#AND STRIPPED YOU OF ALL POWERS AND PRIVILEGES THEREIN | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

phantomnostalgist · 3 years

Photo

An Interview with Peter Karrie

From “POTO: The Phantom of the Opera Magazine”, Millennium Edition (2000), published by Carrie Hernandez. (This btw is the greatest Phantom fan publication ever made, and if you ever see it on eBay you should snap it up. I don’t even have my copy because it’s with Paul, who conducted this interview with Peter in 1994.)

Enormous thanks to @panto-of-the-opera for typing this interview up for me!

Peter Karrie, interviewed by Paul Day Clemens:

Since falling under the spell of “POTO” (the day the Original London Cast album (OLC) became available in the U.S.) I’ve seen many fine – and a few brilliant – Eriks but only two performers have ever made me feel I was in the actual presence of the Phantom himself. One was Michael Crawford – yes, he really was that special (and you can forget the OLC which is but the palest shadow of what he was like on stage!) – and the other is Peter Karrie.

Commanding, dangerous, elegant, chivalrous and heart rending with an unparalleled physicality and wealth of detail, Peter not only made the role his own, completely, but by some rare and strange alchemy, somehow managed to make me forget I was watching a performance at all.

Thrilled, hypnotized and deeply moved, it was not until visiting with Peter after the show that the full impact of his transformation hit me. How could this warm, funny, soft-spoken, down-to-earth guy possibly be the same man I was watching on stage not an hour before hand?

Therein lies the difference between craft – albeit of a rare excellence – and true inspiration. Dare I even say greatness?

Yeah, I dare. For Mr. Karrie’s Phantom is simply one of the greatest portrayals by an actor in the musical theatre that I’ve ever had the privilege of experiencing.

I had the great pleasure of interviewing Peter at length in December 1994 in Toronto as he was getting ready for the Far East tour of “POTO” and what follows here are never before published excerpts from the interview. – Paul Clemens

Paul Clemens: Do you find that the role of the Phantom makes enormous demands on your voice, in terms of the wear and tear of doing at night after night? If you had a sore throat, for instance, would you be able to get through the show?

Peter Karrie: Yeah. You learn I guess. All professional singers in theatre have to cope with colds and sore throats. Otherwise you’ll be forever off ‘cause it’s a breeding ground of germs. And you develop your voice for stamina over a period of time where you’re doing eight shows a week. You have to. You have to survive it.... So, basically, yeah.

You take the angel [scene] for instance where [the Phantom is] absolutely broken. I’ve had very, very bad laryngitis and I’ve sung that and it sounded great! Simply because you’re breaking down in your voice is all kinds of scuffed up and cracky, you can enact it. But the show takes horrendous wear and tear on the body. It really does. You end up playing mind games with the role.

PC: That’s interesting. How so?

PK: Well, it’s such a powerfully written piece for the actual Phantom. You have to portray a person who’s schizoid, psychotic... and it all sounds very grand and technical. But the actual emotion of it can cut only come from the inside. And so you continue fighting with it.

[Note from Christine posting this in 2021 - Erik isn’t actually schizoid or psychotic (not that either are “bad” things). I know this is pedantic of me to point out, but I pointed it out at the end of Ethan Freeman’s interview from the mid 90s so I’ll point it out here too.]

PC: I imagine you found a core within the character of identification, something you had an understanding of and could feel a great deal of sympathy toward.

PK: Yes. You have to put yourself through the gambit of it. You have to be the Phantom emotionally for that time, and then it comes out quite naturally. You don’t have to think about it.

PC: Do you find, after all the times you played the role – first in London and now in Toronto – that the emotions are still immediate for you?

PK: Oh, yeah. But as I say, there’s wear and tear. When the mind gets tired then you find you get into problems.

PC: How do you keep the role fresh?

