#that’s the whole POINT of him—using an established institution of authority to hold on to power when the institution he WAS using collapsed

[aj-lenoire]

david didn’t become a preacher after the world ended because he found god. no one needed teachers anymore, no one was sending their kids off to school to learn math. the only way he could keep power and authority—and specifically power and authority over children—was by turning himself into a holy man.

[the-single-element]

Good morning.

Now that we're three weeks into Lent, a pattern is beginning to emerge in the Sunday readings. The TaNaKh excerpts, so far, have all had to do with covenants. This is another of God's peculiar habits, one which we hear of throughout the history of his relationship with humanity: that when he's seeking to establish or reestablish those relationships with us, he'll tend to present, clearly and up-front, what we can expect from him, and what he - if we accept - will expect from us.

We've heard, already, about God's peace treaty with the human race. We've heard about his relationship with Abram - who became Abraham - and his promise of various blessings, if Abram was willing to pull up stakes and go to Caanan.

And today, we hear about the most famous of God's covenants: the one he made with Abraham's descendants on Mount Sinai, after rescuing them from Egypt. The Ten Commandments, which we hear repeated today, were the beginning of that covenant (which, all told, spans three whole chapters of Exodus). And like all of God's covenants with human beings, it didn't only set out a code of conduct, but promised the blessings of a better world, so long as Abraham's children could hold up their end of that relationship.

Of course, one of the practices instituted in that covenant is the feast of unleavened bread, where all the Israelites' descendants would gather before God. That's what Jesus is doing in this excerpt from John's Good News, after all. This year, we won't be hearing John's account of Jesus's "Signs", like we did last time around, but rather, especially provocative moments from Jesus's Passover visits to Jerusalem, over the years.

And what an example today's is! Jesus's ejection of the moneychangers and sacrifice-merchants is a famous moment from his life, and certainly provocative if you consider people's reactions - "who do you think you are? what authority do you have to do that?" - and the fact that, well, travellers to Jerusalem certainly needed to buy sacrifices for the feast and change their coins for the local ones.

But what's the most often repeated, most stressed, most belabored point in all the Sinai covenant? What point does God want them to understand so clearly that he brings it up six or seven separate times, depending on how you count?

It's "no other gods".

Why God so jealously clutches us away from worshipping anything else - why Ezekiel's vision of idols in the Temple was framed as the ultimate, unmendable horror - I still can't say for sure. But perhaps it has something to do with the danger that a split loyalty can undermine everything else in a relationship; if you have someone or something you idolize, you have to choose between what it says and what God says, and you'll have reason after reason for turning away from the law's substance - or, even more likely, keeping to its substance by ignoring its heart.

After all, as Matthew reports Jesus teaching from his own mountaintop, "no man can serve two masters"; before long, one of the two will fall from grace.

And this is an easier trap to fall into accidentally than we might initially assume. Consider Aaron, for example, whose golden calf – which had probably been intended to be a metaphorical representation of the God of Abraham – got God so angry that Moses needed to talk him down from doing something drastic about it. Aaron thought he was being faithful... but the fact that he defaulted to representing God with an animal motif showed that he was already reverting to thinking about gods and worship the way an Egyptian would. If God was going to accomplish his chosen people's metanoia – if he was to change the direction of their hearts and minds towards the Kingdom of Heaven – then that whole line of thinking had to be torn out at the root. What a setback this was! How frustrated he must have been!

It's in that context that we can more easily understand Jesus's frustration, when we see what he does in today's Good News. When Jesus was speaking about how divided loyalties will eventually force you to choose between them, he wasn't speaking only generally; he finishes by specifically warning us that we "cannot serve both God and Wealth", with the latter conjugated as though it was the name of a foreign god.

This was the mistake of the merchants that Jesus drove out when he saw them in the Temple's outer court. The problem wasn't that they were selling sacrifices and exchaning currencies; that was necessary, after all, so that everyone could gather in Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover. But religious and community reasons aren't a good enough explanation for why they were doing it in the Temple courtyard. They could just as easily have set up tables on the way to the Temple, or near the inns. The only reason to put your money-changing stall in the chokepoint that everyone has to pass through is because you're deadset on maximizing your profits, on making the most sales you can.

In other words... if Mammon - if the logic of Striking It Rich - is an idol, then Ezekiel's ultimate horror (translated to an era more like ours than like Ezekiel's) is exactly what Jesus was driving out: not trade per se, but profit motive imposed upon a holy place.

Jesus said, once, that he came "not to abolish the Law, but to complete it". Today, we see his work on Earth especially in that light - in setting right what has gone wrong in the relationship between humanity and God. In wiping the slate clean so that we can restart our relationship on firmer ground. Jesus's work in life, then, parallels our work in Lent, to straighten out that relationship from our end.

And so, today is a reminder that part of that work is examining, not just our relationship with God, but our relationship with other things in our life. Are we serving two masters? Are we using God as an excuse, but really obeying some other, foreign value or urge? Are we like Aaron, fumblingly constructing a fake, earthly idea of who God is and putting it in God's place?

If so, let's rejoice that God forgives us... that God has given us this opportunity to make things right with him... and let's get it straightened out while we still can.

[vladdocs]

The Crusader Vlad and the organization of his country's army and its defensive system When we refer to the remarkable merits of Vlad Țepeș's head of state and army [1], we cannot ignore his takeover of a politico-military conception that has its origins in the old Byzantine imperial crusade tradition, Dragula being indisputably the first of our voivodes who rose to fight against the Ottoman Turks after the entry of Byzantium into the rule of Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror [2]. Of course, this takeover was also made because he considered himself the legal continuator of the anti-Ottoman struggle of the Byzantine basilicas (emperors) and the great Romanian rulers, especially after the death of Iancu de Hunedoara [3], "the last great European crusade" [4]. Thus, edifying for the pro-crusade politico-military thinking of Vlad Țepeș is also the “crusade duchy [5]” discovered at Târgșor (in Prahova county), ie in the place where Vlad built a church (…) and where there was, in the 15th century, a royal court ”[6]. The currency was struck, in all probability, between 1459-1461, in this case being a second monetary issue made during the reign of Vlad Tepes [7], because, wanting to intensify trade for economic development of the country (which resulted in the procurement of the financial resources necessary to fight the anti-Ottoman struggle), the Romanian voivode was also concerned with this aspect. The only copy of the respective monetary issue, discovered so far, the silver duchy mentioned above, has on its two facets images inspired by the Byzantine iconographic tradition. On the obverse, there appears the face of Vlad Ţepeş with a beard, seen from the front, standing, wearing a crown [on his head] and holding a long cross in his right hand, and the cruciferous globe in his left ”[8], practically“ the typical representation of the Byzantine emperor, in his double position of defender of Christianity and holder of the power of universal aspiration ”[9]. On the reverse is shown "the bust of Jesus Christ, seen [all] from the front, blessing with his right hand, and with his left holding the gospel to his chest" [10]. Practically "this image was also taken from the Byzantine iconographic tradition, being the representation on coins of rex regnantium, ie the hierarchical top of all Christian sovereigns" [11]. Putting the two effigies together on the same coin, certainly on the initiative of Vlad Ţepeş, leads to the conclusion that we are dealing with “a crusade duchy", the Romanian lord considering himself the direct heir of the old Byzantine crusade traditions and , therefore, the main Christian adversary of the Crusent [12], after the disappearance of Iancu de Hunedoara ”[13]. It is interesting to mention the fact that the first coin struck by Vlad Țepeș was a “penny” of anepigraphic silver (ie without any inscription) on the reverse of which appears a star with a tail in the shape of the letter «S», so a comet. The fact that, according to astronomical data, on June 8, 1456, the famous comet Halley (which could be seen for a whole month) appeared in the sky of Europe, led the specialists to conclude that Vlad Ţepeş was influenced in choosing the image for the reverse of the coin. issued from his order, right at the beginning of the second of his reigns, precisely by this rare and interesting astronomical phenomenon, "disturbing image, as it seems unique in the European numismatics of the time" [14]. Considering the uniqueness of Dracula in our history, but also in the universal one, we cannot fail to notice the amazing connection between the evolution of his politico-military career and the mentioned astral phenomenon, which, while at that time instilled a terrible horror in the population. For Europe, it was for him a "heavenly" sign under which he managed to defeat (and kill) his rival (Vladislav II [15]) and ascend to the royal throne of his ancestors [16]. Aiming to consolidate and protect the royal authority and the economic and socio-political bases of the anti-Ottoman resistance and “preparing the reopening of the war

with the Ottoman Empire to ensure state independence and restore the territorial unity of Wallachia, Vlad Țepeș took numerous measures to strengthen the court army (The permanent army- nnTC), the backbone of the "great army", making full use of its revenues for its reorganization, endowment and training, according to the requirements of the time ”[17]. Dragula was also concerned with hiring a large number of specialized fighters from the sister countries (ie Transylvania and Moldova - nnTC), especially those trained in the campaigns of Iancu de Hunedoara, giving a similar status to the soldiers in the country "[18 ]. At the same time, he "raised and strengthened in military positions faithful and talented people (…), chosen with discernment, according to the value criterion" [19]. In the time of Vlad the Impaler, the country's "small army" (as well as its personal guard) consisted of mercenaries, viteji(Braves)[20], courtiers and servants or princely servants, while "the great army" ( mobilized only in case of great danger) was composed of all those able to bear arms and fight (mostly of them, these being inhabitants of villages, but also of fairs and cities, which, "unlike the guard the lord [as well as the army of the courtiers, the troops of the princely servants and the troops of mercenaries], an elite army, were inhomogeneously armed, that is, each came with the weapon he had in the household ”[21]) [22]. In fact, Dragula is the first Romanian ruler, since Mircea the Elder, who raised to battle all those capable of wielding a weapon, an act of great courage that proves his ability to maneuver large masses of people on the battlefield [ 2. 3]. Constantly in a categorical and overwhelming numerical inferiority to the Ottoman invaders he had to face [24], Vlad Țepeș always resorted to a series of measures aimed at a "consistent application of the strategy of the struggle of the whole people (specific to the Romanians - nnTC), he destroying everything in the way of the invading army - thus depriving it of any logistical support in the invaded territory - and triggering bold actions of harassment, the latter - the prelude to a decisive battle - must undermine the combative potential of to the enemy and to decisively weaken his morale ”[25]. Relevant to the care given to military matters is the fact that according to tradition, after the end of any of the battles in which he took part, Dragula (who was a good fighter himself instilling in the whole army a spirit of order and discipline" [26], as well as great courage and love for the country to the point of self-sacrifice), he personally searched each fighter and “who was wounded in the face, gave him great honor and made him brave, [but] who was struck in the back , he ordered that he be put (put - nnTC) on the stake ”[27]. Being "agile and as good as possible in military affairs" [28], a fact recognized even by his enemies, the Ottoman Turks [29], Vlad Țepeș " enlarged and strengthened the military institution promoting peaseants to small rank boyars , exempt them from taxes and benefits in exchange for military service, thus cementing ties with the majority class of the time - the peasantry - a class that understood to serve with devotion the one who defended it from the abuses of the great nobility "[30]. Therefore, "the peasant soldiers of Vlad [Țepeș] defended the entire land of Wallachia, from the Danube, where the Ottoman fleet could not be controlled, until the mountains transformed into a natural fortress of resistance" [31], and Dracula "He himself, as an example of bravery and heroism, often fighting in the front lines, personally leading the attacks on enemy camps, established himself as a valiant defender of his country's independence, [as] a great lord and army commander, [he being] one of the the most brilliant leaders of the Romanian people ”[32]. Vlad Țepeș also paid special attention to the defensive system of his country (as, moreover, was normal in the context of his anti-Ottoman policy), he strengthened it with new cities of refuge, fortresses on

the probable directions of invasion and fortified monasteries ”[33]. Dracula proceeded both to repair, enlarge, strengthen and even raise the foundations of some fortresses, and to "build or rebuild the defensive walls" [34] of some monasteries, such as Cozia, Govora, Tismana, Snagov and Comana [ 35]. Among the fortresses rehabilitated, consolidated and enlarged by the worthy Romanian voivode is the fortress of Poienari (on the upper course of the river Argeș), which, between April-May 1457, he renovated and expanded, which was done according to Povestirilor about Vlad Ţepeş and the forced labor of a significant number of boyars and townspeople from Târgovişte (along with their families), who had plotted against him (these are the ones who took part in the murder of his older brother, Mircea]) [ 36]. The next is the fortress of Bucharest (on the river Dâmbovița), where, in order to monitor the Danube line (given that the fortress of Giurgiu had been occupied by the Turks), he ordered the construction of a strong fortress (which was built in the current area). center of Bucharest, now the well-known archeological ensemble "Curtea Veche"), which is considered the most important plain fortification erected by Dracula (practically, it rebuilds, expands and strengthens the fortress existing here since the time of his grandfather, of Ungrovlahia ”Mircea the Old) [37]. In fact, the first definite documentary attestation of Bucharest dates exactly from the time of Vlad Țepeș, more precisely from 1459, when, through the deed of September 20 (“true birth certificate of our Capital today” [38]), the great Romanian ruler it exempts donations and strengthens the property rights of some inhabitants [39]. The document, very damaged, was discovered around 1900 [40], it represents, more precisely, a deed that strengthened, through the signature of the fierce voivode, an act of sale-purchase of some estates from Ponor (locality today in the county Mehedinti). The act concludes with the following text: "It was written on September 20, in the city of Bucharest, in the year (according to the" Byzantine era "- nn TC) 6968 (ie 1459 [according to" our era "- nn TC]), Io Vlad voivod, by the mercy of God, sir ”[41]. Also, on the last line of this document is mentioned the name “Bucharest [42]. If we take into account the large number of documents written on the orders of Vlad Ţepeş from his residence in Dâmboviţa, we can conclude that, starting with 1459, he led the affairs of the state here, practically Bucharest (or Dâmboviţa Fortress, as it was also called urban settlement at that time) becoming (along with Târgoviște) the second capital of the Romanian south-Carpathian state [43]. Finally, another fortress built by Vlad Țepeș is the fortress of Frumoasa, which, being located on the valley of the river Vedea (right on its bank), "controlled the access road coming from the Danube ford, from the right Zimnicea locality ”[44]. This "fortification, with an area of ​​2.5 ha, consisted of three rows of waves and two ditches arranged concentrically, the central wave, square in plan with a side of 43 m, carrying the wooden structure of the palisade [45], and the other two were of the simple type, having a rectangular route (the second) and trapezoidal (the outer one) ”[46]. Vlad Țepeș also ordered the expansion of the military constructions of all voivodship residences [47], such as the one in Târgovişte (at that time the largest urban settlement in the country and the main royal residence) [48], where, among other things, he “rebuilt the walls of the fortress with Transylvanian stonemasons” [49] and at the same time, “it seems to have been erected [by his command] and the famous tower of Chindia” [50], which was built , initially, for military purposes, the building serving as a guard point, and later it was also used as a fireplace, as well as for storing the country's treasure [51]. By investing large sums of money in the construction of solid buildings, made of stone and brick, Vlad Ţepeş made both the city and his royal court in Târgovişte to

have a truly princely appearance [52]. "The repair and enlargement of the walls of the royal court made it much stronger and, from now on, to be called a 'fortress'" [53] (on this occasion the royal palace was extended here, erected in a first form by Mircea the Old) [54]. In this sense, the opinion of Ştefan Báthory [55] (the supreme commander of the Transylvanian troops sent to Wallachia by King Matia Corvin to help Vlad Ţepeş to return for the third time to his reign) is also relevant. 1476, he visited Târgoviştele (after it was occupied by the army led by the Transylvanian “captain” and Dracula) and, at his sight, he stated that it was “a real fortress” [56], his opinion being an informed one, because where he came from, the art of building large fortifications was well represented, "and the notions of the military were much more precise." Referring to the exceptional qualities proved by Vlad Ţepeş as organizer of the defense of his country, and not only, as well as as a fighter with a gun in his hand and a leader of the army on the battlefield, a great specialist in military history in the eighteenth century , the Frenchman M. de Follard, appreciated them as remarkable, which is why, in his vision, the brave Romanian prince proved to be "one of the greatest captains (army leaders - nn TC) of his century" [58] , bringing as the main argument for this cataloging his famous victory obtained after his unprecedented and daring night attack, executed on 16/17 June 1462 on the camp of the huge Ottoman army near Targoviste (led by the conqueror of Constantinople, Sultan Muhammad of II), a battle that entered the popular tradition and historiography under the name of "Night Attack" [59]. ________________________ [1] Also nicknamed Dragula, Vlad III Ţepeş was the son of Vlad II Dracul (in his turn illegitimate son of Mircea cel Bătrân [who ruled the medieval Romanian state in the South Carpathians between 1386-1418 - History world in data, Romanian Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1972, p. 567], he ruled Wallachia between 1436-1442 and from 1443 to 1447 [Ibidem]) and Mrs. Anastasia (one of the daughters of Alexander the Good [Virgil Ciocâltan, Between the Sultan and the Emperor: Vlad Dracul in 1438, in “Revista de istorie”, XXIX, No. 11, Bucharest, 1976, pp. 1777, 1782], the lord of Moldavia between 1400-1432 [History of the world in data, p. 569]), he being, therefore, nephew of the two great voivodes, who completed the Romanian statehood in the south and east of the Carpathians. Dracula ruled over "Ungrovlahia" (the name of Wallachia in internal documents written in Slavonic) three times, namely from October (before 17-19) until the beginning of November (certainly after October 31) 1448; from July (before 3) 1456 to November (before 26) 1462 and from October (after 7) / November (before 📷 until the end of December 1476, possibly even until the beginning of January (certainly before of 10) 1477 (Constantin Rezachevici, Encyclopedia of Romanian Lords. Critical Chronology of the Lords of Wallachia and Moldova, vol. I [XIV-XVI Centuries], Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, pp. 101, 103, 115, 117, 801 , 802). [2] Mehmed II ruled the Ottoman Empire between 1444-1446 and 1451-1481 (History of the World in Dates, p. 567). [3] Remarkable politician and brilliant leader of the Romanian army, who lived between 1407-1456 and held high dignities in the Kingdom of Hungary, including that of regent or governor general of Hungary (between 1446-1453), he being the main promoter of the struggle of Christendom against the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, which he led, practically, between 1441-1456. Also, Iancu de Hunedoara was the father of the most important king of Hungary, Matia I Corvin, who reigned between 1458-1490 Tiberiu Ciobanu, «Fortissimus athleta Christi», Iancu de Hunedoara 555, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2011, p 15-28, 118, 192-193). [4] Ioan-Aurel Pop, The name of the family of King Matthias Corvinus: from period sources to contemporary historiography, in "Studies and materials of

medieval history", XXVI, Bucharest, 2008, p. 138. Regarding the related aspects of the “imperial idea” in Romanian, see also Dumitru Năstase, The imperial idea in the Romanian Lands. The genesis and its evolution in relation to the old Romanian art (XIV-XVI centuries), Athens, 1972; Petre Ș. Năsturel, Considérations sur l’idée impériale chez les Roumains (Considerations on the Imperial Idea in Romanian), in “Byzantina”, tom. V, Thessaloniki, 1973, pp. 397-413. [5] In the Middle Ages, in Wallachia, the "duchy" was a silver coin, weighing about one gram and worth three "money" (the name given to coins that have circulated over time on the territory of today Of Romania and whose value varied according to epochs and regions, small coin, initially silver, then copper, having the lowest value [Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Stephen the Great and Saint and his brilliant victory in Vaslui against the Turks Ottomans, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2015, p. 366]), whose prototype (model) was the Venetian silver duchy, beaten since 1202 (Ibidem, p. 431). Stephen the Great was "great voivode and lord" of Moldavia from April 14, 1457 to July 2, 1504 (History of Romania in data, Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1971, p. 457). Being the son of Bogdan II (who ruled the eastern Romanian-Eastern Carpathian state from October 12, 1449 to October 15, 1451 [Ibidem]) and the nephew of Alexander the Good, he was closely related to Dracula [they were primary cousins] , because the mother of the latter, Mrs. Anastasia, was in turn the daughter of Alexander the Good and, therefore, sister (at least in paternal line) with the father of Stephen the Great (Virgil Ciocâltan, op. cit., p. 1777 , 1782). [6] Ştefan Andreescu, Vlad Ţepeş Dracula between legend and historical truth, second edition, revised, Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, p. 99. [7] Ibidem. [8] Ibidem. The term "globe cruciger" refers to a Christian symbol of authority, which was used in the Middle Ages, but which is still found on some coins, as well as in iconography. It represents a globe on which is placed a cross, used as a royal insignia, for coronation, in several monarchies in Europe. This is especially the case of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, where it was designated as the "imperial globe". The cross on the globe, which symbolizes God's dominion over the entire world, is much larger than the globe, suggesting God's priority over human affairs. The globe, in the hand of the emperor, also signifies the divine origin of the power he exercises. The term comes from the Latin phrase "globus cruciger", consisting of the words "globus", meaning "sphere, globe", and "cruciger" [composed in turn from the noun "crux, crucis", meaning "cross" and the verb "gero , gerere, gessi, gestum ���, meaning“ to carry ”], which means“ bearer of the cross ”) and has the meaning of“ bearer of the cross ”(ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger). [9] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 99. [10] Ibidem. [11] Ibidem. [12] Part of the Moon's semicircular disk, illuminated by the Sun during one of the phases of the star; The moon seen in the phase of the first and last square. Symbolic sign of Islam, representing the Moon in the rising phase, in the form of a "sickle". Figuratively, the Ottoman Empire, the Turks, the Muslims; Islam, Mohammedanism [13] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 99; Octavian Iliescu, Unknown Duchies issued by two voivodes of Wallachia in the 15th century, in the “Bulletin of the Romanian Numismatic Society”, years LXXVII-LXXIX (1983-1985), Bucharest, 1987, pp. 268-278. [14] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 63. [15] This was the son of Dan II the Brave (who ruled over Wallachia between 1420-1431, with four interruptions [History of the World in Data, p. 567]), who in turn had him as father on Dan I (who ruled the medieval Romanian state in the South Carpathians between 1383-1386 [Ibidem]), considered to be the father of Dăneşti, one of the two main branches of the princely dynasty of the Bessarabians, along with that of the Drăculeşti Vlad

