, positioning himself as the new director of the S.H.I.E.L.D.-like paramilitary force H.A.M.M.E.R. to advance his agenda,[75] while using his public image to start his own Dark Avengers, substituting Moonstone for Ms. Marvel, Bullseye for Hawkeye, Gargan for Spider-Man, Daken for Wolverine and Noh-Varr for Captain Marvel, as well as manipulating Ares and the Sentry into helping to further his cause. Osborn himself leads the Dark Avengers as the Iron Patriot, a suit of armor fashioned by himself after Iron Man's armor with Captain America's colors.[76] Osborn simultaneously forms the Cabal alliance with Doctor Doom, Emma Frost, Namor, Loki and the Hood,[77] but this 'alliance' quickly falls apart when Namor and Frost betray the Cabal to aid the X-Men.[78] Norman's attempts to exert his authority are increasingly jeopardized by various superheroes. After the Superhuman Registration Act records are deleted so that Osborn has no access to the information recorded about heroes after it was implemented, Osborn attacked the brain-damaged Tony Stark, thus showing Osborn brutally assaulting a physically and mentally incapable individual that was not even attempting to strike back.[79] After the New Avengers are forced to allow Osborn to capture Cage when needing medical treatment, the team uses a tracking device Osborn had planted in Luke to trick him into blowing up his own house after rescuing Cage from Osborn's custody.[80]
Harry is approached by Norman with the offer of a job within the Dark Avengers.[81] Norman welcomes Harry into Avengers Tower, wanting to make his son into the American Son.[82] When Harry finds a cure for Lily Hollister's Goblin condition for their baby's safety, Lily reveals that it is a ruse to coerce Harry into taking the American Son armor, whom Norman had plotted would die in a tragedy to increase sympathy for Norman and his Dark Avengers. When Lily also reveals that the baby is not Harry's but in fact Norman's, Harry dons his American Son armor, and fights Norman in his Iron Patriot armor.[83] During the battle, Norman declares that Harry is no longer his son, and that he has bred a better child to replace the 'failure' of Harry. After further taunts from Norman, Harry lashes out and defeats his father, declaring "I was never your son!". When Harry has the option of killing Norman, Spider-Man says to decapitate him, since Norman's healing factor may repair a blow to the head. Spider-Man also cautions Harry that killing Norman will cause Harry to "become the son Norman always wanted". Harry instead backs down, and turns away from his father forever.[84]
At Loki's suggestion, Osborn creates a rationale to invade Asgard, claiming the world (which was, at the time, positioned at the outskirts of Broxton, Oklahoma) poses a national security threat, by sending the U-Foes to attack Volstagg in Chicago, leading to the destruction of Soldier Field. During a pitched battle with several superheroes, Sentry causes Thor's world to fall to Earth. Osborn fights with the recently-resurrected Steve Rogers, however, Stark removes Osborn's Iron Patriot armor remotely, revealing Osborn used green facepaint to create a goblin-like look. Osborn screams that the Avengers do not know what they have done, only for Spider-Man to knock him down. He tells them they are all dead as the Void is released.[85] Osborn knocks out Rogers and tries to escape, but is captured by Volstagg. Incarcerated in the Raft penitentiary, he blames his Goblin alter-ego for ruining his chance to protect the world.[86]
When transferred to a secret underwater government base, Osborn takes steps to ensure his release from prison. He uses a group of followers known as the "Green Goblin Cult" to break out with the aid of corrupt senators; he plans to turn himself in after killing his fellow escapees, setting him up as a 'champion' of the judicial system.[87] After the breakout, he awaits his trial in a new prison, this one controlled by his cult members.[88] Using his staged persona as a voice for the 'disenfranchised', Osborn plans to regain the Iron Patriot armor and creates a new team of Dark Avengers, this time substituting June Covington for Scarlet Witch, Ai Apaec for Spider-Man, Barney Barton for Hawkeye, Skaar for Hulk, Superia for Ms. Marvel, Gorgon for Wolverine and the A.I.M.-rebuilt Ragnarok for Thor.[89] In the team's first fight with the New Avengers, Osborn reveals himself as the Super-Adaptoid, declares himself the head of world security, and orders that the Avengers be arrested for war crimes. However, double agent Skaar betrays Osborn, allowing the Avengers to dogpile Osborn's body, overloading him with superpowers and sending him into a coma. A.I.M. and HYDRA pick up Osborn's leftover resources, and H.A.M.M.E.R. is disbanded.[90] After the Hobgoblin returns to New York, a nurse and doctor are called to Norman's hospital room, only to find him gone.[91]
The Goblin KingEdit
When the children that work for the Vulture are discussing what to do after Superior Spider-Man (Otto Octavius's mind in Spider-Man's body) brutally defeats the Vulture, the Green Goblin approaches and tells the group that he will be the one that crushes Superior Spider-Man.[92] The Goblin is later shown having gathered a new gang of followers together in the sewers formed from discarded members of other villains' gangs like Vulture, Owl, and the third White Dragon's gangs. These henchmen escaped their organizations unharmed because Superior Spider-Man is more focused on the larger threats (where the original Spider-Man would focus on individuals).