PK: There are all types of hand holds all the way along, from the time you start ‘til the time you finish. I guess the majority of it is set in the rehearsal room where you rehearse at a certain level into a certain standard, and it becomes automatic. But each show will always be different because you have a different audience, different weather conditions, you have different musicians playing in the pit, you have different people you’re playing opposite. So you will always get a variation on the theme. And so that, coupled up with what you’ve put together in rehearsal so you get a fairly high standard of performance every night, merges together. And so you do get a different show every night. But, as I say, it’s a very wearing role. More so than Jean Valjean, where you’re virtually on stage for three and a half hours. But I find the Phantom far more draining.

PC: I can imagine. Whenever you’re on stage you’re at peak intensity and you run the emotional gamut. So that, combined with the vocal demands, must make for one walloping experience.

PK: Exactly.... That, coupled with the exposure. You’re so exposed on stage. Whenever the Phantom does appear, it’s either him on his own, or it’s him with Christine, and something powerful and moving is happening. He doesn’t appear with the chorus – barring the “Masquerade.”

PC: For that reason, a number of the actors who have played the role have complained about a sense of loneliness and isolation. I wondered if you felt that way about it?

PK: No, I haven’t felt that. But I’ve always mingled with the rest of the cast and crew. I can’t abide all this keeping the door shut. So we open the door and play rock and roll music.

PC: Do you ever feel hampered by all the makeup involved?

PK: You get used to it. Totally. In fact, there are times when you forgotten you’ve got the mask on in the wig lady has to ask you for it. And you think ‘What? I’ve already given it to you!’

PC: That’s right – you wouldn’t be able to feel it, would you? Because it’s actually touching the appliances rather than your face.

PK: You feel it slightly. You know, if you first put it on you’d know it’s there. But after a while... But the wire band ‘round the head lets you know it’s there! And the edge of it catches you sometimes. But no – it becomes part of you. And as for the lip which is built up top and bottom ‘round your mouth, you get used to that as well.

PC: Has it ever come loose during a performance?

PK: Oh, God yeah! We’ve had some great moments where it’s been hanging off. That’s a bit gross. And the bald cap’s come loose in the back, so you do the Second Lair with one hand ‘rounds the back of your head holding your bald cap in place? [laughs] Yeah, you’ve got some good moments.

PC: How did you find the voice which is so distinctive?

PK: Well, that, once again came from the feeling inside. It was like once you had all that stuff on, and I discovered the walk, and kind of latched onto his intention, the voice just followed.

PC: Your interpretation of the line “You try my patience“ is unforgettable. So chilling. I was wondering how that evolved.

PK: Well, I felt that was the climax of the man. That, literally, for me, is where he turns ‘round and he’s at the actual peak of his hate, his frustration. I knew I had to find something which made that moment special. It was set to be special by the music and the way it was directed. That was the key to the man.

PC: It’s as if your voice came from some deep well – as if it bubbled up from some deep, dark place.

PK: That’s right! That’s exactly how I felt it. And then when Christine kisses him it’s like he can’t believe it. “I’ve won!” That euphoric feeling... “She can suffer this face! I think I’ve got her! I think, yes, she does love me!” And then, as he reaches out to touch her... a moment.... He’s taken in the scene of Raoul hanging as he went back to her... and then, all of a sudden, it struck a chord.... “Hang on....” And then the realization hits him: “She’s just doing it for him. She’s literally giving me her self to save him. She loves him... She can never love me the same as she loves him.” And it’s all a kind of mental game there. And you’ve only got split seconds to get the audience in on it, so he has to be kind of demonstrative in his actions.

PC: After the kiss, there was a moment where you sort of winced, pulling away from her twice like a wounded animal, your right arm almost becoming spastic... there were so many levels, all going simultaneously.

PK: He’s coming to terms. All these thoughts are rushing through his head and he’s off balance. Everything has shaken him and he’s lost his façade of “everything-under-control.”

PC: And the body is breaking down.

PK: That’s right. He’s been stripped of everything just by having to face himself – and face the truth. That one clear moment where he realizes this is wrong – this is all wrong – this is not how it should be.