Dracul, Vlad Țepeș's father, but who generally refers to the descendants of Mircea cel Bătrân). Vladislav II ruled between 1447-1456, with a brief interruption in the autumn of 1448, when the throne of Targoviste was first occupied by Vlad the Impaler (Ibidem, p. 568). In unknown circumstances, Vladislav II was executed by order of Dracula, on August 20, 1456 (after his defeat and capture following the battle of Târgșor [Prahova County], which took place before this date), finding- and eternal rest at Dealu Monastery (Constantin Bălan, Dealu Monastery, 2nd edition, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, pp. 6-8, 24). [16] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 63; Jean Delumeau, Fear in the West (14th-18th century). A besieged fortress, vol. I, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, pp. 118-119. [17] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, Militară Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, p. 259. [18] Ibidem: Ioan Bogdan, Documents regarding the relations of Wallachia with Brasov and with Hungarian Country in sec. XV-XVI, vol. I, Bucharest, 1905, p. 99. [19] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259. [20] In the Middle Ages, in the Romanian Lands, the term "brave" meant a person who belonged to a category of landowners, similar to the knights of Western Europe and having special military tasks. Our princes raised many of their soldiers, who stood out on the battlefield, among the brave, especially from the second half of the fifteenth century and, especially, by Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler (Tiberiu Ciobanu, op cit., p. 633). [21] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, In the footsteps of Vlad Țepeș, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1979, p. 123. [22] Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, Editura Enciclopedică, București, 2001, p. 352; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 119-123. [23] Ibidem, pp. 123; Tiberiu Ciobanu, The Night Attack, in From Rovine to Călugăreni. Great victories of the Romanian armies over the Ottoman Turks, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2014, p. 68. „In addition to the numerical increase of the soldiers who depended directly on the reign - mercenaries, servants, heroes, courtiers his army, mercilessly punishing those who did not respect his dispositions ”(Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 352). Honestly and strongly "impressed by this discipline" (Ibidem), the Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha * himself stated in the summer of 1462 that if Dracula had a larger number of fighters he "could reach great power" ( Laonic Chalcocondil, Historical Exhibitions: The Rise of Turkish Power, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire (Romanian edition by Vasile Grecu), RPR Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1958, p. 289). * Nicknamed the "Greek" (probably due to his origin), Mahmoud Pasha was the son-in-law of Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror and Grand Vizier (the first counselor and his deputy) between 1455-1467 and 1472-1473 or, according to another opinion, between 1456 -1468 and 1472-1474 (Mustafa Ali Mehmed, History of the Turks, Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1976, p. 383; ro.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Pașa). [24] Dracula never had more than 30,000-32,000 fighters (Military History of the Romanian People, vol. II, p. 263) and this only by decreeing the general mobilization, on this occasion being recruited all men and young people from his country, capable of carrying weapons, "from 12 years upwards" (the magazine "Trajan's Column" [edited by BP Hasdeu], NS, IV, Bucharest, 1883, p. 36). [25] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, pp. 272-273. [26] Ibidem, pp. 259. [27] The Slavo-Romanian chronicles from the XV-XVI centuries. Published by Ioan Bogdan (critical edition by P. P. Panaitescu), R.P.R. Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1959, pp. 207-208. [28] Foreign travelers about the Romanian Lands, vol. I (edited by Maria Holban), Scientific Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, p. 176. [29] "The results of his reorganization and training of the army and his qualities as a

military commander were appreciated even by his fiercest opponents, and Turkish chroniclers regarded him as" famous among his peers and in his craft. to lead armies. He was also unique in serdaria (ie in command, this word coming from the term "serdar" * - nn TC), a second like him not being in the land of the ghiauri ", Sultan Mehmed II himself (ie Muhammad II- the Conqueror - nn TC) “considering him a brave man, and praising him to others” ”(Military History of the Romanian People, vol. II, p. 260; Turkish Chronicles on the Romanian Lands, vol. I [compiled by Mihail Guboglu and Mustafa Ali Mehmed], RSR Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1966, p. 199). Ghiaur = pejorative name (ie unfavorable, derogatory, contemptuous), used by the Turks to designate those of a religion other than the Mohammedan, in Turkish meaning "unbeliever" (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Mircea cel Batran the most agile of Christian principles », Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2013, p. 188). * The generic name, in the Ottoman Empire, of the commander-in-chief of a large Turkish expeditionary military corps (Idem, Glossary, in Stephen the Great and Saint and his brilliant victory at Vaslui against the Ottoman Turks, p. 593). [30] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259-260. [31] Ibidem, p. 283. [32] Ibidem, p. 283-284. [33] Ibidem, p. 260. [34] Ibidem. [35] Ibidem. [36] Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, Poienari Fortress, 15th-16th centuries, in “Studies and researches of ancient history”, tom. XXII, no. 2, Bucharest, 1971, pp. 263-289; Maria Ciobanu, Nicolae Moisescu, Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, Poienari Fortress, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, pp. 88-89; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., 109-112. [37] Panait I. Panait, The Citadel of Bucharest in the 14th and 15th centuries, in “Revista Muzeelor”, no. 4, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 310-318; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 103-105; Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 97; Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, Problems of the relations between the beginnings of the medieval urban settlements and the princely courts from Wallachia, in “Studia Valachica”, Târgovişte, 1970, pp. 104-105. [38] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 94. [39] H. Chircă, Historical-Philosophical Commentary on the Chrysostom of September 20, 1459, in "Studies", vol. XII, no. 5, Bucharest, 1959, pp. 5-7; Radu Olteanu, Bucharest in dates and events, Paideia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002, p. 14. [40] Ibidem; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7. [41] Ibidem; Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14. According to the “Byzantine era”, the date of “Creation” is the year 5508 BC. Often encountered in the form of "years since the creation of the world" or "years since the building of the world" or "years since Adam", this chronology was officially used in the Byzantine Empire (by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) and other churches. Orthodox from 692 to 1728. In the Romanian Lands, it was used mainly until the middle of the eighteenth century, being gradually replaced, until the middle of the nineteenth century, with "our era" (abbreviated "en"), which we count from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is why the abbreviation "AD" is used. Because the "Byzantine era" is considered to be 5508 years older than "our era", in order to transpose the years of the "Byzantine era" into the years of "our era" this difference of years must be taken into account, using operations. subtraction or addition, depending on the situation(ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_bizantină). [42] Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7. [43] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 105. In fact, Dracula spent four of the more than six years of his reign “in the city of Bucharest”, preferring it to the royal residence in Târgoviște, this, especially, out of the desire to be as close as possible of the Danube, in order to be able to better supervise the movements of the Turks (Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7). [44] The military history of the Romanian people,

vol. II, p. 90; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 123. [45] Wooden fence or "wall", used in the past as a defense structure; fortification element, used in older defensive arrangements, consisting of thick and long poles, knocked to the ground, tied together with planks, ropes, ropes (tree branches, tree branches, etc.) etc. and having between the spaces braids of twigs, sometimes also a filling of beaten earth. The height of a palisade could be up to three meters. Synonym: (rarely today) lever ((ro.wiki-pedia.org/wiki/Palisadă; dexonline.ro/definiție/palisade). [46] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 90. „The ditches (fortress from Frumoasa - n.n. T.C.) had oblique walls, with a maximum width of 8-12 m; the difference between the wave coast and the ditch wire was between 6 and 10 m. Outside the central palisade there was a platform, approx. 3-3.5 m, on which the defenders of the fortress circulated. For the construction of the central palisade, two ditches were dug with a depth of 1-1.30 m, on the bottom of which were fixed, in an oblique position, thick oak poles, at a distance of 0.15-0.25 m from each other . Between the rows of stakes, at different levels of them, thick beams and beams were fixed, horizontally or obliquely, thus compartmentalizing the skeleton of the palisade, which was then covered with beaten earth ”(Ibidem). [47] Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, op. cit., p. 104-105; Istoria militară a poporului român, vol. II, p. 90; Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 123. [48] ​​Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 97; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 260; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 123-126; Nicolae Constantinescu, Cristian Moisescu, Royal Court of Târgovişte, 2nd edition, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1969. Royal and capital residence between 1396 and 1714, Târgoviște held for more than three centuries the status of the most important economic, political center -military and cultural-artistic of Wallachia, currently being the city-municipality of residence of Dâmbovița County, administrative-territorial unit from the central-southern part of the country, more precisely from the central-northern area of ​​the Romanian geographical-historical region Muntenia (ro .wikipedia.org/wiki/Târgoviște. [49] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 260. [50] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97. [51] Also known as the "Chindia Tower", it is currently part of the "Royal Court" Historical Monument Ensemble and measures 27 meters in height and 9 meters in diameter. Between 1847-1851, the tower was completely restored by the rulers of Wallachia, Gheorghe Bibescu (who ruled between 1842-1848 [History of the world in data, p. 568]) and Barbu Știrbei (who ruled between 1849-1853 and 1854). -1856 [Ibidem]), the current form being due to the first one, including its elevation by about 5 meters compared to the initial construction. The Chindia Tower is the most important tourist attraction in Târgoviște and, at the same time, the symbol of the city, specific elements of the building being present on the coat of arms of the respective city, both at the top and at the bottom. In fact, now, the tower is also the most important tourist attraction of the entire Dâmbovița County, currently hosting the exhibition entitled "Vlad the Impaler - Dracula, legend and historical truth", which presents documents, weapons and objects from the reign of the fierce Romanian voivode, but also maps with the surroundings of those times. From an administrative point of view, the Chindia Tower is under the tutelage of the “Curtea Domnească” National Museum Complex in Târgoviște. There are two hypotheses regarding the origin of the name of the tower, but there is no consensus on this fact. The first claims that areas in the vicinity of the tower were places of feasting, called "chindii", hence the origin of the name. It has also been suggested that its name comes from the word "chindie", an archaism meaning "sunset", a time of day when soldiers

defending the tower were required to give the signal that the five gates of the city were closed. After this moment, it was forbidden to enter or leave the city throughout the night, and the inhabitants had the obligation not to drive on the streets and not to maintain outdoor fires, which would have made the city visible from a great distance (ro.wikipedia .org / wiki / Turnul_Chindiei). [52] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 125. [53] Ibidem, pp. 124. [54] Ibidem. [55] This is Stephen I Báthory of Ecsed, who was a prominent member of the powerful Hungarian noble family Báthory. He lived between 1430-1493 and held the position of voivode of Transylvania from July 1479 to January 1493 (History of Romania in dates, p. 461; History of the Romanians, vol. IV, p. 807). Very ambitious, he will be appointed, in 1471, by Matthias Corvinus as a judge of the Royal Court (ie royal judge, in which capacity he was the king's legal deputy [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_royal]), holding this high position until his death. Due, however, to his warlike nature (warriors - nn TC), along with the cruelty he had shown countless times (especially to the Szeklers, whose committee [governor] had been for a time - nn TC), István (Ştefan - nn TC ) Báthory will end up being dethroned in 1493 "(Cristian Ioan Popa, The Battle of the Field of Bread [October 13, 1479]. From the universality of the medieval lied to the recovery of national heroes, in" Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis "[ Yearbook of the Municipal Museum „Ioan Raica” from Sebeş], No. 2, Sebeş, 2010, p. 276), dying shortly afterwards (see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ştefan_Báthory_de_Ecsed). The special merit of Stephen I Báthory was that together with the Timiș counties, Pavel Chinezu will obtain, on October 13, 1479, on Câmpul Păinii (near Orăştie), a brilliant victory over the Turks who had invaded Transylvania (Military History of the People). Romanian, vol. II, pp. 334-337). * Famous for his Herculean strength, for his extraordinary skill in handling weapons of all kinds, especially the sword, usually he "fighting with two swords at once" [Antonio Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia, Buda, 1770, p. 639]) and for his remarkable qualities as an army leader, Pavel Chinezu was a Romanian from Banat, who lived between 1432-1494 and held a number of high positions in the political-administrative and military hierarchy of Hungary, among which the leadership of the entire province of Banat and the supreme command of the troops from the south of the Hungarian Kingdom were counted (at one point, he was appointed by Matthias Corvinus at the head of all the military forces of the Hungarian Crown), which he exercised from 1478 until his death. sa (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Pavel Chinezu and his great victory on the Field of Bread against the Ottoman Turks, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timişoara, 2014, p. 15-42). [56] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 125-126. [57] Ibidem, p. 126. [58] M.de Follard, Histoire de Polybe (Istoria lui Polybius), II, Paris, 1727, pp. 49-50. Polybius = Greek politician and historian, who lived between 200-120 BC. and he was an unconditional admirer of Rome, compiling a vast history (in 40 books) of the Roman Republic (and of the states which came into contact with it, practically a universal history), which entered historiography under the title of General History, which deals with the events that took place between 220-146 BC. (Dominique Vallaud, Historical Dictionary, translated by Nicolae Șarambei, Artemis Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008, p. [59] For information on the development of the sultanate campaign in the summer of 1462, undertaken north of the Danube, as well as details on the "Night Attack", see Tiberiu Ciobanu, The Great Sultanate Campaign in the Summer of 1462 undertaken in Wallachia and the Night Attack ”, In Vlad Țepeș and“ The Night Attack ”555, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2017, pp. 99-172; Sultan's campaign = large-scale military action led personally by the sultan.

[dr-nero-is-god]

i felt the urge to riff on the hive streams for a little bit since discussion came up on the hive discord, namely, holding issue with the idea that the alpha stream is inconsistent in that it is about leadership when otto is the only leader, and that it’s also possible that the alphas are just kids with specialized skills, and not actually bonded by any particular unifying element.

and, in response, @vulpix-sinistre brought up a quote from the abridged hive fanfic, that goes something like: “there are four streams: main characters, stereotypical bullies, ?, and nerds.”

and i disagree with the first two ideas, but almost completely agree with the abridged fic quote. that is pretty much how the streams work, and it is IMPORTANT that that is how the streams work. 

in the end, you may conclude that the streams system still doesn’t make sense. you won’t be like “well clearly dr. nero was just logically dividing the labor of his students to reflect a specialized training program” because it’s more complicated on that. i  hate to do this to y’all, but a lot of everything streams-related requires an out-of-book explanation to get where you’re going, but i can promise that i will at least try to go

first, let’s think about why h.i.v.e. would have streams at all

on the one hand, it’s inescapable to consider that one primary reason that hive has streams is because harry potter had houses, and for the same reason that percy jackson had cabins, the 39 clues had branches, hunger games had sections (or counties, idk), divergent had factions, and so on and so on. the rise of fandom spaces on the internet was concurrent with a big ya/mg boom in the post-2005 world (after twilight was published), and within those fandom spaces it became important to identify with an aspect of the fantasy world as part of your personality. that became a very marketable thing for a while, and so separating children into streams would, to a publisher, seem like a pretty solid storytelling choice.

however! the alpha stream is not the same as gryffindor house. on the one hand, it seems easy to make an alpha/gryffindor and henchman/slytherin parallel, because one group is good (relatively) and one is bad (or at least antagonistic). but it doesn’t work because while slytherin has a reputation for constituents of poor moral character (which has been largely revised in fanon), being a henchman is where you go, according to the books, if you are unintelligent and burly. it’s not a really sexy stream, is what i’m trying to say. and though there are undoubtedly some readers who would look at the henchman stream and see themselves, i think the majority of readers would likely find the henchman stream a completely undesirable stream to be in. 

and, given how little importance the role of streams have after the first book, i will go out on a limb and say that mark walden knows that the henchman stream is unsexy. we aren’t interested in the hopes and dreams and motivations of the henchman stream; as we learn in book two, the ideal henchman is weak-minded and easily led—so what dreams would they even have? this leads me to conclude that while mark walden might have sold h.i.v.e. on the “there are personality-based groups in the school!” idea, he had something completely else in mind when he started writing and that, I think, is actually far more interesting.

but really, why would h.i.v.e. have streams at all

a few things about mark walden: 1) he studied english lit in school, 2) he has a background as a video game producers, and 3) he likes james bond. i know the first two things because i have read his bio and i know the third thing because i have read his books in conjunction with seeing all the james bond films. so we will call 1-3 facts. 

if you are wondering what a lit degree, video game production, and the james bond franchise all have in common, then let me connect those dots: all three of those things depend heavily on the study and understanding of repetitive structure in storytelling as an interpreter and creator of meaning. each one of these fields requires an understanding of how stories and words work to create meaning in order to be successful. 

and, to quote mr. walden here directly (sourced from this here link):

“So, I was playing with this cat one day and it got me thinking that those old-school Bond villains always just seemed to appear out of thin air with very little back story and that got me thinking about how they became world- conquering megalomaniacs in the first place.  It was only a short mental walk from there to HIVE.”

so, imagine you’re a writer trying to tell a story about a school for villains like those in james bond—you’ve studied storycraft and you have a lot of experience in a job finding believable and compelling obstacles for people to interact with in video games. you have noticed patterns. and you need to make those patterns work for you.

enter: streams

i have watched all the james bond movies (all of ‘em) (i mean it) (just not the unreleased one yet lol) and you know what? 

there’s probably just about four kinds of villains in those movies.

henchmen include the likes of jaws, oddjob, and tee hee. often physically disabled in a cinematically interesting way, these guys are the muscles and the machines in every bond film. they are the ones who tail bond as he takes long train rides and who try to personally throw him into shark tanks. they are the hands and feet of their evil masters and they don’t have a lot of emotional depth or backstory. 

politicians/financiers abound in the james bond franchise because he is a government employee who often hangs out with other government employees (he has no friends). these people are like colonel rosa klebb, georgi koskov, prince kamal khan. there are a lot more, as a matter of fact, because the whole point of james bond is that they are in the cold war and even people without titles have political and financial motivations for screwing around with stuff. these types of villains depend on being well and truly embedded in an existing infrastructure or hierarchy, somebody who worked their way up from being a foot soldier or clerk into a powerful leadership position that gives them a lot of state-sanctioned trust and authority.

technicians and inventors include folks like henry gupta and boris grishenko, who use technology as their primary weapon. they are often inventors or innovators and are really good at making high-tech stuff. however, i think this stream is also a direct result of the character Q, someone who is actually on James Bond’s team and who runs an entire department of people who test sometimes outlandish gadgets for Bond to use in the field. (but we love the gadgets. they are fun.) in other words, Bond arguably has a technical stream at his disposal in MI6, which means the idea isn’t necessarily evil, but, likewise, our James Bond School also needs Qs. it’s the rules. if you are familiar with Q from James Bond at all then you understand

and that leaves us with alphas... the “supervillains.” these are the famous ones. dr. no. mr. big. scaramanga. le chiffre. blofeld. max zorin. emilio largo. goldfinger. these are the ones with the master plan, the dreams to recreate the world as they see it, the passion to see their desires to fulfillment and the resources to make them happen. they are rich. they are fancy. they are larger than life. is it weird that karl stromberg tries to incite a nuclear war between Britain and the USSR so that a lot of people can die so that he can colonize the ocean? yes. but by god, it’s fancy and dramatic, and that’s what counts. 

are there other kinds of villains? oh, definitely. lots more. but you have to understand, that those kinds of villains generally don’t appear in Bond. sometimes! but it’s not a staple. for example, not many people in the bond films are motivated by revenge because each movie is kind of designed to function as a one-shot. villains don’t come back and so there is no revenge. the villain who gets the most notable reprise, jaws, actually ends up finding his true love in space. 

compare: every movie is going to have henchmen. every movie has government stooges making morally questionable decisions. (almost) every movie has Q, or some gadget stuff going on. and every movie has a big bad that has to be better than the last. 

so that explains why the streams are what they are. 

it was a jumping-off point for mark walden to figure out what this universe might look like and how different character types need to function. consider that while the core four are all alphas and are kind of insulated as a group, the teachers all kind of roughly align with one of these groups. colonel francisco, raven, and chief lewis are henchmen types, doing on-the-ground work to get stuff done. ms. tennenbaum and the contessa are political af, they are all about the corruption and infiltrating institutional power. ms. gonzales, ms. leon, and professor pike all have technical skills that help keep an organization moving forward. and over them all is the singular alpha, dr. nero, who is coordinating and monitoring it all for his own evil plan: to run a high school.