As he builds this army to attack Superior Spider-Man, he takes on the new alias of the Goblin King.[93] The Hand ninjas who evaded capture arrive at the sewers and join up with the Goblin Nation. The group reveals in the news that, thanks to Superior Spider-Man's assault, Osborn now owns over half of New York's organized crime. He claims he now owns New York City as the Goblin Kingpin of Crime.[94] With Menace's help, Osborn later releases Phil Urich from a prison transport and upgrades Urich's Goblin armor and weapons, asking in return only that Urich's only identity from here on shall be Goblin Knight.[95] Osborn trains Goblin Knight, anxious to confront Superior Spider-Man.[96] Osborn later poses as the Hobgoblin and is sighted by some of the Spiderlings.[97]
Upon Carlie Cooper being brought to his lair by Menace, he receives Carlie's journal from Menace which reveals to him that Otto's mind is in Spider-Man's body.[98] Osborn douses Carlie with the Goblin formula, causing the woman to mutate into the new superhuman villain Monster. He demands to know Spider-Man's identity, but Monster first asks the Goblin to reveal his own identity. He assures Monster that he is Norman, but refuses to remove his Goblin mask until Carlie has proven a loyal follower and dispatches Monster and Menace on a mission.[99] Osborn battles and kills Hobgoblin, although it is revealed to be a servant with Kingsley still in hiding abroad which Goblin Knight discovers.[100]
Having staged a coup of New York after spreading his resources by exploiting Otto's reliance on technology, Osborn directly confronts Superior Spider-Man, angry that he was cheated out of the opportunity to defeat his enemy, but offering Otto the chance to join him and Otto rejects the offer. When Otto finds being unable to win against Osborn's resources, having had various allies abandoned, and with faith in his own abilities gone, Otto sacrifices himself to restore the original Spider-Man's mind in order to save Anna Maria Marconi.[101] When Spider-Man arrives for the final confrontation, Osborn quickly realizes that the original personality is back in control when Spider-Man responds to his nemesis' taunts with his own wisecracks.[102] In the duel that follows, Spider-Man unmasks Osborn, learning that he has undergone plastic surgery to change his appearance, acting as Alchemax's CEO and intending to re-establish himself as businessman Mason Banks, now that his true likeness is too publicly known as a supervillain. Spider-Man defeats and strips the villain's powers with Otto's serum, but Norman manages to escape through Liz Allan's discreet aid. In hiding once again, he reflects that the various heroes will be unprepared for him when he returns with a new identity and approach as a businessman, seemingly no longer afflicted by the mental illness associated with the Goblin formula.[103]
All New, All Different MarvelEdit
Osborn's Goblin King position was quickly usurped by Phil Urich.[104] However, a mysterious man with a bandaged face is soon shown to be selling Goblin-based weaponry globally to attack Parker Industries. This man reveals himself to be Norman alive again post-Secret Wars and still planning on getting revenge on Spider-Man.[105] He is revealed to have played a part in the recent coup of Symkaria.[106] He restores a semblance of his original features via a twisted form of plastic surgery but which also resembles the Green Goblin's facets, and intends to release a modified version of the Goblin formula to turn the whole country into Goblin-powered soldiers programmed to be loyal to him.[107]
However, in his final confrontation with Spider-Man, despite exposing his foe to a series of gases to temporarily neutralize all of his powers, and triggering an EMP to shut down all the gadgetry within his new Spider-armor, Spider-Man is still able to defeat Osborn as the two clash. Managing to escape while Peter is distracted, Osborn resolves to find a means of restoring his powers, concluding that he has only ever defeated Spider-Man when allowing himself to draw on his inner demons.[108]
Norman Osborn as Red Goblin on the cover of The Amazing Spider-Man vol. 1 #799 (June 2018). Art by Alex Ross.