PC: And when the phantom cries “GO NOW AND LEAVE ME!” – you built each word into a series of escalating crescendos which was tremendously effective, I thought. Very powerful.

PK: It’s all the process of him actually coming to terms with himself. It’s as you say – one after another, one after the other – then finally she’s gone and he’s left.... This is after she’s given him the ring and she’s gone... And he looks... and he sees the empty throne. And he knows that’s all his life is.

PC: That’s very moving. Do you ever find that the final words – “It’s over now the Music of the Night” – are difficult to get out with all the emotion you’re experiencing?

PK: I did at the beginning, yeah. Sometimes I used to get caught up in it, which is a dreadfully dangerous thing, ‘cause then everything tightens up and you get the proverbial lump in your throat.

PC: It’s sort of walking a bit of a tight rope, isn’t it?

PK: Yeah! [laughs] That’s right. And then there’s a moment where I can get space to subdue all that and concentrate on doing the last bit. That’s where he’s got the veil in his hand and she’s in the boat comin’ across the back singing with Raoul and I say “Christine I love you” very, very quietly, and very broken, and then I can take some breaths which calm it all down and get myself kind of poised for the last bit. ‘Cause that’s gotta be kind of the statement: “You alone can make my song take flight.” That is the statement of release. It’s like a rhetorical statement – you will always be the music of my life. And therefore I can’t change it.” It’s that feeling he’s got in his body. He bends over backwards. And then the final moment is where he turns around and wipes it clean. And he does it in a far stronger attitude than anything else he does... “It’s over now the Music of the Night.”

PC: I’ve read that you feel he’s starting a new life at that point.

PK: Yes! Yes... When I’m walking to the chair, I let the veil just drop behind, and I think to myself “It’s over. Now what else is there? There must be something else... It’s over.” And you do it with such a final flourish – the cape and everything – you’re back in control of yourself. You’ve had the osmosis. You’ve come out of the one period of your life which actually threatened to ruin you, and you’re now standing on the threshold of another one.

PC: Oh yes. It’s wonderful to hear what’s going through your mind as you’re doing the scene. And the impact of that final scene is tremendous. Do you have a favourite scene in the show?

PK: That would be it. ‘Cause it’s only six minutes long, that Second Lair. And in that six minutes you literally travel from one end of the emotional spectrum to the other. It’s a whole journey.

MORE BELOW... Keep reading, it’s a long interview, with plenty more thoughts and content about Phantom, including some really funny classic mishaps.

PC: The show obviously touches a universal cord in many of its audience members, sometimes to the extent that a bracket (sizable) number of people see the show again and again. Men and women openly moved to tears by the play are common sight in Phantom’s audiences. And yet, paradoxically, a substantial number of critics have charged the show with having no heart.

PK: I think they’re being very unkind. There are some Phantoms – just as there are leading men and women in any show – who do not commit themselves quite as much as they should do.

PC: I’ve seen that it does make a difference in the overall impact of the show.

PK: It makes a big difference, yeah. ‘Cause eight times a week to commit yourself to it to it as it should be done is hard work. But once you get used to it and once you get into it you can’t do it any other way. At least I can’t. They said to me many times, like when you’re feeling rough or whatever, “Can you mark it a little bit? You know just take it easy. You don’t have to give one hundred percent.” But you see, it’s not a question of giving that. That’s just the way I do it. If I start altering that, I am altering a lot more than just singing a lift show. You’re altering a thought process which I can’t control. I wish I could mark it. It would be a lot bloody easier! But you can’t. You have to do it as you do it when you do it, and that’s it.

PC: I believe you hold the record for the most injuries sustained by any actor playing the role.

PK: Touch wood it’s never been completely death-defying! [laughs]

PC: Is it true that you asked if you could actually ride the chandelier down to the stage at the end of Act One?

PK: Yes. But I’m afraid the insurance people did not exactly share my enthusiasm for the idea.

PC: The stories about technical mishaps are legion. Can you relate some of the more memorable moments along those lines that you can recall?