honestly, dr. nero’s hive idea operates just like a james bond villain plot! it works, or it does when pitching the idea. the problem is that the books continued after the pitch did, and with worldbuilding came some complications. namely, the fact that the megastructure of james bond villainy does not replicate well into a small friend group on which the narration focuses. so let’s return to the question presented at the beginning:

how can alphas really be alphas when not everyone on the field trip can be a mastermind?

i’m gonna give this to you in two ways. one, the way i personally interpret it as an in-universe explanation, given the background premises we have already established. and the other, why the stream system kind of ruins the structure it sets out to create.

so, for me, the alphas can be alphas because there is more to villainy than being a mastermind and there is more to being a mastermind than being in charge. as i think about it, this novelization is actually the backstory for every one of the students, who will go on to do great and scary things. they will manage big projects and come up with interesting ways to terrorize the British government, because that is what James Bond villains do (and James Bond does canonically exist in their universe). much like your actual teenage years, this is not the main event.

as students, the core four need to learn to do a little bit of everything. you gotta learn some lock-picking, that’s essential. everyone has to be able to climb a rock wall. it’s the rules. and everyone needs to be able to do some programming. that’s just the way school is. though everyone has a different personality and a different way of looking at the world, their education has to cover the basics because the fact of the matter is, none of them are villains yet. will they become one? that remains to be seen. but they are being given the tools to become the greatest villains if that is something they choose. 

the main problem that remains when holding this attitude is that the specialized skills of otto and his friends might be better suited to other streams, in which case, what is an alpha anyways?

here’s the facts: if everyone were assigned to a stream by talent, then there wouldn’t be an alpha stream.

franz? political/financial stream. 

nigel? laura? otto? technical stream.

shelby? wing? henchman stream. 

you can debate me on the specifics of those assignments, but the point is this: all the other streams are based on hard skills. franz can manage a ledger and that is a financial skill. laura can build a computer from scratch and that is a technical skill. wing can do martial arts, and each martial art is a physical skill that can be taught and performed in a measurable level of proficiency. 

the idea of being a “mastermind” is a much softer skill—which is to say, there’s no one recipe that will make it work. my manager at work has coached me by saying that leadership is often about having a “style,” and working at it that way. leadership requires interpersonal flexibility, being able to stay organized and to make important decisions rapidly, it is about being able to prioritize and delegate. and it’s very much open to interpretation, every day, all the time. 

let me tell you something else about james bond: there is a lot of classism, racism, and sexism embedded into every aspect of those films, but that goes for double when it comes to the villains in the show. to vastly oversimplify that very concept, it shows up in the bond films like this: henchmen are working class folks, the villainous equivalent of “the help,” and the supervillains are (usually) rich and glamorous and powerful. henchmen are uneducated (read as: stupid) and ugly and poor. no one cares if they die. (there’s more complexities, as always, but this essay isn’t actually about james bond so we’ll fast forward through My Opinions to the end)

the problem with replicating james bond in your villain school universe is that some of the biases of the james bond universe get replicated in there, too. poor and uneducated folks get turned into disposable henchmen whose lives are irrelevant. people who are educated and talented get fast-tracked to a more glamorous and interesting stream that will catapult them to the top of the ladder as soon as they graduate. if you look at the dialect with which block and tackle are written, they are clearly meant to be seen as a different social class than otto, despite the fact that otto is coming from basically nothing. and we understand that when otto graduates, he will be able to do basically anything that he wants to at all.

so, if you’re asking why wing has a role in the alpha stream when he doesn’t seem as leader-y as otto, there’s a simple answer: because dr. nero believes that wing can be more.

the climax of book one is dr. nero explicitly telling otto, wing, laura, and shelby that they are in his school because he believes in them and he wants to see them grow. they are given an elite status other students do not have despite the fact that they have just literally tried to escape. as we see in the case of duncan cavendish, the main way to get on that highway to a guaranteed career is to convince him that you’ve “got it.” for those who are not believed in, there is no way to make up for the special grooming. you’re stuck with the stream you’re placed in, doomed (perhaps) to be a second-in-command at best.

is all this intentional? probably not. but it is implicit in the structure of the story and, alas, that’s the way it is.

all i can think to say in conclusion is that while the stream system tends to replicate some of the unfair and classist realities present in other media and the world we live in, i think part of the reason we read h.i.v.e. is because the alpha stream is so appealing. imagine! you are competent and you have a desirable, specialized skill as well as a proficiency in many general skills and you are certain you are going to do good things—and all because someone believes in you. to receive someone else’s support and confidence can be life-changing. the magic of h.i.v.e. is that yes—lives are changed and ordinary, boring people were elevated to the level of supervillains. we are only left to wonder, are they the only people who deserved that honor?

[phroyd]

Joe Biden is going to be the next president of the United States. He will be inaugurated on January 20 and take power at noon that day. There is nothing, legally, that Trump can do to stop that.

What Trump and his feckless Republican Party might do illegally to try to overturn the results of the election and prevent Biden from taking power is a different matter. Trump has evidently intimidated the administrator of the General Services Administration into refusing to acknowledge Biden’s victory and thus prevent his team from starting the transition process. Only a smattering of Republicans have acknowledged that Biden won, and most of those who have, like George W. Bush, no longer hold any political power. Trump has already filed a raft of baseless lawsuits. His people are drumming up talk of some kind of Electoral College devilry to overthrow the popular will. And Trump fired the secretary of defense, Mike Esper, yesterday, which seems like the kind of thing one does before launching a coup d’état.

Years of watching Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory gives many the sinking feeling that “it’s happening, again.” But rational thought tells us that these Trump gambits, all of them, are pointless. Biden won and his ascension to power is now inevitable, whether Trump accedes to that reality or not. As a wise man once sang: Gravity always wins.

Still, we’ve all seen Trump wriggle out of approximately a billion other defeats and scandals. He’s exposed the weakness of our democratic institutions, revealing just how useless they are in the face of his norm-breaking assaults. So it feels somehow naive to believe that his loss at the ballot box will translate into his loss of an actual job. It feels smart to consider that he might have a secret plan to retain that job, despite being voted out of it. Trump is the Michael Myers of our politics: He can’t be defeated, because the horror movie franchise makes too much money to ever end.

And yet, despite all this, I have gone to bed every night since Friday confident that President-elect Biden will become President Biden. I’ve come to this peace over the objection of my amygdala, which is the part of the brain that screams in fear and anxiety and tries to overpower rational thought. Here’s what I tell myself in order to help me sleep at night. Perhaps these are conversations others can have to achieve my level of forced serenity. (Amygdala in bold italics.)

Who won the election?

Joe Biden.

Who won the election if we only count legal votes?

Only legal votes are being counted. Joe Biden won those.

What about the possibility of a recount in swing states like Michigan or Pennsylvania?

Recounts traditionally do not change more than a thousand votes. Even if we’ve gone completely through the looking glass and this recount changes an unprecedented number of votes, like 5,000, which is completely unheard of, Biden’s margin of victory is too great to overcome. A recount would not change the result in states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. If Trump wants to lose twice, that’s up to him.

What about all the lawsuits, especially the ones they keep filing in Arizona and Pennsylvania?

Trump’s election lawsuits fall, broadly, into three categories: lawsuits alleging poll watchers were too far away, lawsuits complaining about the established rules for submitting mail-in ballots, and lawsuits alleging Trump voters were denied their vote because of some kind of ballot machine malfunction.

None of these lawsuits provide evidence of massive voter fraud. None of the lawsuits provide evidence of voter fraud at all. Some of the lawsuits allege some accidents, but the remedy for those accidents is counting more votes, not fewer. Trump’s claims that his poll watchers were not allowed to watch the counting of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania is flatly untrue, and his lawyers have had to admit in court that they were allowed in the room. They’ve been reduced to arguing that their poll watchers were not close enough, which, whatever. The remedy for that is to move them closer, not throw out tens of thousands of votes.

In fact, none of the Trump lawsuits allege anything that can be used to throw out tens of thousands of votes. Throwing out votes that have already been counted is not something that courts do. We can recount votes, this time with Trump watchers breathing down the necks of ballot counters and giving them Covid-19, but again, recounts don’t usually change the balance of votes by all that much.

The important thing to ask with each new Trump lawsuit is this: What is the remedy? If the remedy is “throw away tens of thousands of votes from people whose votes were clear in their choice and timely in their submission,” then that lawsuit is going nowhere. And if the remedy is not throwing out those entirely timely and legal votes, then the lawsuit will not change the results of the election.

Why would the Trump people be pushing these lawsuits if there was no chance for them to change the outcome?

Because Trump people are dumb? Hanlon’s Razor tells us: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Joking aside, there might be many malicious reasons for the Trump campaign to be pushing lawsuits they know are destined to fail. Stirring up doubt in Biden’s victory is a prelude to refusing to acknowledge his authority as president. Trump, or one of his kids, or somebody “Trump-approved” is surely going to run for president in 2024, and making Trump’s rabid, white-supremacist base feel like the election was “stolen” from them has a political upside as they fight for their new “Lost Cause.”

And, there’s also the grift. Trump’s campaign is broke. They’ve literally written checks they can’t cash. Trump doesn’t like spending his own money on these things (to the extent he actually has any). These lawsuits purportedly challenging the election are a huge money-making opportunity for the Trump campaign. If you read the fine print on the new fundraising e-mails Trump’s campaign is sending out to supporters, they say that “60 percent of contributions” will go toward retiring campaign debt.

Would the Trump campaign put America through 70 days of trauma to make a buck? You better believe it. The whole Trump presidency is a guerrilla marketing campaign for the Trump brand that went too far.

But the Republican Senate is going along. This is just like impeachment. Republicans wouldn’t remove Trump then and they won’t now.

Well, it’s not up to Republicans to remove Trump from office. The Constitution does all that work on January 20. Joe Biden is the president on that day whether Republicans acknowledge it or not.

But now Bill Barr has gotten in on the game, and he is the worst of Trump’s henchman.

Yes.

He’s given federal prosecutors the green light to open up investigations into possible voter fraud.

So?

SO?

There wasn’t election fraud. Trump’s legal team has no evidence of election fraud and has no money to investigate to find such evidence, so they’re using the taxpayers’ money to look for it. But Barr’s prosecutors won’t find anything because there’s nothing there. This is going to turn out the same way it did when Barr investigated but didn’t arrest Hunter or Joe Biden.

The head of the Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger, resigned. That should tell us how wrong this is. But Barr is not going to succeeded. It’s just another thing to remember in 70 days when Barr is out of a job. We should arrest him and charge him with abuse of power.

What if Trump refuses to leave the White House?

Biden can be president from Delaware until the White House runs out of cheeseburgers. He’ll come out of hiding eventually.

But what if Republicans never acknowledged that Biden is the president?

How’s that different from the way they treated Barack Obama?

Good point, but what about a re-vote? I’ve seen MAGA people online calling for a re-vote.

Re-voting is not a thing. There is no statutory or constitutional language that can compel a nationwide re-vote. States will certify the results of their elections in the coming weeks. And then the Electoral College will meet on December 14 in a pro-forma session to…

WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

Damn it.

Can Republican state legislatures put forward a slate of electors who will vote for Trump even though Biden won those states?

Let’s be very clear: The states get to choose how they will determine their own electors, but that determination has to be made before the election. A state with a Republican legislature—let’s say, Pennsylvania—could have decided to choose electors based on a simple vote of the legislature. In fact, Republican legislators contemplated doing such a thing. But they didn’t. Instead they decided, like every other state, to let the popular will in their state determine the slate of electors.

They can’t change the method of picking electors after the election has taken place. Remember, when voters showed up to vote, they technically weren’t voting for “Joe Biden” or “Donald Trump” but for a slate of electors who would vote for Biden or Trump. If Pennsylvania wanted to change those rules, it would have had to tell its voters before they voted. It can’t run a bait-and-switch on an election. It can’t say that a vote for Biden’s electors was actually a vote for the Pennsylvania legislature to choose the electors. This is an election, not a Groupon.

The only legal recourse, which some Republicans are arguing for, is to determine that the voters “failed to make a choice” on which slate of electors to nominate, or that the results of that choice are somehow unclear. But the results will be clear once Pennsylvania certifies its election results (and, in this case, the governor and secretary of state, who certifies the results, are Democrats). It will be a close election, but voters made a choice and that choice will be clear upon certification.

States have until December 8 to certify the results of their elections.

But what if Pennsylvania’s Republican legislators insist that the results weren’t clear? Would the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority allow the state’s Republican legislature to choose a Republican slate of electors, even though it’s unconstitutional?

Maybe? Conservatives on the Supreme Court act in bad faith all the time. But consider that Biden has likely won this election with 306 electoral votes. For this gambit to work, legislatures in Pennsylvania and at least two of the other states Biden won would have to submit a slate of Trump electors. The Supreme Court would have to OK this upending of the popular will three times in total. That’s incredibly unlikely and would spark almost immediate civil unrest directed right at the Supreme Court, which has no army to enforce its rulings.

Well, what’s our plan for that?

My dude, I don’t have a plan for “nothing matters anymore.” The end of democratic self-government is not a thing one has a legal plan for. That’s like asking what my plan is for closing a demonic hell mouth that opens in my backyard. Die. My plan would be to die. I’m not Keanu Reeves.

What if Trump fires FBI Director Chris Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel and gets the “deep state” to keep him in power indefinitely?

I’m not Kiefer Sutherland either. I cannot find the mole.

What if Trump launches a full-scale coup d’état and uses the military to keep him in power?

Then we’re at war. Honestly, what do you want from me? Yes, there is a non-zero chance that Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the election leads to a civil war and, in such a conflict, Abigail Spanberger forms a Vichy government to “compromise” with Trump supporters, and I have to pilot a jet carrying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez off of Naboo in hopes of finding friendly Jedis willing to fight for our cause.

But there is no legitimate way for Trump to stay in power now. There’s no peaceful way for Trump to stay in power. Either he’s gone on January 20 or he remains atop a military junta willing to use violence to enforce his will.

This makes you feel better?

I find it comforting that a full-scale military takeover is now the only way for Trump to stay in power. Because if there’s one thing I know about Trump, it’s that he is a coward. President Bone Spurs is not the guy to cross the Rubicon.

I look at it this way: Captain von Trapp hiked his enormous family over the Alps to get away; all I have to do is drive my people to the Thousand Islands Bridge while we all sing “Edelweiss.” Thinking much beyond that is pointless.

Well, you could get your lazy ass on the elliptical trainer in case you’re needed to fight.

Don’t start this with me again. Goodbye.

Phroyd

[gayathreya]

leftist suriya characters appreciation post

since soorarai pottru, been thinking more about all the explicit leftist characters suriya has played in his career. and i actually mean explicit - characters that are supported by the narrative framing and structure and not just my own headcanons and stuff or a throwaway generic goody-shoe typical hero line. i have been itching to talk about this cos it’s obviously in my field of interests

suriya has played 4 openly various brands of leftist now, and that’s pretty cool! i love that none of them are cookie cutter personalities of each other, they all have their own select trait. this post is a toast to them;

michael vasanth (ayutha ezhuthu, 2004)

vimalan (maattraan, 2012)

iniyan (thaanaa serndha koottam, 2018)

maara (soorarai pottru, 2020)

[small write up on each character with pics behind the cut]

*****

1. michael vasanth (ayutha ezhuthu, 2004)

so michael was his first, said to be inspired by an actual university popular marxist student leader, george reddy. michael is very obviously somewhere along these lines - he himself is within the film known as the leftist student leader on campus with a huge following, much to the chagrin of his professors who want to stamp that out of him. he’s openly engaged in campus politics as well as politics outside, and he’s most definitely no weak willed liberal because he has no problems with violence or direct action, which he organises. he organises villagers to stand against others on their own feet, never once preaches about lying down and taking it easy or playing polite. which was nice to see lol i hate liberals who have morals about property damage but in ayutha ezhuthu, michael clearly doesn’t give a fuck. he and his group break things and smash cars and lorries on their way and threaten physical violence on their opponents too which is the way it should be because to him human lives are worth more than any property or vehicular damage. he never shies away from that. hell yes to violence and structural damage!

probably the most definite trait of michael compared to other suriya leftist characters is that michael still believes in the establishment and electoral politics, which u don’t particularly see his other leftist ones talk about. but here, michael works within the system, and trusts it to bring change if u put in the effort into that. though, it’s not as frustrating as it sounds cos michael’s work is not geared towards other liberals, but in villages and rural districts where he goes to spread word, and makes them choose their own leadership to represent. it’s way more marxist aligned and ~rise of the proletariat~ here instead cos he bypasses liberal bougie nonsense and never once is his voice used for that, but used towards and for the working class directly to both take up arms and resist violently themselves + hold ranks for themselves and choose their own leaders to influence their local politics/protect their environment.  

michael is fundamentally very marxist, with a dose of direct action plus violent resistance if need be, and supports organised proletariat uprising within an established political system playing towards electoral politics

(of course, a point to note in why this isn’t as frustrating as it sounds as mentioned above is cos this film was released in 2004. would michael still believe in the establishment and electoral politics now? things in 2020 are very different with all of us more aware of things around us and globally, it’s definitely a debate to be held. i doubt he will, since he’s not a pacifist or liberal. he’d say fuck electoral politics, all my homies hate electoral politics)

2. vimalan (maattraan, 2012)

second very openly communist character he played. prob gone a bit forgotten for others since he does die halfway through the film (which itself isn’t a favourite of anyone either, fans or neutrals) rip but can’t go by without mentioning cos i remember liking this character a lot and i teared up in the cinema first watch when he died. i was mad they killed the suriya i loved instead of the other one whom i found annoying lmao

vimal supports workers’ strikes and unions against bosses, even when that boss is their own shitty father. this automatically makes him stand out instantly considering he is sympathetic to the working class despite at the cost of his father’s annoyance with him. he’s also the first character suriya plays who’s explicitly anti-capitalist with line(s) about it, since michael had no canon lines regarding capitalism from what i recall. vimal outright does.

the leftist imagery tied to vimal the most is che, which is a nice touch. his room has at least one poster of him, and his phone’s wallpaper is also him. u can also see bhagat singh and ho chi minh books on his shelf. so.. safe to claim where vimal’s political ideologies are. it’s both tied in pictures and him siding with workers for their rights against corporations, since he obviously likes revolutionaries. vimalan was a class traitor and a supporter of the working class poor bb tragically gone too soon. ilu u didn’t deserve your terrible fate, sweet commie good boi :(

3. iniyan (thaanaa serndha koottam, 2018)

iniyannnnnn i love him and i think it’s a suriya char with one of the best character arcs in his whole career. mostly cos he had a very distinct ‘’yes i want to work for the government and change things from within’’ phase which gets squashed over the course of the film. we see him start off obviously in a very blatantly communist neighbourhood in a song that is also very specifically anti-establishment/politicians with a lot of hard resistance vibes. the entirety of sodakku is a very good introduction to him and what he stands for - in general the film promises upon wealth disparity, useless bougie politicians, and the rest of us being crushed under them.

what happens to him at the end of the movie is FANTASTIC because he no longer gels with what he wanted at the start of the movie. iniyan’s key leftist trait to me is that he’s the most anarchist of suriya characters, varying from other leftist suriya characters. he refuses to work with government powers and authorities, he looks down on their entire establishment and institutions (he does not at the start of the film, which is vital cos again, he wanted to work alongside them at first), and depends more on the good will of individual people over job titles, while clearly engaging in mutual aid and distributing wealth. these are very distinct anarchist ideals. i’d still peg him as anarcho-communist but would say he leans more towards anarchy and progressing on mutual aid over official state resources or state people for any kind of positive change since his faith in them has pretty much diminished by the climax. he does not give a shit about politicians, cops, or any kind of authorities at all, leaving them in the dust to raise his black flag and do his own anarchist hot shit.

iniyan is a good example of an anarchist arc for me in tamil cinema in simple commercial terms without heading too deep into actual words and phrases in a big hero movie, cos it’s also very easy to explain to anyone the shift in his ideas and his eroding faith in institutions with power. good for him!

4. maara (soorarai pottru, 2020)

this should be fresh in everyone’s memory, but yes, a character who is obviously in your face about it since he has an actual line - ‘’you’re a socialite, i’m a socialist’’ which caused all of us with good taste to whoop and cheer. plus he was very sexy in this whole scene, so what a bonus. it’s the most explicit thing said by him in the film, but there are also other little things peppered into his speech and background imagery showing u the kind of person maara is.

he gets married to bommi in a self-respect wedding ceremony. no priests or any kind of traditional hindu iyers/chants involved. u see it clearly with a periyar pic hanging behind him explaining who he is. he wears black a lot in the film, which fits him being a periyarist so i’d label him as such and consider it his standout trait from other leftist characters suriya has played previously because this is the only character with explicit periyar symbolism (i kid u not i saw multiple sanghis being very angry suriya dressed in black in this movie and were harassing him on twitter constantly since sp released. die mad, uglies). obviously, this also fuses well with the little things we see of him implying he’s ~lower caste~ like his in-laws being embarrassed about him on behalf of their own caste, and paresh sanitising his hands after shaking hands with maara on the plane, which is not subtle at all and trademark casteist behaviour about touching someone ‘’lesser’’ than you and u view them as ‘’dirty’’ or beneath you. as well as maara’s remark about breaking the class and caste barrier during his radio interview. being a periyarist fits seamlessly.

there’s also a bts vid of suriya on his bike where you can see an ambedkar pic pasted onto the side. i can’t remember any scene in the film where u can see his bike from this angle but it doesn’t matter, cos u can definitely tell the kind of person maara is and how he was envisioned as a character - an explicit socialist and periyarist, with a natural fondness for ambedkar too since ofc they overlap as many do irl as well. it is very in tune with his background in the film and i liked seeing the tiny aspects of these things seeded within the movie throughout from beginning to end. it’s explicit in a way that isn’t jarring or artificial, and a nice layer to him and feel endeared to since maara is a great character. u support him all the way with him being unquestionable in his stance and ideology. the sexiest leftist suriya character, if i say so myself, ahem.