The apparent first step in this plan occurs during the "Go Down Swinging" storyline when Osborn manages to steal the Carnage symbiote from an abandoned S.H.I.E.L.D. storehouse while Spider-Man is occupied with the return of Zodiac.[109] Osborn's efforts to control the Carnage symbiote initially backfire when he merges with it and finds himself overwhelmed by the urge to kill rather than his own prior plan to direct its power against Spider-Man specifically,[110] but he is able to convince it to let him have control in favor of trying something other than its usual mindless slaughter.[111] While interrogating a captive Jameson for information on Spider-Man, Osborn takes a brief interval from the torture to kill the self-proclaimed Goblin King tried to raid one of his old storehouses. After Osborn appeared as the Green Goblin, Jameson mentioned how he could not stop Spider-Man since even throwing Gwen off the bridge did not stop him from fighting back. Those words caused Norman to remember that Spider-Man is Peter Parker.[112] Attacking the Daily Bugle in his familiar Goblin attire, Osborn gives the rest of the staff time to evacuate as he fights Peter before revealing his new bond with Carnage, proclaiming himself to be the Red Goblin, driving Spider-Man away with 'Carnage bombs' that injure his leg. Discovering a sound-transmitting spider-tracer planted on him, Osborn uses this to deliver a 'devil's bargain' to Peter; if Peter abandons the Spider-Man identity and never performs any further heroics, Osborn will leave Parker alone, but the second he sees any sign of Spider-Man's return he will kill everyone in Peter's life. Peter places the Spider-Man top on a flagpole so that Osborn can see it burn, but privately vows that he will find a way to defeat Osborn as Peter rather than Spider-Man.[113] Peter is able to contact various allies like Human Torch, Clash, Silk, Miles Morales, and Agent Anti-Venom to watch over his loved ones. When Norman moves against the Osborns and proves immune to Carnage's traditional weaknesses of Human Torch's fire and Clash's sound devices, Peter is forced to step back into action despite the injured leg, with Agent Anti-Venom sacrificing a chance to get back into action himself to heal Spider-Man's injury as Osborn merges a part of the Carnage symbiote with his grandson Normie turning into a miniature version of Red Goblin.[114]
Normie goes after May but she gets some unexpected help in the form of Superior Octopus and J. Jonah Jameson who uses an old Spider-Slayer, however both are defeated by Norman. Soon afterwards, Normie watches as his grandfather throws Liz through a window only to be rescued by Spider-Man which causes Normie to turn on Norman. Norman reveals to Spider-Man he infected some of Peter's friends and family with slivers of the Carnage symbiote which he could send to their brain to kill them. However, it turns out that Flash has figured out Spider-Man's secret identity too and went to May and Mary Jane in order to remove those ticking time bombs. Flash then takes the fight to Norman and while it appears as if he's gaining the upper hand, it turns out that Norman still has some Green Goblin tech beneath the Carnage symbiote and he uses that to electrocute Flash. Flash's injuries prove to be fatal and dies in Spider-Man's arms. Spider-Man confronts Norman at Times Square as Red Goblin gains the upper hand. Peter manages to hold him off by pointing out that it's not the Goblin killing the Spider, but rather Carnage and Cletus Kasady. The villain is enraged by this and when Peter removes the Venom symbiote and to challenge him, Norman takes off the Carnage symbiote to reveal his old Green Goblin persona. Spider-Man manages to take his foe down and when the villain begs the Carnage symbiote to help him, the wall-crawler seemingly destroys it by hitting it with an exploding gas tank. However, the Carnage symbiote was attached to Norman when Peter destroyed it, and he wonders what sort of effect that might have had on his old foe's mind. Norman is last seen incarcerated at Ravencroft and believes that Spider-Man is Osborn and he is Kasady.[115]