PK: Well... there’s been so many of them now. There’re many, many boat stories. And the same thing happen to Colm, has happened to Michael, has happened to ‘em all. The boat has a life of its own. The monkey also has a life of its own. That can be very temperamental... I’ve had some excitement in the Angel, where people have tripped over wires and tipped it up while you’re inside it, and you’re hangin’ on for grim death... I fallen off the proscenium, yeah...

PC: [laughs] you say that so cavalierly.

PK: [laughing] Cracked a couple of legs and so forth. And the Star-Trap, the same thing. I’ve fallen down that the wrong way... In London one day, the Star-Trap didn’t open at all. So you did the “Your chains are still mine – you will sing for me,” and threw the cape – I always threw the Cape up to make a trail as you go down the Star-Trap. So the trail came down and I hadn’t gone anywhere. In the cloak – they had a bigger cloak for the Masquerade then – and it just piles on top of me. And I couldn’t get it off because you’ve got the mask on. So it ended up with the two managers having to lead me off! [laughing] I mean, here you’ve got this dreadful creature saying [puts on a creepy voice] “Your chains are still mine – you will sing for me!” And then, all of a sudden, the managers are saying [whispers] “Come on! This way, this way!”

PC: [laughs] In one of the U.S. Touring Company performances, the Punjab lasso failed to work, and so Raoul just fell to the floor and lay there writhing as if he were in the grip of some supernatural force.

PK: [laughs] many times things go wrong with a bloody lasso! One time I was over here in Toronto, Byron Nease [Raoul] all of a sudden acted like an invisible hand had gripped him ‘round the throat – the noose was nowhere, it was on the floor many miles away from him – but he’s going [Karrie makes some strangling sounds] and it was as though he was being thrown—forced backwards! And he got to the grill and his hands came outstretched and he was like held there by and invisible force...

PC: Yes – the “magnetic grill!“

PK: Yeah! And I just looked at him and I started laughing. it was like a three act play to get him to the back of this grill...! But I think the funniest thing is words. The things people say. Quite innovative and inventive. I remember when I was in the wings doing the “seal my fate tonight...” and sometimes your mind wanders. It’s that mind-game I mentioned about concentration. You have to keep focused all the time – blah blah blah. And so I’m saying “seal my fate tonight... I hate to have to cut the prisoner short...” Prisoner short? Prisoner short? And I thought, no, that can’t be right. And I’m thinking that while I continue singing... And the words have gone ‘cause I’m singing “but the ducks warring in...” And I said “ducks warring in??? – By now I’ve turned away from the monitor ‘cause I’m singing on an off-stage mike – and I’m lookin’ at my dressers. And I’m waving to them as if to say “Tell me the words! What are the words??” And now I’m singing “Let my destiny ride, ‘cause my music’s afire!” And I sang it as though I’d been singing those words all my life! Loud... And of course I’m falling around. And the conductor – I can see on the monitor – he’s laughing and waving! The baton had gone to hell!!

PC: [laughing] That’s marvelous!

PK: But what was the funniest thing what the poor people on stage! ‘Cause you had the managers and everybody else all walking ‘round in this trance – like, floaty, floaty choreography. And all of a sudden, as soon as I got to “ducks warring in” – by all accounts – they as if on cue, turned up stage; all of their backs to the audience! And they all walked to the back of the stage! And they’re all laughing and laughing, ‘cause it got it worse and worse. The more I was singin’ the wrong words the more they were laughing! ...And when I came on for my bows that night, all the course we’re going “Quack, quack!” ...So the next night I got changed I did my sound-check, and all of a sudden there’s a call over the tannoy for a meeting in the greenroom. And I went there, and I thought, well, somebody must be coming down to see us. And all of a sudden, over the gentle hubbub in the greenroom, I could hear on the tannoy my voice doing this “cut the prisoner short, but the ducks warring in...” and everybody started laughing. And then all of a sudden, the company manager showed up and presented me with a cassette – they record every show, you see – and the company had the words printed up and framed, and they presented it to me with the cassette. And that’s how I know the words so well!