/////

5. ngk (ngk, 2019)

bonus: THIS IS IT. THE BIGGEST SIKE. THE BIGGEST WHIPLASH. THE BIGGEST BASTARD.

it’s here cos damn, when they released that first look, i completely lost my shit cos that poster was sooo heavily che inspired and very, very obviously marxist. cue me thinking that holy shit suriya is openly playing some kind of marxist guerilla revolutionary in ngk and he’s gonna be some brand of violent radical leftist i’m gonna fall in love with. the beret, the raised fists, the red.. i was ready to be head over heels for this guy.

except of course, none of this was true, cos once the film released, u know that poster was only meant to signify how his village looked up to him before he sold them all out. it’s literally just a mural on the wall where a kid stares up at him in a larger extended poster. he COULD have been that character, but ngk’s character arc was a negative character arc and his moral downfall from the start to the end of the film, sacrificing all he stood for to arrive at his end point which was just dragging his village and all the youngsters who believed in him to the pits before jumping party to the winning group and abandoning all of them after manipulating them to act in his favour to gain sympathy. not to mention, also selling out to corporate tools to harness their power and influence in order to rise to the top himself, something he very openly states at the beginning of the film to his mum and wife that working like that is no way to live. he has a full reverse by this point, compared to how ngk was introduced to us as an audience with that first look of him.

the marxist poster was a complete 180 to how ngk falls on the spectrum at the end, but it was a great ride nevertheless and at least one thing was still true - i still fell in love with him cos he was such an asshole bastard but still so hot i had to give in. biiiicchh. i love u, non-leftist regressive jerk. u may have pulled the biggest sike on me, but.. my heart is yours, slut <3

*****

ok that’s really it and all i wanted to say so hopefully at least a few people read this lmafooo. i do think these characters and time have sort of seeped into suriya over the years as evident by his shifting left in the last couple of years, and openly also saying he has had a lot of perspective changes on things around him. he has been noted in recent interviews saying stuff like how he’s in favour of a cashless society, talking about a whole new level of poverty class being created during this pandemic. his written articles/statements/agaram related speeches takes jibes at india’s education system being brahministic/casteist in nature and how it creates barriers for the lowest strata of society while also being very sensitive about student suicides, showing understanding of it as a systematic failure and not an individual one, courts not functioning for justice, not demonising protests as it’s the only act left for the voiceless, etc. it’s nice. i wouldn’t go as far as to call him a leftist until he proves that to me (suriya is still very much in that liberal zone of appreciating the police and military institutions so i will never consider him one of us until he sheds these allegiances and rethinks his stance on them in society), but i’d say he’s definitely the furthest left of all prominent actors in tamil cinema as no one else really has said or written the things that he has, for which i’m very proud of him.

so keep up the good work and hot shit comments and ballsy articles, suriya, i look forward to u shifting further left and pissing off everyone from right wing patriotic assholes, to centrist bootlickers, and even cowardly liberal pacifists. i believe in u and i hope he crosses that steep liberal curve soon since we were all there at some point as well.

that’s all goodbye i love suriya thanks for reading 

[lycanresistance]

ptsdaaron ==> ancomaaron

Preface

One of the current objections to Communism and Socialism altogether, is that the idea is so old, and yet it could never be realized. Schemes of ideal States haunted the thinkers of Ancient Greece; later on, the early Christians joined in communist groups; centuries later, large communist brotherhoods came into existence during the Reform movement. Then, the same ideals were revived during the great English and French Revolutions; and finally, quite lately, in 1848, a revolution, inspired to a great extent with Socialist ideals, took place in France. “And yet, you see,” we are told, “how far away is still the realization of your schemes. Don’t you think that there is some fundamental error in your understanding of human nature and its needs?”

At first sight this objection seems very serious. However, the moment we consider human history more attentively, it loses its strength. We see, first, that hundreds of millions of men have succeeded in maintaining amongst themselves, in their village communities, for many hundreds of years, one of the main elements of Socialism the common ownership of the chief instrument of production, the land, and the apportionment of the same according to the labour capacities of the different families; and we learn that if the communal possession of the land has been destroyed in Western Europe, it was not from within, but from without, by the governments which created a land monopoly in favour of the nobility and the middle classes. We learn, moreover, that the mediæval cities succeeded in maintaining in their midst for several centuries in succession a certain socialized organization of production and trade; that these centuries were periods of a rapid intellectual, industrial, and artistic progress; and that the decay of these communal institutions came mainly from the incapacity of men of combining the village with the city, the peasant with the citizen, so as jointly to oppose the growth of the military states, which destroyed the free cities.

The history of mankind, thus understood, does not offer, then, an argument against Communism. It appears, on the contrary, as a succession of endeavours to realize some sort of communist organization, endeavours which were crowned with a partial success of a certain duration; and all we are authorized to conclude is, that mankind has not yet found the proper form for combining, on communistic principles, agriculture with a suddenly developed industry and a rapidly growing international trade. The latter appears especially as a disturbing element, since it is no longer individuals only, or cities, that enrich themselves by distant commerce and export; but whole nations grow rich at the cost of those nations which lag behind in their industrial development.

These conditions, which began to appear by the end of the eighteenth century, took, however, their full swing in the nineteenth century only, after the Napoleonic wars came to an end. And modern Communism had to take them into account.

It is now known that the French Revolution apart from its political significance, was an attempt made by the French people, in 1793 and 1794, in three different directions more or less akin to Socialism. It was, first, the equalization of fortunes, by means of an income tax and succession duties, both heavily progressive, as also by a direct confiscation of the land in order to subdivide it, and by heavy war taxes levied upon the rich only. The second attempt was to introduce a wide national system of rationally established prices of all commodities, for which the real cost of production and moderate trade profits had to be taken into account. The Convention worked hard at this scheme, and had nearly completed its work, when reaction took the overhand. And the third was a sort of Municipal Communism as regards the consumption of some objects of first necessity, bought by the municipalities, and sold by them at cost price.

It was during this remarkable movement, which has never yet been properly studied, that modern Socialism was born — Fourierism with L’Ange, at Lyons, and authoritarian Communism with Buonarotti, Babeuf, and their comrades. And it was immediately after the Great Revolution that the three great theoretical founders of modern Socialism — Fourier, Saint Simon, and Robert Owen, as well as Godwin (the No-State Socialism) — came forward; while the secret communist societies, originated from those of Buonarotti and Babeuf, gave their stamp to militant Communism for the next fifty years.

To be correct, then, we must say that modern Socialism is not yet a hundred years old, and that, for the first half of these hundred years, two nations only, which stood at the head of the industrial movement, i.e. Britain and France, took part in its elaboration. Both — bleeding at that time from the terrible wounds inflicted upon them by fifteen years of Napoleonic wars, and both enveloped in the great European reaction that had come from the East.

In fact, it was only after the Revolution of July, 1830, in France, and the Reform movement of 1830–32, in England, had shaken off that terrible reaction, that the discussion of Socialism became possible for the next sixteen to eighteen years. And it was during those years that the aspirations of Fourier, Saint Simon, and Robert Owen, worked out by their followers, took a definite shape, and the different schools of Socialism which exist nowadays were defined.

In Britain, Robert Owen and his followers worked out their schemes of communist villages, agricultural and industrial at the same time; immense co-operative associations were started for creating with their dividends more communist colonies; and the Great Consolidated Trades’ Union was founded — the forerunner of the Labour Parties of our days and the International Workingmen’s Association.

In France, the Fourierist Considérant issued his remarkable manifesto, which contains, beautifully developed, all the theoretical considerations upon the growth of Capitalism, which are now described as “Scientific Socialism.” Proudhon worked out his idea of Anarchism, and Mutualism, without State interference. Louis Blanc published his Organization of Labour, which became later on the programme of Lassalle, in Germany. Vidal in France and Lorenz Stein in Germany further developed, in two remarkable works, published in 1846 and 1847 respectively, the theoretical conceptions of Considerant; and finally Vidal, and especially Pecqueur — the latter in a very elaborate work, as also in a series of Reports — developed in detail the system of Collectivism, which he wanted the Assembly of 1848 to vote in the shape of laws.

However, there is one feature, common to all Socialist schemes, of the period, which must be noted. The three great founders of Socialism who wrote at the dawn of the nineteenth century were so entranced by the wide horizons which it opened before them, that they looked upon it as a new revelation, and upon themselves as upon the founders of a new religion. Socialism had to be a religion, and they had to regulate its march, as the heads of a new church. Besides, writing during the period of reaction which had followed the French Revolution, and seeing more its failures than its successes, they did not trust the masses, and they did not appeal to them for bringing about the changes which they thought necessary. They put their faith, on the contrary, in some great ruler. He would understand the new revelation; he would be convinced of its desirability by the successful experiments of their phalansteries, or associations; and he would peacefully accomplish by the means of his own authority the revolution which would bring well-being and happiness to mankind. A military genius, Napoleon, had just been ruling Europe.... Why should not a social genius come forward and carry Europe with him and transfer the new Gospel into life?... That faith was rooted very deep, and it stood for a long time in the way of Socialism; its traces are ever seen amongst us, down to the present day.

It was only during the years 1840–48, when the approach of the Revolution was felt everywhere, and the proletarians were beginning to plant the banner of Socialism on the barricades, that faith in the people began to enter once more the hearts of the social schemers: faith, on the one side, in Republican Democracy, and on the other side in free association and the organizing powers of the working men themselves.

But then came the Revolution of February, 1848, the middle-class Republic, and — with it, broken hopes. Four months only after the proclamation of the Republic, the June insurrection of the Paris proletarians broke out, and it was crushed in blood. The wholesale shooting of the working-men, the mass deportations to New Guinea, and finally the Napoleonian coup d’état followed. The Socialists were prosecuted with fury, and the weeding out was so terrible and so thorough that for the next twelve or fifteen years the very traces of Socialism disappeared; its literature vanished so completely that even names, once so familiar before 1848, were entirely forgotten; ideas which were then current — the stock ideas of the Socialists before 1848 — were wiped out of the memories and were taken, later on, by the present generation, for new discoveries.

However, when a new revival came, about 1866, when Communism and Collectivism once more came forward, the conception as to the means of their realization had undergone a deep change. The old faith in Political Democracy was gone, and the first principles upon which the Paris working men agreed with the British trade-unionists and Owenites, when they met in 1866 at London, was that “the emancipation of the working-men must be accomplished by the working-men themselves.” Upon another point they also fell in. It was that the labour unions themselves would have to get hold of the instruments of production, and organize production themselves. The French idea of the Fourierist and Mutualist “Association” thus joined hands with Robert Owen’s idea of “The Great Consolidated Trades’ Union,” which was extended now, so as to become an International Working-men’s Association.

Again this new revival of Socialism lasted but a few years. Soon came the war of 1870–1871, the uprising of the Paris Commune — and again: the free development of Socialism was rendered impossible in France. But while Germany accepted now from the hands of its German teachers, Marx and Engels, the Socialism of the French “forty-eighters” — the Socialism of Considérant and Louis Blanc, and the Collectivism of Pecqueur, — France made a further step forward.

In March, 1871, Paris had proclaimed that hence forward it would not wait for the retardatory portions of France, and intended to start within its Commune its own social development.

The movement was too short-lived to give any positive result. It remained communalist only. But the working-classes of the old International saw at once its historical significance. They understood that the free commune would be henceforth the medium in which the ideas of modern Socialism may come to realization. The free agro-industrial communes, of which so much was spoken in 1848, need not be small phalansteries, or small communities of 2000 persons. They must be vast agglomerations, like Paris, or, still better, small territories. These communes would federate, even irrespectively of national frontiers (like the Cinque Ports, or the Hansa); and large labour associations might come into existence for the inter-communal service of the railways, the docks, and so on. Such were the ideas which began vaguely to circulate after 1871 amongst the thinking working-men, especially in the Latin countries. In some such organization, the details of which life itself would settle, the labour circles of these countries saw the medium through which Socialist forms of life could find a much easier realization than through the Collectivist system of the State Socialists.

These are the ideas to which I have endeavoured to give a more or less definite expression in this book.

Looking back now at the years that have passed since this book was written, I can say in full conscience that its leading ideas must have been correct. The State Socialism of the collectivist system has certainly made some progress. State railways, State banking, and State trade in spirits have been introduced here and there. But every step made in this direction, even though it resulted in the cheapening of a given commodity, was found to be a new obstacle in the struggle of the working-men for their emancipation. So that we find now amongst the working-men, especially in England, the idea that even the working of such a vast national property as a railway-net could be much better handled by a Federated Union of railway employés, than by a State organization.

On the other side, we see that countless attempts have been made all over Europe and America, the leading idea of which is, on the one side, to get into the hands of the working-men themselves wide branches of production, and, on the other side, always to widen in the cities the circles of the functions which the city performs in the interest of its inhabitants. Trade-unionism, with a growing tendency towards organizing the different trades internationally, and of being not only an instrument for improving the conditions of labour, but also to become an organization which might, at a given moment, take into its hands the management of production; Co-operativism, both for production and for distribution, both in industry and agriculture, and attempts at combining both sorts of co-operation in experimental colonies; and finally, the immensely varied field of the so-called Municipal Socialism — these are the three directions in which the greatest amount of creative power has been developed lately.

Of course, none of these may, in any degree, be taken as a substitute for Communism, or even for Socialism, both of which imply the common possession of the instruments of production. But we certainly must look at all the just-mentioned attempts as upon experiments — like those which Owen, Fourier, and Saint Simon tried in their colonies — experiments which prepare human thought to conceive some of the practical forms in which a communist society might find its expression. The synthesis of all these partial experiments will have to be made some day by the constructive genius of some one of the civilized nations, and it will be done. But samples of the bricks out of which the great synthetic building will have to be built, and even samples of some of its rooms, are being prepared by the immense effort of the constructive genius of man.

[meta-squash]

Brick Club 1.7.4 “Forms Assumed By Suffering During Sleep”

Oh man this one’s long too, I’m sorry. I accidentally found a secondary source and now I have even more to say. I did have a lot of fun with this chapter though.

While looking up Antoine Albin de Romainville from the last chapter to see if that was a reference to something (it’s not), I accidentally found this essay, Jean Valjean’s Nightmare: Rehabilitation and Redemption in Les Miserables by professor Michael H. Hoffheimer. I’m going to write my own thoughts/impressions of the nightmare but I’ll also add in stuff that I think is cool/important from the essay. I’m just going to pick and choose bits because this essay has a lot of really cool things in it but I don’t really want to just summarize the whole thing in this post.

“This dream, like most dreams, bore no relation to the situation beyond its mournful poignant character, but it made an impression on him.” This sentence reminds me of Hugo’s tendency to say “this is not that important” or “we won’t spend long on this,” before spending a long time on something. Basically, Hugo says it bore no relation to the situation, which is a big alarm saying “but it’s very important to the establishment of what’s going on in Valjean’s subconscious!”

“It is one of the papers in his own handwriting that he left behind. We think we should copy it here word for word.” Again, another weird signal. Hugo doesn’t really break the fourth wall very much in this way. I often forget that he’s writing like a sort of historian of these characters rather than a regular narrator, and then a passage like this pops up. So I think this being written in Valjean’s own hand is important in a similar way.

Hoffheimer points out that written text documents in Les Miserables often signal an important change of events. He also points out that this is the only document in the entire novel that is written by Jean Valjean himself. He says “Transcribing the document reduces the narrator to the role of passive compiler who sheds omniscient access to Jean Valjean’s thoughts and acquires understanding of the dream’s content only by virtue of possessing Jean Valjean’s papers.“ Which I both agree and disagree with. I think that Hugo’s narration of Valjean is different from all other characters in the novel. Despite Valjean essentially being the true “main character,” Hugo often stays distant from Valjean’s true feelings. He will either tell us what Valjean is thinking but not what he’s feeling, or vice versa. It’s only in moments of intense distress, like these past 5 hours of pacing, that he allows us and himself access to both Valjean’s thoughts and intense emotions at the same time. Even when he tells us what Valjean is feeling, it seems a little more objective. I think what really makes me think this is Valjean’s monologues to Marius alone and then to Marius and Cosette at the end of the novel. Narrator-Hugo venerates Valjean, in a way, so that even when he’s describing how Valjean feels about himself, there’s a degree of sympathy and respect in the words. This is contrasted quite intensely with Valjean’s verbal descriptions of his own feelings about himself and his past, which are full of a level of guilt and self-loathing and negativity that we don’t get from Hugo’s narration of the same events. So I disagree (mildly) that the document places Hugo into the role of passive compiler without omniscience, because I think narrator-Hugo does that to himself throughout the entire novel. The description of Javert’s mental turmoil at the end of the novel is far more intense and viscerally described even than the turmoil we just witnessed Valjean going through. We know that Hugo has the capacity to delve deeply into Valjean’s psyche, to show us how he truly thinks of himself, but there’s always that moment of pulling back, of respect due to Valjean’s Goodness that Javert is not afforded in the end, and that is only exposed when Valjean gets the chance to talk about himself to others.

Something I’ve realized, after having read Les Mis and now also having read Last Day Of A Condemned Man, is that Hugo is incredibly good at writing nightmares. He should have written a dreamlike horror novel because every time he writes a character having a dream, it’s so intense. I’d love to see a short film portrayal of this dream.

This is the first time we learn Valjean had a brother. We know about his sister, with whom he lived. But when he was introduced back in 1.2.6, there is only mention of his parents and his older sister. This phantom-brother that we know nothing about and Valjean doesn’t elaborate on kind of reminds me of the way that religious figures call others “brother,” so I wonder if this brother is a kind of everyman for Valjean, either Champmathieu or the population of M-sur-M or both. This would make sense later on, when the brother disappears when Valjean steps into the weird empty road (which Hapgood translates creepily as a “hollow road”), since no matter what action Valjean takes, either Champmathieu or M-sur-M is going to vanish. Hoffheimer mentions that one of his other sources (Jean Gaudon) thinks that this dream-brother refers to Hugo’s life rather than Jean Valjean. Hugo’s brother Eugene was schizophrenic and spent most of his adult life in a mental institution. Hoffheimer also points out that a) Valjean could be interpreting Champmathieu as a lost dream-brother due to their resemblance both physically and geographically, and b) that long-lost-siblings are a theme in the Brick, with Gavroche unknowingly taking in his two brothers, as well as, in my opinion, Eponine and Cosette (who you could interpret as foster-siblings in childhood) encountering each other briefly in 3.8.8. Hoffheimer posits that the forgotten brother is another shade of a larger theme within the novel of child abandonment.

“Even while we talked, we felt cold because of that open window.” This is such an interesting passage because Valjean and his brother are presumably outside, walking, and yet it is because of the open window and not the wind or outdoors itself that they feel cold. It isn’t even necessarily the window itself that’s making them cold, but the thought of the window.

“He was entirely naked, ashen-colored, riding a horse the color of earth. The man was hairless; we saw his skull and the veins in his skull. He was holding a stick that was limber, like a twig of grape vine, and heavy as iron.” All of the other men that Valjean sees in this dream are earthen-colored, except this naked man who is the color of ash. He’s also the only one who has visible veins, a sign of life. He’s also the only one seen using a non-pedestrian mode of transportation, but the horse is still earthen-colored. I have no idea if this interpretation is anything at all, but I’ve just had a flash of a thought. It makes me wonder if this is actually Valjean, as he, like Dante, is the only living being in this dream. Here, he’s a living being stripped of both of his identities (he is not Valjean right now because Champmathieu is Valjean, and he can’t fully be Madeleine right now because of his awareness of what will happen to him morally if he decides to turn his back on Champmathieu), ashen-colored to match the items and identity he burned in the fire, being borne by a horse (Scaufflaire’s horse and tilbury and/or the potential death of another victim of society), holding a baton-like weapon of authority that exists in a liminal space of usefulness. It’s heavy like iron, but supple and limp and you wouldn’t really be able to beat someone with it. The only authority Valjean will have in the court at Arras is his word; even his word exists in a liminal space, since he has power and authority speaking as Madeleine but none while speaking as Valjean, and his identity in between falling asleep and arriving at Arras is trapped in this liminal existence of being neither person.

Hoffheimer says that one of his sources (Anne Ubersfeld) interprets the open window and the naked rider holding a limp-but-heavy stick as vaginal and phallic symbolism, respectively. He doesn’t really go beyond mentioning the existence of that interpretation, but honestly the pairing of the two made me go in a totally different direction. This open window could easily by a metaphor for the prospect of freedom, while the stick, heavy but limp like a chain, is a metaphor for its opposite: prison, the chain gang, labor for life.