When Kasady starts hunting all former symbiote hosts to extract the samples of the symbiote codex left in them with the goal of awakening a symbiote god as seen in the "Absolute Carnage" storyline, Spider-Man and Venom attempt to retrieve Osborn from Ravencroft to test a machine that can extract the codex from former hosts, as the Maker is uncertain of potential side-effects. However, Carnage attacks Ravencroft as they attempt to retrieve Osborn, transforming most of the patients into his drone soldiers and turning Osborn into another version of Carnage due to him still believing himself to be Kasady.[116] As Spider-Man works to keep Normie Osborn and Dylan Brock safe, a flashback showed that Kindred had visited Norman Osborn in Ravencroft. He quoted that Norman looked down on the citizens of New York from his tower and states that he could have his centipedes rip him apart if he wanted them to. Kindred even made a reference to how he appeared in Mary Jane's nightmares and how he would not be able to kill Spider-Man as Kindred states that he "already won a long time ago." Back in the present, Norman has defeated Spider-Man.[117] In the rest of the flashback, Kindred sent one of his centipedes into Osborn's head in order to save him from himself. Back in the present, Osborn's Carnage form feels a scratching in his head as he tells Kindred to let him be the one to kill Spider-Man. He then turns his target towards Dylan Brock and Normie. Spider-Man gets to his feet and defeats Norman. As more of the flashback is shown, Kindred states to Norman that he will leave now and will return when Norman is himself again so that they can confront the truth together. As Kindred starts to leave, Norman's Kasady persona states to Kindred that he has a message for him from Norman who states that he is "so proud of him". Kindred takes his leave as Norman's Kasady breaks out in maniacal laughter.[118] After the Grendel symbiote left Norman Osborn's body, Norman regained conscious and escaped during the final showdown with Carnage.[119]
At some point, Norman's mind recovered and he joined the Power Elite.[120]
In the pages of "Ravencroft," Norman Osborn regained his sanity by blaming his actions on the Carnage symbiote to J.A.N.U.S. and became a consultant at Ravencroft at the behest of Mayor Wilson Fisk during it's rebuilding. One of his assignments is to help John Jameson regain the ability to become Man-Wolf so that he can become an asset ranging from having Mister Hyde attack him to creating a clone of Ashley Kafka. In addition, Norman stole the Journal of Jonas Ravencroft to give to J.A.N.U.S. to use. When the Unwanted who lived beneath Ravencroft for years attacked, Norman succeeded in his goal to have John Jameson turn into Man-Wolf in order to fight the Unwanted. J.A.N.U.S.' leaders were pleased with Osborn's success enabling them to use the items in the basement.[121]
During the "Sins Rising" arc, Mayor Wilson Fisk promoted Norman Osborn to becoming the Director of Ravencroft where he found himself being targeted by a resurrected Sin-Eater.[122] When Sin-Eater's army of followers attacked Ravencroft, Norman was rescued by Spider-Man.[123] As Sin-Eater uses his abilities to steal the powers of Mister Negative to corrupt the guards, Norman takes Spider-Man to a bunker in his old cell and finds the items within them gone as the footage as he sees a corrupted Kafka be used to free Juggernaut so that he can steal his powers. Norman reveals that he was planning to use the weapons to counter Kindred who is after both of them. This leads to Norman removing a fake wall containing Green Goblin weaponry ready for combat.[124] Using Juggernaut's powers, Sin-Eater and his followers pursue Spider-Man and Norman Osborn as the Order of the Web considers waiting for Sin-Eater to cleanse Norman Osborn before intervening. As Spider-Man and Norman Osborn escape underground, Sin-Eater catches up to them. As Spider-Man holds onto Sin-Eater to restrain him, Norman Osborn activates an EMP to liquefy the floor beneath them. After getting away, Norman tried to drown Spider-Man as he is saved by the Order of the Web. Upon identifying Ghost-Spider as an alternate version of Gwen Stacy and his plans to do what he did to the other Gwen Stacy, Spider-Man threw him out of the vehicle thery were in.[125] Sin-Eater catches up to Norman Osborn and uses his gun to purge him of his sins. When Norman Osborn recovered, he was found by Kafka as most of Sin-Eater's followers are arrested. While mentioning that Ravencroft is in bad shape, Kafka is told by a remorseful Norman his suspicion that Kindred is Harry Osborn.[126] Not wanting to give him to the police, Kafka brings Norman to her office where he confessed every bad thing that he has done in his life. When Norman still claims that Harry is Kindred and that he must find a way to stop him before he goes further down the path to vengeance, Kafka suggests to Norman that he should enlist someone who Harry would still listen to.[127] [128] When Mary Jane catches up to Norman Osborn and attacks him, Norman expressed his remorse for his sins that Sin-Eater purged him of which Ashley Kafka corroborated on. He claims to Mary Jane that Harry Osborn is Kindred to which Mary Jane claimed that she just saw Harry Osborn alive.[129]
1 note · View note