“All was earth colored, even the sky.” This specifically reminded me of 1.2.8, when Hugo describes the “two infinities together, the ocean and the sky, the one a tomb, the other a shroud.” The sea and the sky are blended together into one singular color, one singular entity in that chapter. Here, it is the earth and the sky that are blended together. Hoffheimer points out that everything and everyone in this dream is earth-colored and lifeless, and at the end of the dream, it is revealed to be the world of the dead. This is so weirdly different from the dynamic nature of the sea-night world of prison that Hugo describes in 1.2.8. It’s weird choice because Hugo usually goes to water for imagery of both death and society (the sea-night of prison in 1.2.8, imagery from the Waterloo digression, the sewers, Javert’s suicide leap into the Seine). What’s interesting to me is that the water-imagery is all “real life,” even the imagery in 1.2.8, to some extent, since the prison is a galley ship. But Valjean’s unreal dream death-world isn’t water but its opposite, a totally hollow, silent earth. (Also, it reminds me of Hugo’s description of the dirt-covered cart in front of the Thenardier inn in 1.4.1.)

Valjean enters the village and assumes it’s Romainville. This seems to be real life details bleeding into his subconscious. But what’s interesting to me is that the only details that are identifiable as “from real life” are two people who are likely nearly vanished from Valjean’s memory: his brother and the neighbor woman, and the name of a town outside Paris that he has only vague knowledge of. None of these things seem immediately significant in any way to Valjean’s current dilemma. (The Hoffheimer essay also has a footnote that says that Romainville is mentioned later in the novel in 3.1.5 as one of the towns just outside of Paris where the universe stops existing for the Paris gamin population.)

(The Hoffheimer essay basically stops here and doesn’t really go into the nitty gritty of the rest of the dream.)

His entrance into the village, deserted but with open doors, feels to me like a twisted, surrealist dream-interpretation of Valjean’s entrance into Digne. Except when Valjean entered Digne, the town was “deserted” to him because no one would take him in, despite their being someone behind each door to answer when he knocked at them. In the dream, he’s able to enter any house, since all the doors are open, but there is still a man behind each one, though they do not interact or seem dangerous until Valjean leaves the town.

The layout of the house reminds me of the layout of Valjean’s experience of the Bishop’s house after he wakes in the middle of the night. The oratory where Valjean slept, the bishop’s room, and the garden. After waking, Valjean never enters the dining room. He goes from the oratory into the bishop’s room, and then back into the oratory and out the window into the garden.

It’s interesting to note that the first room Valjean enters is deserted, but after that, “behind every turn of a wall, behind every door, behind everything, there was a man standing in silence.”

“Only one could ever be seen at a time.” This again seems to reflect his identity dilemma: he cannot be both Valjean and Madeleine at the same time. He--and society--can only see one man at a time. There’s no way to reconcile between the two because they are in such drastically different places in society.

“They did not seem to be hurrying, and yet they walked faster than I. They made no sound as they walked. Suddenly, this crowd came up and surrounded me.” My immediate thought was that this crowd is society, catching up to and surrounding Valjean the same way that the ocean is a “populace of waves” aka society overtaking the drowning man in 1.2.8. But I wonder if instead, this is not society, but Life Sentence. Valjean knows that if he reveals his identity, he will be sentenced to life imprisonment. "The sea is the inexorable night into which the penal code casts its victims.” But this earthen, deadened, strange-headed crowd and the silent dirt-colored earth and sky, aren’t able to be fought like drowning. When you get a Life Sentence, you know that there is absolutely zero chance of returning to society, returning to the world, and having someone remember you. You are dead as soon as the sentence is pronounced. There is zero hope, zero chances, no chance that your memory will live on, there’s just emptiness. Every person in prison has different sentence lengths, they’re all trying to keep treading water until their sentence runs out or they can somehow thrash their way to the shore and escape. But everyone with a life sentence knows how long they’re gonna be there. The crowd isn’t society or the penal code drowning Valjean, the crowd is all the other life sentence prisoners, telling Valjean what he knows already. That as soon as that sentence is pronounced, he’s already dead.

“Where are you going? Don’t you know you’ve been dead for a long time?” Valjean, upon burning his passport and becoming Father Madeleine, essentially buried Jean Valjean. As long as he was living as Madeleine, he was also dead as Jean Valjean (and later, after the Orion, he will again be dead as Jean Valjean) which means that allowing Champmathieu to take his punishment for him isn’t re-killing Valjean, who is already a dead man, but killing a different human being. Valjean sheds and creates so many different identities throughout the book, but the only one he ever drags along with him is the carcass of his original self, Jean Valjean.

My mental image of this dream passage is so vivid, I wish I could somehow create it in real life. I imagine the entire thing is silent and muffled except the sound of Valjean’s weird dream-footsteps. And for some reason, of all the lines, “their heads were strange” is the one that’s most unsettling to me. Everything else is described in a fairly detailed way, but “their heads were strange” is so hauntingly vague.

(Side note: I don’t know who else doing Brick Club has read House Of Leaves, but this entire dream-passage reminds me of House Of Leaves. Especially the “Why Romainville?” aside, which is probably the most unusual phrase in the entire book, since Hugo doesn’t really use unanswered annotative asides like this anywhere else. That and the strange heads are the most unsettling parts for me, like the moment in HoL when Johnny finds the braille papers in the fridge.)

Also, I find it interesting that Valjean writes this dream down, but neither he nor narrator-Hugo actually attempt to dissect it or interpret it. Valjean writes his dream down, keeps the paper with him his whole life, and yet we don’t get him or Hugo telling us what they think it means. (I was really excited when I read the Hoffheimer essay and he pointed this out too!) The dream just floats there in the middle of the chapter as this moment of totally different, surrealist imagery, without heavy-handed metaphor. Because we always joke about how Hugo writes this brilliant and beautiful (if heavy-handed) metaphorical passages, and then supplements them with a giant blinking neon sign saying “Explanation Below!” But this is a metaphorical passage that doesn’t get that treatment.

The entire exchange between the old woman and Valjean about the tilbury reminds me so much of the exchange between Valjean and Petite Gervais. In both instances, Valjean and the other character are separated, by bushes and by the door, respectively. In both instances, Valjean is in a sort of strange trance, and the conversation is stilted and weird because of this. We get the parallel “What is your name?”/“Who is it?” question, followed by a moment of confusion. With Petit Gervais, the confusion and trance are manifested in Valjean’s silence and fixed stare at the ground. With the old concierge, it’s manifested by questions about the tilbury that he should know the answer to, but the trance means that he’s not remembering the instructions he had given just a few hours prior. Then comes a moment of realization, “Ah! You’re still here!” in reaction to coming back to awareness in the Petit Gervais scene and “Oh, yes! Monsieur Scaufflaire!” in the scene with the concierge. Petit Gervais can see Valjean, and his countenance scares him; the concierge cannot see him because they’re separated by a door, but Hugo says that “if the old woman had seen him at that moment she would have been frightened.” But Valjean makes different choices at this point in the paralleling scenes. Valjean tells Petit Gervais “You’d better get moving!” and stands up, frightening him so he runs away. After the realization of what he’s done, he runs after Petit Gervais, but it’s far too late. Here, Valjean seems close to sending the tilbury away, but instead he says “Say I’m coming down.” This time, it won’t be too late to right a wrong done.

And, more Dante references, although honestly they probably belonged back in the Scaufflaire chapter, but I didn’t notice until now. I wondered if the “two stars” thing might have a parallel in Canto III, so I looked, and it doesn’t, but I found something else instead. In 1.7.2, Scaufflaire says that in order for his horse to travel 60 miles in a day, Valjean cannot take a chaise, which would be too heavy; he must take a lighter tilbury. In Canto III, Charon looks at Dante, who is the only living being on the shores of Acheron, and says “By other windings and by other steerage/shall you cross to that other shore! Not here! Not here!/A lighter craft than mine must give you passage.” These are not direct parallels, but I think that it’s an interesting similarity, the insistence on lightness of craft. Scaufflaire is only Acheron insofar as he gives Valjean the tilbury in order to go to Arras, but I think it still fits.

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: 5 PILLARS OF ISLAM: ALMS AND CHARITY: FIQH OF ZAKAT IN DETAIL:

RECIPIENTS OF ZAKAT(Part 1)

WHO ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF ZAKAT ?

he Qur’an has explicitly delineated the recipients of zakat with the verse, “Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them and for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and for the ransom of captives and debtors and for the way of God and for wayfarers”(Tawba 9:60). In conjunction with the subtlety of the words encompassed by the verse, scholars have put forward various interpretations regarding whether zakat should only be given to those counted among the enumerated eight categories per se; whether they should all receive zakat equally; or whether it would be enough to donate the zakat only to one group. The uncertainty concerning the eligibility for zakat of some institutions carrying identical features of one or more among these eight groups has also been examined. At this point, it is important to put emphasis on each of these groups.

THE POOR

Right from the outset, scholars have found it difficult to place a clear-cut border between poverty and destitution. On occasion, the term “poor” denoted to those in need among the Muslim community, whereas “destitute” was the term given to the under-privileged among the non-Muslim minority. On still other occasions, regardless of t he difference in faith, while the destitute signified the deprived who had divulged their needs to the public, the poor were needy who, out of self-respect, would not disclose their needs, as described by the Qur’an: “…but you will know them by their appearance. They never beg of people with importunity” (Baqara 2:273). Though they endure all kinds of financial difficulty without making themselves known, it is imperative that these, too, be identified and given zakat in order to become effectively liberated from their financial oppression—though such identification predicates some form of research.

As long as each of the eight categories possess these prerequisites, it is maintained, they will have the right to procure their share of zakat, just like shareholders do in a business enterprise. A person is continuously eligible to receive zakat provided that his degree of poverty remains unchanged, or at least remains below the poverty standard.

A few scholars, headed by the Shafii school, observe the situation from a rather unique perspective, insisting that the ultimate reason why the categories of poor and destitute have been mentioned separately, though they virtually hold the same meaning, is a result of the boundless compassion of God upon those in need, accentuating that when required, they are entitled to two-eights of an overall share of zakat. Thus the needy, by virtue of being named twice, in other words, can be eligible to twice as much zakat as others.

It is utterly impossible to obtain harmony in a society where one portion of people spend money like there is no tomorrow, and the other portion are left to sleep on the street. Expecting the impoverished, who are incessantly struggling with turmoil and hardship, to foster gratitude and sympathy for the rich, who are immersed in a life of luxury, amounts simply to being oblivious about natural human inclinations. However, it is important that one not exploit the issue of poverty by despoiling the wealth that instigates another, different imbalance—like some dubious systems have done in recent history. As it does in all other aspects, Islam strictly recommends a balanced approach in this issue also. In the very beginning of the chapter ofRahman, a declaration of Divine Compassion, the Qur’an accentuates the importance of moderation and a balanced life, stressing that harmony between individuals can only be upheld through embracing the equilibrium between rich and all kinds of zakat recipients.

THE DESTITUTE

The destitute are the second group assigned by the Qu’ran to receive zakat. According to the majority of scholars, the term “miskin” or destitute denotes someone who, out of helplessness, takes care of his necessities openly through the publication of his need. Most of the time, such pitiful plights become manifest, simply from their deplorable living standards and their depleted states, inevitably making it amply evident to the public that they live in very disadvantaged circumstances. The Qur’an describes a destitute person as, “…a poor wretch in misery,” (Balad 90:16) illustrating the multi-dimensional aspect of their anguish.

Contrary to the prevalent meaning assigned to the term, according to the Noble Prophet, a miskin (destitute person) is not a person who walks around begging for money; more exactly, a destitute is one who while he is in need, his need is not taken note of and for this reason, he doesn’t receive any share of charity. By synoptically looking at the general structure of hadiths, we find that what the Prophet did was to correct a term wrongly used in society, an action corroborated by the Qur’an “…they never beg of people with importunity” (Baqara 2:273). During one instance, in fact, in returning proper meaning to the term, the Noble Messenger explained: “A destitute person is not a beggar who is banished with a couple of dates or one or two morsels. A destitute person is a model of dignity and purity.” And in the Qur’an, we find the purest form of corroboration: “They never obdurately beseech of people.”1

The late professor Muhammad Hamidullah made a rather original commentary on the issue, which was alluded to in a general fashion above. Destitute persons, according to Hamidullah, are those in need from among the Jewish and Christian minorities, a view that if accepted, would explain the policy promulgated by Caliph Umar in providing regular payment for the non- Muslim minorities. At any rate, this view is interesting to consider.

ZAKAT COLLECTORS

As it is understood both from the expressions used in the verse and the practice of the Prophet in this area, the organization regarding collecting and administering zakat should be managed from a single center. Even though an individual can fulfill his duty by personally locating and disbursing his own zakat, it must be remembered that Islam, at the same time, is religion of orderliness with a highly developed regard for community; therefore, it has not left on its own a duty that is a potential conciliator between members of a society.

The first application that comes to mind at this point is when the Prophet sent Muadh ibn Jabal to Yemen as a zakat collector, in addition to assigning him several other duties.2 Second, he also dispatched Ibn Lutaybiyya to the tribe of Bani Sulaym as a zakat collector, and concomitantly demanded a report upon Ibn Lutaybiyya’s return.3 As a third reference, the Prophet delivered a sermon to the Companions on behalf of a collector who had arrived with, as he called it, “additional gifts.” All of these instances corroborate the general understanding that during the time of the Prophet, zakatwas collected from a single center.

Warning the official collectors against oppression and justice, the Prophet also issued a reminder to the public, advising them to be kind towards the collectors. Instructing Muadh to “take their zakat but avoid seizing their best possessions,”4 the Messenger had also recommended the public that they, “Send away the collectors in high spirits.”5 On the whole, the Messenger of God, in addressing those obligated with zakat, stated, “When azakat collector comes to you, makes sure he leaves contented.”6 The idea, of course, was to encourage donors to understand the positive spirit in which giving should take place, in consideration of its high benefit for both themselves and the community. Yet again, we are witness to the brilliant balance established by Islam in all arenas.

So basically, a zakat collector is a person who officially, on behalf of the Government, devotes his time and effort towards the duty of collectingzakat. Therefore, and quite plausibly so, he needs a certain salary to make ends meet. In the precious words of the Prophet, “Till his return home, azakat collector is like a ghazi (warrior), battling in the way of God.”7 Authorizing a warrior’s share of booty after battle, Islam thus necessitates a certain share for the collector, to be extracted from the gathered zakat. In fact, the Messenger of God denied the request to refuse payment, such as was made by the likes of Umar, rejoining: “Take it. If you have no need for it, then give it to somebody else.” Based on this, Umar, during his days as caliph, methodically allocated a certain share to all zakat collectors, irrespective of their wealth, and regardless of their requests to refuse such payments.

Based on the above principle, some have maintained that a certain share of zakat should be allocated for all government employees. In the case of a government which is very successful in fairly collecting zakat by virtue of the better organization of its collectors, revenue will begin to infiltrate from all corners, and this will result in greater numbers of needy people receiving the benefits of such collections—from wheat, to barley, to all sorts of agricultural harvests, and barring the view of Abu Hanifa, including vegetables and fruits, also. Moreover, the collector, full of goodwill, will visit all enterprises, from crude-oil wells to mine shafts; he will oversee all hordes of grazing sheep and cattle; and he will diligently inspect every single item of wealth and treasure to make certain that not a single hungry mouth is deprived of his or her rights. Such altruistic officials, sacrificing their time and efforts for the good of the community, should obviously not be abandoned to beseech others for their own sustenance and, thus, must be allocated a payment from the collected zakat. Irrespective of the personal wealth of collectors, then, it is imperative that the Qur’an and Sunna are abided by and the all those who engage in this noble act are given zakat. This issue holds another dimension, too. Taking care of the needs and salaries of those employed in duties involving such large stakes will effectively discourage corruption, in addition to enhancing “employee motivation.” The espousal of this attitude by our predecessors is highly admirable, especially that of the Ottoman State, which owed its prolonged existence to its meticulous and judicious management of zakat collection.

The allotment of zakat to collectors effectively prevented them from condescending to bribery or other possible enticements, thus sturdily barring probable loopholes. The alternative outcome would almost certainly be insurmountably and pervasive corruption. Such is Islam and the precepts it propounds. It considers, on the one hand, the needs of the collector and by taking care of each such individual, elevates the collector from personal abasement; on the other hand, it instills in each collector the importance of living a just and prudent life in preparation for the Day of Judgment, rendering in practical terms the most critical aspects of Islam.

[doloresabernathysworld]

His Dark Materials season 1 episode 2

I'm a little late this week, and I really haven't had the chance to rewatch the episode, but here is my review.

I have to warn you that I'll be discussing a lot of things from the books, so if you haven't read them you should probably skip this.

Again, I'm doing this on mobile, and I don't know how to add cuts - if anyone knows how to do it on mobile I'd be glad to learn, because I don't have a computer.

A lot of things happened in this episode, so instead of going by order of events, I'll talk about it by characters.

Starting with Roger and Billy. Their reunion was beautiful, and I'm in love with Roger's character. He's such a sweet boy, consoling Billy, even though he is frightened himself. And we are able to see the faith he has in Lyra early on. And his interaction with Mrs Coulter was fantastic, it was like he was saying "I'm on to you" without giving too much away.

Then we have the Gyptians. It was nice to see Ma Costa still on the fence about the expedition, and heartbreaking when Coram gave her Billy's vest. In the books, Ma Costa trusts John Faa, and now we see why. On that note, am I the only one picking up something more between them? And then there's Tony. Ma is afraid to lose another son, but given the evidence there's no way Tony will just stay put if there's a chance of rescuing his brother.

Now for the biggest surprise in the episode: Lord Boreal. I have to say I'm loving what they are doing with his character. Yes, I did picture him older and kind of slimy, but I don't mind at all this new take. Boreal is sophisticated, and threatening in a non obvious way, and that's what makes him so dangerous. The scene in Jordan was amazing, we got to see the authority the Master commands, and we see Boreal is sneaky, pretending to yield just so he can do his own bit of research.

And then he crossed to our world and my heart stopped! The window is so gorgeous, it was so nicely done, I was mesmerized by it. And the feel of our world, it was so subtle, it reminded me of the descriptions given from Will's and Mary's pov. I know some people are on the fence about this reveal, but as I see it, it makes sense showing us now what Boreal is doing and introducing Will's plot before he appears. I've always wondered how Boreal knew Will's identity, and I had to conclude it had to do with his father, but it's nice to see it explained.

As for Asriel, I don't think it'll take that much away from his storyline. Right now, Asriel wants to find a way out of his world, true, in order to find a place that the Magisterium doesn't control, only to discover that the Authority has control over multiple worlds. And now that it's confirmed that Asriel will feature in season 2, I think it really is important for the audience to know there are portals into other worlds, even if Asriel thinks he is the first to cross. Plus it doesn't take away any merit of Asriel's doings, because he's still the first one to cross worlds in the open.

About the scene with Adele, I gasped loudly when Boreal touched her dæmon, but for the people who don't know about the taboo it wasn't that shocking, just enough. I think it will have more impact upon rewatching, and if the experience with the books taught me anything is that going back to understand some things is bound to happen. It also shows us that Boreal has a mind set that tells him some rules don't apply to him because of his status, which is a big theme in His Dark Materials.

And now the main event: Lyra and Mrs Coulter. I think the dynamic of their relationship is spot on. We got to see Lyra being a child full of enthusiasm in the Artic Institute, then begin told she needed to act differently, and Marisa equates obedience with trust. The bath scene was done well enough, although I missed the part where Marisa stared at Pan until he behaved like the golden monkey. A thing that I liked was Marisa calling out Lyra for lying, and all her talk about letting Lyra be mold by her really was a red flag. Marisa wants a clone of her, a version of her with a more easy start than the one she got.

The parallel between Lyra and Pan afterwards and Marisa and the monkey really illustrates their differences. Lyra feels the need to be loved, and is interpreting being well treated with love and affection, so she goes along and that's sad. Even in the books it said that Lyra was happy but lonely, like she was missing something. As for Marisa, she's so secretive that she hides parts of her to her own dæmon, meaning her own self. Both Lyra and Marisa are lonely in their own way, but at least Lyra has Pan.

From here on, we see Lyra being molded by Marisa, but showing resistance too. At first is by trying to be charming, by showing she's smart with the talk of Dust. Then Lyra sees her away from her dæmon, and the protests are more feeble. Then mild protests about the dress, and then the bag.

Marisa, meanwhile, is dealing with Lyra the best she can in order to keep her facade longer. In the Dust conversation, Marisa is hurting her dæmon in order to steady herself, and him too. Then Lyra sees the monkey without her, and Marisa just lies in her face, gaslighting her, saying she's just sleepy. But when she's alone again, she hits her dæmon, and that tells us she is someone who deals with self-hatred, and doesn't tolerate failure.

It was nice to see the rivalry between the factions of the Magisterium, and to get Marisa and McPhail to interact this early to establish a pattern. That visit, more than anything else, makes Marisa very frustrated. Her charm is useless with McPhail, and she can't manipulate him easily. And when Lyra points out that she's upset and lost control, she takes that as an offense and starts a fight with Lyra, only to feel in control again.

The confrontation between the dæmons and the speech Marisa gave was done beautifully, and I liked the modification. I liked that Lyra wasn't complying, and the mention of Asriel makes Marisa lose control yet again and reveal that he's Lyra's father. And the monkey lets go of Pan and immediately turns to her, (I think anticipating the abuse he would endure), and the confrontation stops at once.

Now, I saw some posts about how Marisa was hurt by Asriel and still holds a grudge, but I have some thoughts about this matter. From what I can remember from the books, including La Belle Sauvage, Marisa was married and had an affair with Asriel. Asriel wasn't the one who abandoned her, she chose to continue married because that was more advantageous for her. She lied about baby Lyra, telling her husband the baby was dead and rejecting her completely. I'll probably write a meta about this whole thing later.

In my opinion, Marisa wanted Lyra to admire her the way she admires Asriel, so hearing Lyra invoque Asriel like a protector hurt. So of course she talks badly about him, so she can tarnish Asriel's imagine and isolate Lyra even further. She doesn't reveal her own identity because she wants Lyra to like her first. So she gives Lyra space.

Then Lyra finds out she's being spied, and breaks into Marisa's office only to discover some blueprints, and that discovery was the only iffy part of the episode for me, but we'll see how it'll play out.

Then we have two interesting moments. First, when the golden monkey caressed Pan. Marisa is trying to show good intentions to Lyra, she's trying to get back to good terms. And at first she seems to think she's succeeded. The second is the breakfast scene, when she mentions Roger and how he must've forgotten Lyra already. I loved how Lyra tells her, without raising her voice but full of defiance, that she's lying. Marisa gives her the same look before the confrontation and orders her to eat, and Lyra does, but her spite all visible.

I enjoyed the party scene, but I was hoping to see Lyra talk with Boreal. But I get it, now that he's so visible to us it would be dumb to have Lyra not recognise him. I also enjoyed the fact that she escaped from a window.

The kidnapping scene at the end was the perfect way to finish the episode, it created an urge to keep watching.

One final thought, in Northern Lights Lyra mentions once that the monkey was far away from Marisa in a disturbing way, but then nothing more is said in that regard. With all this new content they're showing us, I'm really curious about what we'll see regarding Mrs Coulter and her dæmon.

I loved this episode, I'm really happy with where this is going, and I'm happy I'm not only watching something I read, but also new things that make the plot and the world building richer. Let's hope next week's episode makes me feel the same way.

[wisdomrays]

IS THE QURAN THE WORK OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD?: Part 2

The Qur’an is the Word of the All-Knowing and All-Seeing, who knows His creation inside as well as outside, forward as well as backward in time. The Qur’an therefore comprehends the human beings it addresses, it tests them as it teaches-indeed, if we may so put it, the Qur’an reads’ its readers. For believers, the consciousness of being before the Divine Message can, in the words of the Qur’an, make their skins shiver, so suddenly and fully does the atmosphere around them, the climate within them, change, like an abrupt alteration in body temperature.

Thus far, I have discussed only the general fact of the Qur’an, and its general perspective, in order to explain that it can only be of Divine authorship. But the substance of the Qur’an is no less compelling an argument. Those who, with good or bad intentions, allege that it is a work of human authorship cannot sustain their allegation. Scriptures other than the Qur’an, precisely because, as above mentioned, they have been tampered with by human hands, make claims that we know to be untrue. For example, in these scriptures a particular account is given of the creation of the world, or of a natural phenomenon (for example, of the great flood), which we know, from modem investigation of the stars or, on the earth, from investigation of fossil records, to be false. Human beings altered those scriptures to suit their own understanding and so, as science has progressed, it has made their understanding and their now corrupted scriptures irrelevant and, for the most part, obsolete. The Qur’an by contrast is preserved by Divine Decree against any consequence of human neglect or human misunderstanding.

How, except on account of its Divine authorship is it possible for The Quran to be literally true on matters of which people had not the least inkling at the time when the Qur’an was revealed? Do not the unbelievers realize that the heavens and the earth were one unit of creation before we split them asunder’? (al-Anbiya’, 21.20). It is only in the last few years that we have been able to con template this verse about the first moment of the universe in its literal meaning. Similarly, when we now read-God is He who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see. Then He established Himself on The Throne [of authority]. He has subjected the sun and moon [to a law]; each runs its course for a term appointed. He does regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail that you may believe certainly in the meeting with your Lord. (al-Ra’d, 1 3.2)-we can understand the invisible pillars, without elaborate exposition, as the vast centrifugal and centripetal forces which maintain the balance amid the heavenly bodies; we can understand from this and related verses (e.g. al-Rahman, 55.5; al-Anbiya’, 21.33, 38, 39; Ya Sin, 36.40) that the sun and moon are stars with a fixed life-span, that their force of light has or will fade, that they follow a track in the heavens determined with the most minute exactness. The literal understanding of these verses does not diminish the responsibility that comes with understanding-that you may believe certainly in the meeting with your Lord-in other words, the purpose of the verses has not changed, only the circumstance of our knowledge of the phenomenal world has changed. In the case of the former scriptures, the advance of the sciences has meant that the inaccuracy of those scriptures has become ever more visible, with growing irrelevance of the beliefs associated with them. In the case of the Qur’an, by contrast, the advance of knowledge about the phenomenal world has not made even a single verse harder to believe or to understand; on the contrary many verses are now understood more fully and more clearly. (We have given many more examples of such verses in other pieces more specifically addressed to the subject of the Qur’an and science: see Gulen, M. F. Questions This Modem Age Puts to Islam, pp. 86-94.)

Yet there are people who still allege that the authorship of the Qur’an belongs not to God but to an inspired Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace. While asserting that they are on the side of sense and reason, these people allege what is humanly impossible. How could a man utter, some fourteen hundred years ago, what have since been recognized, by a different route, as scientifically established truths? How is that humanly possible? How is it on the side of reason and sense to claim such a thing? By what means did the Prophet discover, with an anatomical and biological accuracy only recently confirmed, how milk is produced in mammal tissues? How did he discover how rain clouds and hailstones form; or determine so correctly the fertilizing quality of the winds; or explain how land-masses shift and continents form and deform? With what giant telescopes from what observatory did he find out about the physical expansion of the universe? By what equivalent of X-ray vision was he able to describe in the most careful, unmistakable detail, the different stages of an embryo’s evolution within the uterus?

Another miraculous aspect of the Qur’an to be mentioned concerning its Divine origin is that lust as the information it gives about the past is absolutely true, so too its predictions are very significant For example, at a time when the Companions considered the articles of the Hudaybia Treaty are quite adverse, the Qur’an gave the good tidings that they would enter the Sacred Mosque (al-Masjid al-Haram) in full security, and the Religion of Islam would prevail over all other religions. (Surah al-Fath, 48:27-28) The Qur’an also clearly pronounced that the Romans would be victorious against the Persians in nine years from their utter defeat in 615, but the believers would destroy both of those, the greatest powers of the then world. (Sura al-Rum, 30:2-5) When the Qur’an gave this good tiding, there were scarcely forty believers and they were all being made groaned under the pitiless tortures of Makkan chiefs.

Those who make that allegation about the authorship of the Qur’an have abandoned their reason when they do so, and they place their souls in the greatest danger. The Being of God is One, and there are no sharers in it, none, not in any degree. The Prophet, upon him be peace, was the best of men, the ideal, and yet never more than a man. The Qur’an itself so addresses him, so admonishes him, so consoles him, so reproaches him. When the Prophet, for example, had exempted certain of the hypocrites from jihad, the Qur’an criticized him: God forgive you! Why did you give them leave to stay behind before it became dear which of them were truthful and which were liars? (al-Tawba, 9.43). With regard to the taking of captives after the Battle of Badr, he was rebuked in these terms: You (the believers) merely seek the gains of the world whereas God desires [for you the good] of the hereafter. God is All-Mighty, All-Wise. Had there not been a previous decree from God, a stern punishment would have afflicted you for what you have taken (al-Anfal, 8.67-8). When on an occasion the Prophet said that he would do such-and-such a thing the following day without adding insha’-Allah that is, without expressing his reliance upon God, he was warned: Nor say of anything, I shall be sure to do so-and-so tomorrow, without adding ‘if God will And call your Lord to mind when you forget, and say, ‘I hope that my Lord will guide me ever closer than this to the right way’ (al-Kahf, 18.23-4). Another example: You did fear the people, but God has a better right that you should fear Him (al-Ahzab, 3337). As a result of some private matter related to his household the Prophet undertook to never again use honey, never again drink a honey-based sherbet; the Qur’an admonished him: O Prophet! Why do you hold to be forbidden what God has made lawful to you? You seek to please your wives. But God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (al-Tahrim, 66.1). In other verses also, when the higher duties and responsibilities of the Prophet, upon him be peace, are brought into clear focus in the Qur’an, the limits of his authority are clearly pronounced. There is a clear space between the Messenger and the Message revealed to him, as clear as between man and his Creator.

Why do the orientalists and their supporters allege, in the face of all the evidence, that the authorship of the Qur’an belongs to the Prophet? The reason is their fear of Islam. There are many miracles associated with the Qur’an we could not mention them all here-one of the most striking of which is that by the Qur’an was established, in an astonishingly short time, a civilization which has proved both distinctive and enduring. The Qur’an was the constitution, the all-providing, all-generous framework for that civilization. The Qur’an required the administrative, legal and fiscal reforms necessary to sustain a vast state of different cultural communities and several religions. The Qur’an inspired a genuinely scientific curiosity to study nature, to travel and study different peoples and cultures. The Qur’an urged people to lend money for commercial ventures and to eradicate fully the institution of interest, so that while wealth grew (which it did) it would circulate among the whole community. The Qur’an inspired the first ever public literacy and public hygiene programmes (so that the believers could read the Book and prepare for worship). The Qur’an commanded the organized redistribution of surplus wealth to the poor and needy, to widows and orphans, for the relief of captives and debtors, the emancipation of slaves, and for the support of new converts to Islam. One could expand this list considerably; the important point is that only the Qur’an has ever achieved what many world-famous but human works have longed, and completely failed, to achieve. Do we not, each of us, know at least one human account of how to establish or run an ideal society, at least one system or ‘formula’ for solving equitably the problems of social or cultural or political differences between people? And which of these ever succeeded, even in part, even for a short time?

Those who allege that the Prophet is the author of the Qur’an, fear the Qur’an, fear its power and authority for Muslims, fear that the Muslims might again obey its command and restore the civilization of Islam. They would prefer it if the leading people in Islamic countries believed their allegation and so came to believe that the Qur’an is a human work from a certain past century and is, therefore, no longer relevant. Then indeed the dream of those who hate and fear Islam would come true.

Muslims would hold to their religion just as the majority of Christians do in secular Western societies-that is, as a tender memory of something long gone.

They would have us believe that the Qur’an belongs to the seventh century. They will admit, in order to beguile the believers, that the Qur’an was very advanced for its time. But now, they say, it is they who are advanced, they who offer a lifestyle of intellectual and cultural freedom, they who are civilized, while the Qur’an and Islam are backward! But the truth is that, just as advances in the physical sciences have established the accuracy of the Qur’an on questions to do with the merely phenomenal world, and provided the knowledge to enable us to understand the Qur’an more fully, so also improvements in our understanding of human relationships and human psychology will establish the truth of the Qur’an on these questions also.

It may seem mat we have digressed widely from our subject, the authorship of the Qur’an. But indeed we have not lost sight of it. The allegation that the Qur’an is a work of human inspiration is but an instance, and image, of the failure to reflect with sincerity and due humility upon the reality of our being as indebted creatures to whom everything is given. We do not create ourselves. Rather, we are given our lives; we are given our powers of contemplation, comprehension, and compassion; and we are given this extraordinarily subtle, varied and renewable world in which to exercise those powers. So also the miracle of the Qur’an is a gift of mercy to us; it could not have been originated by mankind any more than mankind could have originated themselves. God says in the Qur’an that even if all mankind banded together and got the jinn to help them, they could not so much as create a fly; and likewise, He says, we could not create a likeness of even a part of the Qur’an.

[utopianparadoxist]

Marvus Xoloto: Lord of Blood?

Alright all the weird intense Rage stuff aside, here’s some Classpect talk.

So long story short, Marvus feels like our legit Lord. Like, the verb Command is right there. I’ve written about why I see Command as the key verb for Lord, Muse before, but to recap/add on to the idea:

Command comes up with Caliborn like, a lot. Its also the name of the little arrows that connect every page of Homestuck. Every Command is a sort of direct attempt at mind control to the characters, as Hussie frames it--whether delivered by Exiles, the audience, or “The Author” himself.

The Muse seems inclined to wield that power through inspiration--once given a compelling enough idea, an actor can do nothing but work in relation to it, an artist can do nothing but work on it, as though they were possessed or enslaved.

The Lord seems to wield it through sheer dominance, or charisma--like a King who’s will cannot be denied. I’m sure I don’t need to explain how that relates to Marvus. Y’all know.

So let’s cover why I think he’s a Lord of Blood specifically.

PSYCHE.

I lied there’s a little more Lord stuff to go. So with Boldir, I guessed that just like our apparent Muse had a spiral in a place important to her, so might our Lord. Initially, with Marvus, I didn’t see anything and figured it was bullshit.

Imagine my surprise when I took another look at the Church. Now, to be fair, this spiral was always there, so its not exactly unique to Marvus. Chahut brought us here first, after all.

But it’s notable that Marvus brought us here because he was somehow aware it provided metaphysical safety. It’s “Hallowed ground, bizznatch.” That could be simple religious belief, but Marvus is a little too aware of the nature of reality for me to buy that. He’s aware of the rules of PSpace in a way Chahut isn’t, and the spiral is one of the rules. So it feels somewhat significant.

I also guessed that, since Boldir’s sign actually features the spiral, the sign of our potential Lord might well feature it as well. This was how I initially arrived to my guess of Lord of Blood. The sign of the “Taskmaster” felt fitting to someone who seemed like the ringmaster of a circus, and it still feels somewhat accurate here.

Now I can add this nugget: This is also one of a few purple signs that feature a crucifix or cross in the design. Given that a crucifix figures prominently in his path, that also feels notable.

Even so, this is all pretty circumstantial and quite likely bullshit. Like I said before, Marvus seems to showcase a mastery of many Aspects, and so its difficult to really be sure I’ve got him pinned down, especially based on some hazy symbolism stuff we aren’t sure is relevant.

Even so, lets get to his Blood imagery, which I feel is pretty strongly emphasized in this route--more than any other Aspect, barring Rage. And into why I think its through Blood that he carries his most definitive command over other people.

There’s a couple outright references to Blood early on, describing his effect on everyone around him. His very nature creates conflict, as the overzealous loving passion of his fans meets the violent restriction of his bodyguards.

(Note: “Violence” here isn’t just force applied to hurt someone, but the denial of choice: Society saying no to the free spirited desires of the individual. It’s bondage, where Breath is flight.

This more abstract and cerebral take on violence is the one Kankri is more concerned with, but we see it with Karkat too--he knows all too well what happens to someone “outside” the norms of restriction, not just wrt blood color but with his desires and inclinations as well.)

These are classic Blood themes, all coming to the fore simultaneously.

Passion and commitment meet societal restriction, and the violence through which restriction is enforced. Blood flows in the wake of that conflict.

We see the conflict distilled during the concert. References to physical agony and mortal suffering are made, both of which are significant Blood ideas--the most recent example being Tyzias’ famous quote: “there’s so mmmmuch suffering.”

Though to be fair, that might have at least something to do with Zebruh. Blood may be associated with physical bondage and suffering, but Doom is quite literally the suffering Aspect, so its something of an area of overlap--Likely born at least partly from their close association on the Aspect wheel.

And the MSPA Reader of course falls into the romantic, committed, relationship-focused side of Blood--willing to do anything at all to share a connection with him.

The two ideas fuse at the height of his performance, as it makes the MSPA Reader keenly aware of their physical suffering and subjects them to enormous violence and agony, whilst paradoxically keeping them spellbound to the mortal plane where they’re experiencing it. Violence, suffering, commitment, relationship.

Later, the MSPA Reader directly takes on Blood’s violent enforcer position, punching out teens desperate to establish a relationship with Marvus.

And Marvus doesn’t just absently invite these dynamics. He’s keenly aware of both the commitment to a relationship with him his fans experience, and the social obligation he would be subjected to as a result of it, unless the performance is violent enough.

He’s also deeply cognizant of the social restrictions imposed on Purplebloods as a caste, and the various forms of literal and institutional violence through which they’re enforced.

As well as the revolutionary implications of subverting or questioning those restrictions. In other words, Marvus has a deep understanding of the social glue that holds Alternia, a vertical structure held together by repression imposed from top to bottom, with blood spilled through brutality the whole way down.

But of course, understanding doesn’t make a Lord. Command does.

I’ve long said that Paradox Space is a place born of the wills of the individual, and it could be said that what the classes describe, more than anything, is the means by which a Hero most effectively applies their will to reality to achieve any given desired result.

This is what makes Lords and Muses so powerful--they shine at understanding the capabilities and inclinations of everyone around them, and more than anything, controlling and directing the other to achieve their own desired result. A Page might inspire others to serve them and rise to Kingship through their devoted teamwork, but to a Lord this innocence is unnecessary:

Be it freely given, manipulated or coerced, a Lord is supremely talented at dominating, and getting others to give them exactly what they want. When Marvus’ presence suggests silence, the silence is absolute among all blood castes. When Marvus wants his audience ready to turn up, they are so fucking ready. His every request is undeniable, and his will is others’ command.

What makes him scary is that he knows how to use that power. What he does with the Player’s execution is actually pretty clever--he pulls off a small magic trick, simply pretending to stab them. The illusion would fall apart under the most cursory scrutiny, but Marvus knows that doesn’t matter, because he’s working his real magic on the audience.

Marvus knows exactly how his stage will be segmented, and all he needs to do is kickstart a cascade of violent euphoria amongst the lowbloods, who by their structural disadvantage are too far away to tell the difference. (Interesting that the tealbloods are singled out as the rough origin point, considering their Mind association and how vulnerable Terezi was to Gamzee’s Rage-y predation.)

Even any highbloods who figured out what he’s up to are screwed, trapped by their own lucky blood closest to the stage and under his net, where they must fight if they want to get out alive. But nobody does. Once the climactic bloodbath is finished, nobody survives.

Which Marvus expected would happen. He told us so earlier. If Marvus isn’t literally massacring his fans with every performance he gives, he’s doing it during enough of them that it doesn’t feel much like hyperbole. And he does it effortlessly, through a simple understanding of how to move the crowd the way he wants to, like the ringmaster of a circus or the conductor of an orchestra.

This is one hells of powerful clown--frightfully intelligent and ruthless when he deems it necessary, even under the niceguy suave wokeness. Joey’s going to have a powerful ally on her side if they team up. Though I can’t help but worry that the old Purpleblood capriciousness might have him turn on us if the circumstances are right. Or, his ruthless pragmatism could make him end up feeling like a bit of a Vriska.

Probably both are gonna happen. Oh well. Anyway that’s why I see him as a Lord, and one of Blood specifically. Don’t hold me to it because frankly, if I’m really honest, there’s only one train of thought with Marvus that I’m really committed to:

He’s really hot and I’ve been the naughtiest, so frankly he can--

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST]

[Patreon]

[ralfstrashcan]

3x15 Reaction / Commentary

........who died and made her queen? Literally no one finds it weird that the newby from a day ago holds announcements and motivational speeches? And I thought vampires don't like swift changes. Guess that was racist of me.

..................?? Literally who has ever denied the vampires entry? Except maybe the shadowhunters to their Institute and the werewolves to their home-restaurant? So she's basically saying “If anyone doesn't want us in their private homes we'll break and enter!” How is no one calling her out on how stupid that is??

hahaha how long did she work on that line?

........? Why? Because up until this point I was under the impression that the Accords where strictly restricted to governing the border between shadow world and mundanes, keeping them separate and protecting mundanes from demon and downworlder attacks alike.

If you care to remember, the whole mess with helping-save-Luke / not-helping-save-Luke in season 1 happens because Alec says shadowhunters aren't allowed to interfere in downworlder affairs, hence saving Luke would be seen as shadowhunters meddling in downworlder business which isn't a thing shadowhunters are allowed to do. It's why him going to lend Magnus his magic to save Luke was a Big Deal for him, because it was basically breaking the rules. It's why he was so against Jace and Clary helping Luke in the first place, because interfering is – at least the way I understood that! – a breach of the Accords, which grant downworlders the right to govern themselves.

In basically all other situations where there are conflicts between downworlders we don't see shadowhunters interfere: Luke beating Taito-or-however-he-was-called into submission, Camille being put into a coffin in the DuMort's cellar indefinitely for reasons. I'd even let myself be convinced that these might be exceptions, since those are ritualized thingies where downworlders decide who gets to rule, and so the shadowhunters aren't allowed to interfere even if their respective election systems consist of battle to the death / whoever wants to revolt revolts.

But how do you then explain all the other instances: Simon getting that Glen werewolf guy into a wheelchair and never facing any consequences except Luke scolding him a little, Simon fighting to the death with Quinn which never gets investigated, and don't even get me started on the seelie queen because she does shit however she wants to whoever she wants, kidnapping random werewolves and holding them hostage, putting marks of cains on unsuspecting daylighters, openly siding with Valentine, etc. and no shadowhunter ever cares about any of this! Not to mention that when Jace first encounters Jordan, he clearly recognizes his authority as Praetor and withdraws, indicating that the Praetor are an established and known organisation who deal with downworder affairs, and shadowhunters have to steer clear of them. Even Kaelie who murdered shadowhunters wasn't sentenced by shadowhunters! She was transfered back to the seelie court after she was captured and the seelie queen dealt with her as she saw fit. To me that simply fortifies that shadowhunters don't govern downworlder-downworlder-relations. If they don't even govern downworlder-shadowhunter-relations.

Besides, if shadowhunters really were supposed to police downworlder-downworlder-relations then please explain to me why the hell it's always treated like an invasion and an insolence if a downworlder dares to come close to the Institute? I mean, shouldn't there be a contact point for them to get in touch with their executive forces? Wtf??

So I guess this is just a random curveball the show throws my way to make this episode's plot work. And really, this is bullshit. I can't accept this. It's one thing to bend and twist portal travel and magic because, whatever, it's magic. But to just 100% turn around their entire frikkin legal system is not something you can just do! No!!

He 100% nicked that horse statue thingy from Magnus's loft to make him feel more at home in his room.

Also, I get that this is a cute parallel with the orange juice, but I also get that this is the show again depriving me of seeing Magnus and Alec actually waking up in bed together and it's NOT OKAY. I just want to finally see Alec “Little Spoon” Lightwood in action, is that too much to ask? Apparently -.-

Also, I have questions. If Alec is just putting on his day clothes.... did he go fetch Magnus's orange juice bare-chested? In his pyjama??? Does he have one with little bows and arrows? I need answers!!!

Rude hahaha, as if living with Magnus was a strenuous, orange-juice-less experience. Kidding, I know he's trying to make living at the Institute palatable to Magnus, quite literally.

I know I wasn't the only one who had severe Pirates of the Caribbean flashbacks at that because after the sneak peek aired I saw a gifset pointing out the parallel XD

Also

MAGNUS'S FACE Btw I think it's sweet that Alec spouts reassurances none of them buys just to make Magnus feel comfortable. Just like it's sweet that he brings Magnus a glass of orange juice that they both proceed to ignore, and to add insult to injury, Magnus gets himself a new one later. Rude.

Okay, so the runes we see here are the nourishment rune (blue), the sharing rune (green) and of course the stamina rune (yellow).... so shadowhunters know to eat real hard. And also... those two tiny tables are supposed to be enough to sustain all those people? With only drinks? Is this some perfidious game where shadowhunters just get drinks and need to feed themselves with nourishment runes? Barbaric.

Yeah I'm in the mood for pancakes now, too, thanks.

I'd like to repeat my question from last episode: If Sentry Guy wasn't planning for his untimely demise, how the hell did he want to hand over that data chip?

Okay but do you realize how amazing and hilarious that is? Because Izzy just came from the serving counter. If she wanted bacon she could have gotten some. But she didn't. To me this looks like routinely stolen food, maybe even just because it's on Jace's plate. This is something that happens regularly and I love it. Need more sibling-y Jace&Izzy interactions honestly!

Also? Izzy missing the piece of bacon on the first try hahaha <3<3<3

Can we please take a moment to appreciate Magnus's absolutely disgusted face and the fact that he carrys that tray with minimal finger contact? Hilarious.

1) I too was wondering why they didn't just go out for breakfast to avoid this situation, so I'm glad they mention that this option has crossed the protagonists' minds as well. 2) Why do they already have beverages on their trays when the refreshment tables with the glasses are off to the side? Possibly so they don't have to run around stupidly?

!!!!!!!!!What other food events are there??????? I need to know okay!!! Also, I think we can all agree that Alec isn't in it for the pancakes but to Prove A Point.

Also, quick question: Who the hell mans the serving counter, who cooks, who cleans the dishes, who buys groceries, who--- etc.

You know what I was just wondering? This is a new outfit, right? Has he moved all of his clothes to Alec's room? Or are they still in this apartment? What's Lorenzo gonna do with all that stuff? And also, do they really expect me to believe Magnus only had this one apartment and literally no other home anywhere? He couldn't have rune!portaled literally anywhere else? He couldn't have stayed with the ever elusive Catarina? Or crashed on Luke's couch since he's not currently using his apartment, being in jail and all? (Though to be fair, we never actually see Luke's apartment so who knows if it even exists? Since they kind of pretend that all werewolves live at the Jade Wolf.) Magnus couldn't have gotten a hotel? I mean he has cash, right? But sure. I'm totally buying that this was the absolutely only option he had.

Izzy is the best and I love her.

So is he supposed to step in as racist, now that Raj is gone? Cuz that'd be unrealistic. I'd buy it if he's miffed that Alec didn't tell him about this, since he's Head of Security and all and could have helped but istg if he reacts badly to Magnus being there I'm gonna flip my shit because Underhill totally ships Malec, okay, why would he react badly?? I'm anxious okay.

“They don't see a lot of warlocks in here.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAH OMG the sass!!!!!

I noticed this in the sneak peek already and honestly, I think the shadowhunters are just angry Magnus is there because he gets to eat fancier stuff than they. I mean, look at him! He even changed the shape of the glass because he's so extra. Love him.

Hahahaha who doesn't want to get a call from jail over breakfast from their father figure. Also I feel like those roles should be reversed XD

I mean, I get it. But thanks, Luke, for not relaying the crucial detail that this was Heidi or at least that Maia is still alive and to contact her for further info since he's in jail, and thus enabling everything that follows. It's not like he told Simon and Maia to drive off with Jordan because he'd handle filling in the Institute on all that happened. Honestly. He's like that one guy in group projects who says he'd do something and then just.. doesn't.

..............................................why Look I don't have the energy to rage about this but wtf Luke. If you think anyone would buy all those fang marks being caused by one person alone, then why not try to get the actual culprit to be imprisoned? Or at least, idk, investigated after to gain some time? Honestly. It's like he wants to go to jail.

Hahahaha okay this is too good an opportunity to pass up, so please go read the dumb drabble I wrote about this exact situation shortly after 3A aired. It's here.

Btw I wanna see that verdict. Because Luke's prints sure as hell aren't on the corpses, and keep in mind any forensic worth a damn should be able to notice that those people died half a day before Luke was found on the site of the crime. Not to mention that since Luke frequented the Jade Wolf it's not exactly surprising he'd want to check up on all his homies there. Not to mention he has zero motive (since his fallout with the pack is so recent nobody not involved would have noticed). And not to mention that he wouldn't even have had time to kill all those people in the 3 minutes after he arrived at the Jade Wolf and before his surveillance team caught up to him. Just, sigh.

Edit: Wow actually they're gonna find his prints all over the corpses because Luke, in his unending wisdom, touched them all to close their eyes. It's like he learned nothing in How To Not Get Imprisoned For Crimes You Didn't Commit 101.

Great Scene. Very relatable.

Though I gotta say I never got the feeling Maia particularly liked any of her packmates since we always only saw them hating on her for dating a vampire and being general idiots, but I'm gonna ignore that right now. It's easily arguable that their happy pack life together wasn't shown because it wasn't relevant to the plot.

And also.... how did they find the Praetor? Isn't their location top secret? How should I imagine that? Was Jordan lying in the backseat half dead, shouting instructions “Turn left now!! No, not your left, my left! Turn right dammit!!” Wtf.

RIGHT BACK AT YOU IZZY FFS. *sigh* Okayyyyy technically Clary killed him, but Izzy didn't react with all the indignated outrage she displays now and I vividly remember this and I already ranted about this at length after 3x04 aired. I'm so done with her attitude on this.

Since when does Alec accept the “I wasn't in control” excuse? Either you were in control, then you go to jail. Or you weren't, then you go in a holding cell because you're an unpredictable danger. In no scenario do you get a free pass. Wtf.

??????????? You get talked into crossing against a red light, not into a frikkin sadistic hostage-taking, what the actual hell???? Why does Alec buy that???? Is he stupid????

...................................wtf Alec I hoped you'd do better this episode, but apparently not?? I mean, not investigating anything, just taking random person at her word, not even taking the time to talk with Izzy – even worse, showing in front of a third party that he didn't know about the Raphael* thing – and finally, basically him making that offer half-felt like he was trying to get back at Izzy for her keeping secrets from him? Wtf Alec? Wtf? And also, since the only werewolves left are Luke (currently in jail), Maia (currently missing in action) and Bat (currently at home like the neat little werewolf armcandy that he is) it's really not like Alec is under time pressure to get the vampires who killed all the werewolves behind bars. What's gonna happen if he takes a few hours to investigate properly? There is literally no risk of a war breaking out between werewolves and vampires since there are basically no werewolves left. Wtf Alec, I just robbed you of your already super flimsy excuse for your behavior, so please. Explain yourself. It's as if he wants to make up for last week's inaction by making super swift decisions. Wtf. If this is not Plot Convenience then I don't know what is.

*I guess Alec stopped holding those weekly downworld cabinet meetings or otherwise he would have noticed that Raphael is missing...... LOL or else maybe they want to tell us less than a week passed since 3x04 which, honestly, I WOULDN'T EVEN BE SURPRISED OKAY

Luke and Clary and Jace are so frikkin stupid. I mean, it's not like they were in this exact same situation in this exact same precinct in season 1 and remembered to turn of the frikkin security cams are you kidding me wtf

Self-fulfilling prophecy, Luke. Well frikkin done. I don't even feel sorry for you.

Actually they kicked you out because they new you didn't prioritize them, but sure. Survivor's guilt. I get it.

Anyway now that Luke is caught on tape talking to non-existent people about werewolves and vampires I guess he'll go to the psych ward instead of the jail, so yay for improvement?

<3

Quick question.... after the cut, to they just awkwardly stand around until someone opens the door again so Jace and Clary can slip out?

WTF Underhill don't make me hate you.

Izzy: “Raphael is not a bad person. He just made a horrible mistake.” Alec: “He commited a gross violation of the Accords.” Izzy: “He's trying to turn his life around.” Alec: “It doesn't change what he did.”

And yet.............. Alec pardoned Heidi....................... and yet..................................... Izzy hates on Jordan........................................... It's like no one on this show is able to assess situations consistently while disregarding personal relations to the people involved. Really. I don't even really expect it from Izzy because she's too passionate for that. But I sure as hell expected better from Alec. Smh.

................................................................. What. What even. Because doing things by herself worked out so well last time. Because Alec totally acts like his trust in her judgement wasn't shaken by this revelation. Wtf Alec, why do you agree to this. It makes no sense.

?????????? this is not the Aline from 2x15

and that bothers me because 1) why recast her wtf and 2) I think 2x15 Aline looked more approachable and warm and yeah wtf why recast her. So from now on I'm calling this imposter “Aline”. I'm serious. Watch me.

Plot Twist: In German they are dubbed by the same dubbing actress.

Edit: Apparently they recast here because 2x15 Aline wasn't available due to scheduling conflicts which, okay, valid. But I'm still calling the imposter “Aline”. I've commited to it already, okay??

Alec, your arguemnt is still invalid because the only werewolf ready to wage war is standing right in front of you and you said yourself you thought she was dead. Wtf man.

YEAH ALEC AND FOR THAT REASON YOU WAIT BEFORE YOU STRIKE A DEAL WITH SUSPECTS WTF MAN YOU OVERTHINK EVERYTHING BUT IN THIS YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO WAIT THREE FRIKKIN MINUTES ARE YOU ACTUALLY KIDDING ME-- I'm exasperated, in case you can't tell. Mainly because Alec assuming Maia is dead makes no sense whatsoever. She wasn't among the dead, so why would he assume she's dead instead of escaped? Why didn't he try to track her? Why didn't he try to call her himself? Why didn't they call ahead?!* So many questions, all answered with two words: Plot Convenience.

*Oh right, because they trusted Luke to tell the Institute everything. But my point still stands. This miscommunication is ridiculous.

Also, can we talk about the pacing? In the time Simon needs to drive his and Maia's ass over to the Institute, Heidi walks in, Alec draws up an amnesty and organizes a mission, they go to the DuMort, secure all the vamps, and bring them back into the Institute. Just how slow was Simon driving? Makes no sense. Wtf.

Uh-huh. Sure, Head of Security, why would you need to know that. Also, who made those keys? Are they lying around somewhere in a spare drawer? So many questions.

Good save, man. I can accept that. Seems he's trying to do his job. But still. The way he half-whispered insolently during that mission briefing strikes me as really not fitting his character. He calls Alec “Sir” dammit. As if he'd stoop to such cheap bitchy behavior, especially when it stands to reason that the shadowhunter he was whispering to doesn't respect Alec like Underhill does because, y'know, gay and dating a downworlder and the general tendency of shadowhunters to be biased and racist.

LOL I guess the first thing I can really appreciate about this episode is that they make an effort to bring back stuff from the past season???

Aha. Looks like someone felt the need to change.

Clary: “He somehow got it in that twisted head of his that I'm gonna help him find it.”

........did I miss that part? Because I sure don't recall it.

Well, Simon, then I hope you have a degree in psychology and don't ask any leading questions that make her useless as a witness. Also, be sure to carry your plan out while Alec isn't present so your story will be more credible and Alec won't think you encanto-ed her so she says what you need her to say to get Heidi behind bars. Since, you know, you and Maia are totally neutral when it comes to this investigation. It's always a great idea to conduct investigations yourself when you're completely unbiased and absolutely not involved in any way, with no personal stakes in the matter. SIGH.

This.... was actually unexpected. See, this is why I like Heidi as a villain. She is smart and she knows how to cover her tracks. And that whole plan to stir up werewolves and vampires against each other was expertedly executed (even if her defense in front of Izzy and Alec was a little weak and Griffin could have acted a little less stupid).

Hahahahaha Magnus. Tbh though, Alec knew Underhill would be in charge of setting Magnus up with a key, and the long amount he thought about what the hell Magnus meant makes me think he doesn't really think handsome = Underhill. Surely not after that haircut amiright ok sorry sorry I'm shutting up. Underhill is a handsome guy.

Ugh. Okay, honestly I don't want to do this. I want to say this was a cute scene and move on. But I just can't move past Alec's apology. Why the hell does he apologise? He did nothing wrong? It's his typical my-opinion-doesn't-count,-whatever-the-person-I-love-says-must-be-right-and-I-am-wrong spiel and I hate it. It would have been something else entirely if he'd said “I didn't know this bothered you so much, I won't do that again in the future if it's a problem to you.” Finding a compromise while recognizing that talking about his issues is his right, since Magnus didn't ask him to keep quiet about it. No matter how good he knows Underhill – and I agree with Magnus on that one, it was strange for Alec to talk about his problems with someone he barely knows, but at the time it was, oh surprise, Plot Convienience to bait some cheating angst – it was his right and with his apology

he basically asserts that it wasn't. Because of some misguided jealousy from Magnus. Magnus should protest this immediately but he doesn’t, he just lets it sit there and just..... argh!

Also another thing, since I saw some people getting worked up over it: Yes, I read the scene earlier in the way that Alec didn't realize Magnus was talking about Underhill because he finds him so super hot, but because context reasons. Still, even if he did find Underhill attractive... that's not a problem? It's part of interacting with someone and looking at their face while talking to them and by the way realizing “Wow, this person isn't fugly.” If he spent all his days oogling Underhill that would be something else entirely, but he obviously doesn't. So, even if his conclusion was “Handsome? Must be Underhill!” that wouldn't make him a bad person. We all know he only has eyes for Magnus.

*sigh* I'm a weak woman, okay, this placates me a little.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA I  C A N ' T The fact that he thinks he needs to clarify!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing.

I have so many questions. If she wakes up, will she hold her breath again? I honestly expected her to be dead after Heidi's order, but apparently encanto only takes hold of the person's actions while they are conscious. So this leads me to the question why the f Nora is in a coma instead of simply unconscious, since if your brain doesn't get oxygen you slip into unconsciousness, not coma wtf.

...............by? The shadowhunters on washing machine handling duty?? So many questions.

.........or just do it right away. Why wait?

!!!!!!!!!YES at least someone has common sense left this episode. It physically pains me that this person is Jonathan. Wtf, show.

1) Soooooo why is his magic suddenly blue again? Though it's slightly tinted so I guess one could argue that this is Magnus trying to cover up the ugly Lorenzo-color. 2) Did the nurse really let them all in? Are they using glamors? I need answers. 3) Won't this place be swarming with doctors as soon as she wakes up?

“This is Maia. If you're hearing this, it's because my phone's battery sucks.”

Hahaha, I approve.

Lol this is the other reason I like Heidi as a villain, she's cheeky.

That.......... WAS UNEXPECTED OH MY GOD WOOOW I DID NOT SEE THAT COMING!!! Color me impressed!!! And from Maia no less, who's always throw fists first, think straight later!!!

But..... while we saw where she got that syringe from I can't help but wonder where the hell she got that Holy Water from? Also how the hell did Simon, Magnus and Alec know in which back alley exactly she was hiding?? Guess we'll never know.

Soooooo whenever she stares into the flames she gets a Jonathan-possession-episode???? Okay??????? Why?????????????????? But anyway, the solution to their predicament seems clear: Just keep her away from fire. Then again they're shadowhunters, so compulsively lighting candles is a thing, so I see where this might get difficult.

You know, this scene would probabley even touch me emotionally if I wasn't busy muttering wtf under my breath because I'm still not over how they completely screwed over the Accords. With the way things were back in 3x04 what Izzy did in banishing Raphael was nothing more than an exceedance of competence. (Yes, Raphael deserves punishment for what he did, but not. from. Izzy.) And now suddenly it's a law-breaking act of compassion? Wtf, no, doesn't compute.

Also, as Bohemian pointed out: why the hell is Raphael's Dramatic Pre Jail Scene with Izzy instead of, idk, Magnus who's like a father to him and also at the Institute in this very moment?? Why do those two don't get any screen-time together when their relationship is more profound than, sorry, anything between Izzy and Raphael?? Tbh reducing Raphael to a pining mess who's only thinking about Izzy makes him feel real two-dimensional to me and he deserves wayyy better than that.

...................you know what? No!! Too late!! I've mentioned it in a past reaction post (from 3A I think) that I would have loved for this to be the reason they break up: Maia's okay-ness with ending a conflict through violence and Simon's relative patriotism. And even though this scene was everything I hoped for in this regard it still leaves a stale taste in my mouth because it's come too frakkin late. They are already broken up and their break up scene wasn't up to par. And why wasn't this their break up scene? Because if they'd been together up until now we couldn't have gotten the Jordan/Maia cuddling. Ugh.

Also this

would have certainly packed more of a punch if it came from someone who was consistently opinionated that way and wasn't randomly stricken by “I don't give a damn who gets injured, I have a gig to get to” moods (and yeah, I'm still not forgiving that, Simon).

Ohhhh no Magnus, stay away from that carpet, bad things will happen here, didn't you see the sneak peek????

WOW I am impressed, this is more than I expected so I'm really happy about this, especially since we all know how Magnus “It's all in the past” Bane normally deals with conflicts. You can see how much it costs him to get over himself and say this, and I love it. (What I don’t love is that Alec immediately glosses over this and barely even registers it but, whatever, that’s not Magnus's fault. He did what he should have done, and I’m happy about it.)

“Having an outsider live at the Institute, that is against protocol. And how can I expect everyone else to follow the rules if I don't follow them myself?”

I mean, I don't really think Maia would have refrained from her little murder plot if Magnus had spend the night at a hotel instead of in Alec's bed, but I recognize Alec at least attempting to be true to his rule-abiding, authority-acknowledging character for five seconds. So I'm somewhat semi-..... uh, quarter-proud of him.

Awwwww and Underhill just worked the whole day to get him settled in, the poor guy.

AGAIN WOW you can see how much courage it costs him to ask this after last half-season's moving-in-talk went so smoothly!!! I love it!!!

I LOVE IT!!!

I HATE IT!!! Yeah wow, I really hate it. Why can't they be happy for two seconds istg!!!!!

Btw I'm ordering you to read Matt's live tweets because they are therapeutic, okay.

(Bacon Gif Source)

[helenmaybewriting]

On Academic Precarity as Ongoing Anxiety

I’ve been given reason to think about making academic precarity visible lately. I’m applying for a big early-career grant but am outside the eligible period. I am fortunate that there is a way to seek an ‘exemption’ to the rules and ask to account for a period of time that meets certain requirements as a ‘career interruption’. For some this is children or carer responsibilities, for others it is illness. For some it is working in other sectors or not working for various reasons. For me, I am claiming a period in my life post-PhD where I worked sessionally in teaching roles at multiple universities and did not hold a research position. I need to collect and tabulate proof for this period. It must be made visible in very particular ways: a neat table that outlines the reason for career interruption, the time that can be claimed, the relevant dates. I’m asked to contain this messy, precarious, anxious time of my life in a neat grid.

The bureaucratic demands seem simple: account for it, tally it up. And don’t get me wrong; I’m grateful there is a way to recognise this interruption, disruption, abruption. However, I’ve encountered so many confused faces in trying to progress the process, as if accounting for sessional work is an aberration they’ve never come across. Sessional staff teach anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of students at Australian universities, yet my requests seemed alien to many.  

I have persisted in my accounting, feeling the anxiety of precarity rise again in my chest. Someone said to me it was nothing to be ashamed of. I replied: I’m not ashamed of it, I am exhausted by it.  

How long was the period of time from the award of my doctorate to getting an ongoing job? Already this request narrows the scope, as if precarity starts from award and not submission or before. I was already precarious when I finally wore the floppy hat. Yet here, the form asks for an accounting for this time—from award to ongoing job—in days, weeks and months. But my body remembers it as the blur of ill-defined time characterised by sounds that hiss and sigh in my memory: sessional, scramble, stress, yes and yes and yes and yes again because it is the week before semester and I don’t have enough hours to pay rent yet. Struggle, survival, collapse are words that hiss and sigh also. What is the FTE of a period that is experienced and remembered as the always-just-audible hum of the anxiety of precarity? Account for it. Give it form.

This is the period of my endless agreeability, of ‘yes I can take just the 8am and the 4pm tutorial that day’. The period of learning to be a chameleon, of ‘yes I can teach IR/development studies/anthropology of gender/sports sociology/peace studies/global governance’. The period of befriending the public transport app that helped me trace crazed patterns between universities and learning the locations of the best cafés where I could grab lunch as I swapped discipline hats and institutional languages so my students would believe my claimed authority.

This is the period of snatched time to try and write between tutorials while I could use an institution’s library access, because publication was the only way out of this but my schedule left no real time to do it. The period that included the semester with 280 essays to mark, of phone calls with incredulous university IT because I couldn’t remember which institutional password I needed to get in to this particular one of my seven email addresses, of making dinner plans with friends and asking if we could go to the cheap delicious Asian place where I could eat a whole meal rather than the nice restaurant where I’d eat an entrée as if I wasn’t actually hungry. This is the period of my always-availability accompanied by always-exhaustion; of recognising myself in articles about stress and burnout that I would read on the train between cramming in prep for the next tutorial. This is the period of my endless professional flexibility even as the stress of the precarity fixed the muscles in my shoulders in to (still) untangle-able knots.  This is the period of “non-research employment not concurrent with research employment”. Account for it. Note it down.

The neoliberal academy, that runs on this sessional labour, works in subtle and overt ways to erase it too. Sessional academics are expendable, replaceable, not ‘real’ staff, despite the institution’s dependence on their work. This year I’ve had to chase down five universities to get them to write letters outlining the periods I worked for them and confirming my work was teaching-only—confirming explicitly that they gave me no support for research during my employment. This is my ‘evidence’, codifying on various letterheads my experience of uncertain, sporadic labour. While several universities have been very helpful and quick, making this process a little smoother, others have not. Not through maliciousness, but through the grinding, churning practices of bureaucracy and the inefficiencies of systems not set up to serve people like me.

One university couldn’t find evidence of my working for them in 2013, telling me it was ‘such a long time ago’. One university only allowed me to request a HR job logged in to their intra-net, the woman on the phone for general enquiries when I called to explain the problem kept suggesting I use my current username. Several universities wrote letters detailing the 12 to 18-month period I apparently worked for them, the period in which I learned only now I remained in their system in some manner (even though my login access was cut off precisely at the end of semester). I’ve now had to supplement these letters with contracts I’ve kept to demonstrate it was only 13 weeks of hourly-work, not a year-long sessional contract. In my neat table, a list of ‘no’s fill a column titled “was the employment research related”. Account for it. Make it present.

I am not sure I will ever not feel a residual anxiety, lodged in my throat, from this time. But having to tabulate it, to fit it in to neat boxes, to repeatedly note it was “non-research related employment not concurrent with research employment”, to calculate a patchwork of start and finish dates, to accumulate evidence of the precarity, has meant I can hear that hum again and taste the stress as bitterness on my tongue. The sounds, tastes, feelings can’t be accounted for in a 200 word ‘justification statement’ in this neat document, but I try and articulate the difficulty while sounding professional and capable; further contortions.

In this process of accounting, I’ve been asked to ‘remove duplicates’ in my record because, I am told, I can’t claim the same period twice. I’ve had to again make visible the hum and bitterness, by the act of explaining once again that I wasn’t trying to claim multiple jobs as separate time periods, but rather to give a full account of my employment as requested which included working multiple jobs, simultaneously. I can feel the act of putting it in to words working to bring the blurred time in to focus in hard edges and anxious spikes in my chest. This work did overlap, but it was not duplicates; this work was a complete list of my employment, yet still barely covered my half of our living expenses. Account for it. Point it out.

That period also holds bright memories. Memories of the yeasty smell of zaatar-top pizzas from our local shops in Melbourne, and the sweet taste of carafes of wine and gossip shared with one of my dearest girlfriends; of warm rooms in winter full of boardgames and laughter, and cut grass in lazy summer afternoons sprawled with friends across a backyard. It also forged friendships across shared experiences: the Friday morning early-career writing group that was a refuge and a delight, of peers who didn’t know they were mentors but for whom I will always be grateful, and unlooked-for generosity in offering office space or other necessities when someone had slightly more security than others.

Precarity and anxiety are not totalising but they are overwhelming. I am not shamed by them, but they are exhausting.

I feel, in writing it down that I am being required to make claims for legitimacy, to assert that I belong here. Precarity and anxiety run the risk of becoming the background hum and the overlooked bitter taste. The tactics of universities trick us in to thinking we are alone with this, but although the details may vary, the story is the same for many.

In writing this, I recognise that my form and experience of precarity is its own thing; that other people’s experiences will differ. I have a supportive partner. I don’t have children. My partner, however, started doing a PhD the year I finished mine. We had moved away from my established potential-employment networks for him to take up his PhD. My precarity was made more difficult through particular health challenges, and other personal circumstances. I write here from my own experience. I write with acknowledgement of my relative privileged position of having an ongoing job now, when so many clever driven precarious peers do not. I write with anxiety and trepidation about sharing these experiences. I write in apprehension that someone will tell me my experience isn’t as bad as I feel it to have been, that other people have it worse, that this is a rite of passage for all academics, that I should get over it. My anxiety about sharing proves the point about needing to share. The invisibility of this work, and how we write it into or out of our narratives, works to indivdiualise our experiences and isolate us.

I think in accounting for my interruption, my period of “non-research related employment not concurrent with research employment”, moving from the blur to the boxes forced me to describe the reality of that period, and that has been deeply discomforting. But writing this reflection, and naming the precarity and its attendant feelings, is a way of making visible these structures. It is a way of acknowledging that my survival of that period fundamentally depended on the support of others. I don’t have magical solutions, but after this rollercoaster of paperwork and bureaucracy count me in for the barricades if anyone is up for a revolution. Until then, know that while the institutions may not care—about precarity, burnout, stress, enduring anxiety—I do, and if you have a story similar to mine know I see you and I’m so glad you’re here. Account for it. Hold it to account.

[jageunyeoujari]

i had a good convo w @gam-zeh-yaavor abt fma so i’m gonna repost (edited a bit) so there’s more clarification on my blog proper abt how i view fma’s stance on war & reparations

me: to start off, i want to remind again that fma is written by a japanese person who's also part ainu. the context there is crucial. jpn war criminals & emperor hirohito got off scott-free. jpn's continued refusal to acknowledge what they did to korea & those policy makers NOT addressing reparations is an enormous point of contention & source of intergenerational trauma. 

arakawa is coming from that perspective & she also has a personal stake in this considering she's descended from indigenous peoples who the yamato japanese colonized. & fma does hold roy & the others accountable BY making them use their power to enact meaningful, widespread change. giving up their power is maybe a symbolic gesture but it's not a concrete act to make amends

& the thing is that individual jpn ppl HAVE made monetary reparations to kr survivors of wwii/colonization. & that's all fine & good but it hasn't solved the core issue, the real point of contention, the real source of intergenerational trauma which is the utter lack of real accountability from the ppl who enacted those horrors

& roy & the others are feared. my first post abt this has screencaps from the manga that says that the amestrian uniform is the only thing protecting them, that in times of peace, roy & the others are nothing but mass murderers

bradley & the homunculi are all killed. bradley was killed by scar, an ishvalan survivor. kimblee was killed. fma is clear in this that if ppl refuse to be held accountable, they do deserve to be punished which includes death

gzy: ahhhh. so, in this context, accountability is more a matter of honesty, integrity and goodwill than it is a matter of reparative measures? the thing for me I think is that if I were living in this world as a citizen of ishval - or indeed as a survivor of yamato japan colonisation - I think I would feel very fearful and reticent about the notion of the same war criminals retaining their power and authority

it's definitely better to see people acknowledge their failures and mistakes than not, and it's obviously important that the experience of the victims is acknowledged and respected by a society trying to heal

but like, remembering how albert speer gets to be a part of the UN, I get a pretty bad taste in my mouth thinking about how people who used their influence to do evil hurtful things are in a position to do it again if it's ever convenient for them

actually I have to retract that because it totally wasn't speer. but I recall some other nsdap officials receiving power in the following establishment and that feels busted somehow

it's like... the idea that you can just say sorry and then you get to keep running things feels wrong. the intention to enact reparative measures... is always good. we of course have a lot of "insider info" about the motivations of Roy and the others... but nobody else does. how can a world still so scarred trust the people that inflicted those scars ever again?

me: oh i totally get you! i think that fma differs from those ppl tho bc roy & the other soldiers enact a coup. they dedicated their lives to toppling a corrupt, genocidal government which i would say is the only thing that could be done w a government like that. & the manga also addresses this: roy & the others know perfectly well that ppl will not automatically trust them to run things. they will be put on trial. they're willing to face consequences for their past actions but still work to better conditions

miles & scar are also going to actively work in the new government too so it's not like roy & the others are going to be solely deciding what to do

i mean i hate general macarthur, may he burn in hell eternally, but if he worked to topple the us government? that'll be a hell of a lot more meaningful to me than washing his hands of the whole ordeal

even if he did do that, he'd still need to be put on trial & all that but i'd rather someone like him use the power he has than... not

gzy: that's a fair point. I suppose by virtue of opposing the existing establishment, they do make a powerful statement that they have disavowed the things they did and believed before

doing something, yknow. they didn't feel bad about it and sit on their hands and just not do war crimes. they were proactively resisting the institution which enacted a culture that normalised their obedience to evil commands

which is a hell of a lot better than anything actual war criminals seem to ever be doing. I suppose the notion of fma as a kind of wish fulfilment - a sort of "man, we live in a fucked up world, but people can choose to be better and do better" - is a meaningful, hopeful idea

and those are rare and valuable.

in the same way, ed's growth from a boy who just wanted things exactly like they were before into a man who knew that the stone was a comforting lie and the only way forward was to find a way to create better things in the present is the same story

me: exactly! i think that ppl call fma 'liberal' bc yes it is a kind of wish fulfillment but arakawa is a humanist & fma is rly all abt the strength of individual humans coming together & we can actively choose to make the world a better place. humans are not mere ants like father & the homunculi think we are. our mortality & ability to choose to do better & capacity for genuine love & connection is what makes humans powerful.

[islamic-finance]

Penalty of Default

Another problem in murabahah financing is that if the client defaults in payment of the price at the due date, the price cannot be increased. In interest-based loans, the amount of loan keeps on increasing according to the period of default. But in murabahah financing, once the price is fixed, it cannot be increased. This restriction is sometimes exploited by dishonest clients who deliberately avoid to pay the price at its due date, because they know that they will not have to pay any additional amount on account of default.

This characteristic of murabahah should not create a big problem in a country where all the banks and financial institutions are run on Islamic principles, because the government or the central bank may develop a system where such defaultors may be penalized by depriving them from obtaining any facility from any financial institution. This system may serve a deterrent against deliberate defaults. However, in the countries where the Islamic banks and financial institutions are working in isolation from the majority of financial institutions run on the basis of interest, this system can hardly work, because even if the client is deprived to avail of a facility from an Islamic bank, he can approach the conventional institutions.

In order to solve this problem, some contemporary scholars have suggested that the dishonest clients who default in payment deliberately should be made liable to pay compensation to the Islamic bank for the loss it may have suffered on account of default.

They suggest that the amount of this compensation may be equal to the profit given by that bank to its depositors during the period of default. For example, the defaulter has paid the price three months after the due date. If the bank has given to its depositors a profit at the rate of 5%, the client has to pay 5% more as compensation for the loss of the bank. However, the scholars who allow this compensation make it subject to the following conditions:

(a) The defaulter should be given a grace period of at least one month after the maturity date during which he must be given weekly notices warning him that he should pay the price, otherwise he will have to pay compensation.

(b) It is proved beyond doubt that the client is defaulting without valid excuse. If it appears that his default is due to poverty, no compensation can be claimed from him. Indeed, he must be given respite until he is able to pay, because the Holy Qur’an has expressly said,

(c) The compensation is allowed only if the investment account of the Islamic bank has earned some profit to be distributed to the depositors. If the investment account of the bank has not earned profit during the period of default, no compensation shall be claimed from the client.

This concept of compensation, however, is not accepted by the majority of the present day scholars. (including the author). It is the considered opinion of such scholars that this suggestion neither conforms to the principles of Shari‘ah nor is it able to solve the problem of default.

First of all, any additional amount charged from a debtor is riba. In the days of Jahiliyyah (before Islam) the people used to charge additional amounts from their debtors when they were not able to pay at the due date. They used to say,

The aforementioned suggestion of paying compensation to the creditor/seller resembles the same attitude.

It can be argued that the above suggestion is theoretically different from the practice of jahiliyyah in that the suggestion is to grant the debtor a grace period of one month to make sure that he is avoiding payment without a valid cause and to exempt him from compensation if it appears that his non-payment is due to poverty or a hardship. But in practical application of the concept, these conditions are hardly fulfilled, because every debtor may claim that his default is due to his financial inability at the due date, and it is very difficult for a financial institution to hold an inquiry about the financial position of each client and to verify whether or not he was able to pay. What the banks normally do is that they presume that every client was able to pay unless he has been declared as bankrupt or insolvent. It means that the concession allowed in the suggestion can be enjoyed only by the insolvent people. Obviously, insolvency is a rare phenomenon, and in this rare situation, even the interest-based banks cannot normally recover interest from the borrower. Therefore, the suggestion leaves no practical and meaningful difference between an interest based financing and an Islamic financing.

So far as grace period is concerned, it is a minor concession which is sometimes given by the conventional banks as well. Once again, in practical terms, there is no material difference between interest and the late payment charged as compensation.

It is argued in favor of charging compensation that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has condemned the person who delays the payment of his dues without a valid cause. According to the well-known hadith he has said,

The argument runs that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has permitted to inflict a punishment on such a person. The punishments may be of different kinds, including the imposition of a monetary penalty. But this argument overlooks the fact that even if it is assumed that imposing fine or a monetary penalty is allowed in Shari‘ah, it is imposed by a court of law and is normally paid to the government.

Nobody has allowed a situation where an aggrieved party imposes the fine on its own (and for its own benefit) without a judgment of a court, competent to decide the matter. [15]

Moreover, had it been a recognized punishment, it should have been imposed even if the investment account has earned no profit during that period, because the guilt of the defaulter is established and it has no nexus with the profit of the investment account of the bank.

In fact, the suggestion of compensation equal to the rate of profit of the investment account is based on the concept of opportunity cost of money. This concept is foreign to the principles of Shari‘ah. Islam does not recognize opportunity cost of money, because after the elimination of interest from the economy, money has no definite return. It is always exposed to loss as well as it has the ability to earn a profit. And it is the risk of loss which makes it entitled to gain a return.

Another point is worth attention. The one who defaults in payment of debt is, at the most, like a thief or a usurper. But the study of the rules prescribed for theft and usurpation would show that a thief has been subjected to very severe punishment of amputating his hands, but he was never asked to pay an additional mount to compensate the victim of theft. Similarly, if a person has usurped the money of another person, he may be punished by way of ta’zir, but no Muslim jurist has ever imposed on him a financial penalty to compensate the owner. Imam al-Shafi’i is of the view that if someone usurps the land of another person, he will have to pay the rent of the land according to the market rate. But if he has usurped money, he will return the equal amount of money and not more.[16]

All these rules go a long way to prove that the opportunity cost of money is never recognized by the Islamic Shari‘ah, because, as explained above, money has no definite return, nor any intrinsic utility.

On the basis of what is stated above, the idea of compensation to be charged from a defaulter is not approved by most of the contemporary scholars. The question was thoroughly discussed in the annual session of Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jeddah, and it was resolved that no such compensation is allowed in Shari‘ah. [17]

All this discussion relates to the impermissibility of the proposed compensation in Shari‘ah. Now it is to be noted that this proposal does not solve the problem of default at all. To the contrary, it may encourage the debtors to commit as much default as they wish. The reason is that, according to this suggestion, the defaulter is asked to pay compensation equal to the return earned by the depositors during the period of default. It is evident that the rate of return earned by the depositors is always less than the rate of profit paid by the customer in a murabahah transaction. Therefore, the customer will be paying after default, much less than he was paying before the default. Therefore, he would willingly accept to pay this amount and not pay the amount of price which he will invest in a more profitable activity. Suppose the rate of profit agreed in a murabahah transaction of six moths is 15% p.a. and the rate of profit declared to the depositors is 10%. p.a. It means that if the client withholds the price of murabahah after its maturity date and keeps it for another six months, he will have to pay the compensation at the rate of 10% p.a. which is much less than the rate of original murabahah (i.e. 15%). As such he will default and enjoy another facility for the next six months at a lesser rate. This proposal, therefore, is not only against Shari‘ah, but also deficient in meeting the problem of default.

The Alternative Suggestion

The question now arises as to how the banks and financial institutions may solve this problem. If nothing is charged from the defaulters, it may be a greater incentive for a dishonest person to default continuously. Here is the answer to this question:

We have already mentioned that the real solution to this problem is to develop a system where the defaulters are duly punished by depriving them from enjoying a financial facility in future. However, as commented earlier, this may be only where the whole banking system is based on Islamic principles, or the Islamic banks are given due protection against defaulters. Therefore, up to a time when this goal is reached, we may need some other alternative.

For this purpose it was suggested that the client, when entering into a murabahah transaction, should undertake that in case he defaults in payment at the due date, he will pay a specified amount to a charitable fund maintained by the bank. It must be ensured that no part of this amount shall form part of the income of the bank. However, the bank may establish a charitable fund for this purpose and all amounts credited therein shall be exclusively used for purely charitable purpose approved by the Shari‘ah. The bank may also advance interest-free loans to the needy persons from this charitable fund.

This proposal is based on a ruling given by some Maliki jurists who say that if a debtor is asked to pay an additional amount in case of default, it is not allowed by Shari‘ah, because it amounts to charging interest. However, in order to assure the creditor of prompt payment, the debtor may undertake to give some amount in charity in case of default. This is, in fact, a sort of Yamin (vow) which is a self-imposed penalty to keep oneself away from default.

Normally, such ‘vows’ create a moral or religious obligation and are not enforceable through courts. However, some Maliki jurists allow to make it justiceable, [18]                                                                                                    Therefore, in cases of genuine need, this view can be acted upon. But, while implementing this proposal, the following points must be kept in mind.

1. The proposal is meant only to pressurize the debtors on paying their dues promptly and not to increase the income of the creditor / financier, nor to compensate him for his opportunity cost. Therefore, it must be ensured that no part of the penalty forms part of the income of the bank in any case, nor can it be used to pay taxes or to set-off any liability of the financier.

2. Since the amount of penalty is not deserved by the financier as his income, but it goes to charity, it may be any amount willfully undertaken by the debtor. It can also be determined on per cent per annum basis. Therefore, it may serve as a real deterrent against deliberate default, unlike the former suggestion of compensation which, as explained earlier, may tend to encourage the defaults.

3. Since the penalty undertaken by the client is originally a self- undertaken vow, and not penalty charged by the financier, the agreement should reflect this concept. Therefore, the proper wording of the penalty clause would be on the following pattern, The client hereby undertakes that if he defaults in payment of any of his dues under this agreement, he shall pay to the charitable account/fund maintained by the Bank/Financier a sum calculated on the basis of ...% per annum for each day of default unless he establishes through the evidence satisfactory to the Bank/financier that his non-payment at the due date was caused due to poverty or some other factors beyond his control.

4. Being a vow of charitable act, it was originally permissible for the client to give the stipulated amount to any charity of his own choice, but in order to ensure that he will pay, the charitable account or fund maintained by the financier/bank is specified in the proposed undertaking. This specific undertaking does not violate any principle of Shari‘ah. However, it is necessary that the bank or the financial institution maintains a separate fund, or at least, a separate account for this purpose and the amounts credited to that account must be spent in well-defined charities known to the client/debtor.

This proposal has now been implemented successfully in a large number of Islamic financial institutions.

[14] Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith no. 2400, with Fath al-Bari, 5:62.

[15] Many classical jurists do not allow the imposition of fine (بالمال تعزير (even by a court of law; however, some classical jurists, like Imam Ahmad and Abu Yusuf allow it and this is the preferred view according to most contemporary jurists.

[16] Al-Shirazi, al-Muhadh-dhab, 1:370.

[17] Resolution no. 53, Vth Annual Session of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jeddah, Journal no. 6, 1:447.

[18] Al-Hattab, Tahrir al-Kalam (Beirut, 1404 AH), 176.    and there is nothing in the Holy Qur’an or in the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم which forbids making this ‘vow’ enforceable through the courts of law.