PC: I’d love to hear that sometime!

PK: I learned from a very early age that if you’re gonna sing the wrong words, sing them as loud and convincingly as possible. And everyone in the building will think you’re right and everybody else is wrong.

PC: Of course. Because that if they haven’t seen the show before, they’re not going to know.

PK: That’s right. It’s so true, because I had people in that night for that magic moment, and they didn’t know anything was wrong at all.

PC: [laughs] Be honest with me – are you tired of the music after all this time? For example if you’re in an elevator and you hear a song from Phantom do you just want to scream?

PK: No. I get out of the elevator. You do try to escape from it after doing eight shows a week... A number of times we’ll go into a restaurant ,] my wife Jane and myself, and we’ll sit there. And all of a sudden you’ll hear the music come on – Phantom. And you think, oh God! You don’t want to be reminded of it when you’re out enjoying yourself. But I’m not tired of the music when I’m performing it.

PC: You’re about to take Phantom to Singapore and Hong Kong. I understand that their audiences tend to be rather formal. I believe it is considered disrespectful to make too big a display of appreciation. That will be quite a change for you. How do you think you’re going to handle it?

PK: I did a satellite link up the other day with about forty reporters from the Far East, and the same questions came up then – “How are you going to cope with the way Singaporean and Hong Kong audiences show their appreciation?” And I told him as long as they enjoy the show, I don’t care... It’s quite funny actually, because when I started off working in Britain, I used to do clubs in the Northeast which is the hardest area prefer performer to work in. [laughs] The miners – it’s a big mining area – and they didn’t used to applaud. They threw ashtrays onto the stage.

PC: [laughing] Ashtrays?!

PK: That’s right. You do a Sunday lunchtime and they’d all be sitting reading the Sunday newspapers. You walk onto the stage and there’d just be a sea of newspapers. And at the end of the number, if they liked you they drop one hand onto the table, pick up the ashtray and throw it onto the stage as a mark of respect. Or are they’d just bang the table with one hand two or three times. But still, never, never, did they come out from behind the newspaper. Not unless the performer was of the female variety.

PC: [laughs] Your rock band – Peter and the Wolves – how long did that last?

PK: About four years, I think.

PC: Are there any records available?

PK: I doubt it. What records were made have probably long since been turned into ashtrays!

PC: To be thrown on stage by miners, no doubt! ...Well ,a final question: in Phantom, when you’re up in the Angel, do you ever feel a mad desire to plunge headfirst into the audience?

PK: No. Quite the opposite.

PC: Not a serious question, but I appreciate the answer nonetheless.

PK: The desire to jump off is never further from my mind.

PC: Sometimes I wonder the way you move around up there!

PK: [laughs] It does get a bit hairy up there sometimes! But it depends on which way it swings. If it swings left to right, you’re okay, but if it swings front to back then ya’ got trouble!

PC: This has been a delightful interview, Peter. Thank you.

PK: My pleasure.

- Paul Clemens

#peter karrie #poto #phantom of the opera #the phantom of the opera #classic phantoms #phantom legends #musicals #musical theater fandom #musical theatre

67 notes · View notes

phroyd · 5 years

Link

The time has come to END Mitch McConnell and his limited, hateful America! - Phroyd

We stand today upon the fulcrum of history, a crossroads at midnight with a blood moon rising. Down one road lies fire, flood, famine, failure and the final triumph of greed. What awaits down the other road is unknown, terra incognita, a mystery to be solved one gentle step at a time. As a species, we tend to recoil from what we do not know, often choosing the awful alternative simply because it is familiar. Now, even that poor option is a suicidal indulgence leading inexorably to our common doom.

Everyone, from leader to laborer, is a teacher delivering a simple lesson: how to be, or how not to be. We go to school on the words and behavior of others, and it falls to us as individuals to either absorb what those others teach us by being who they are, or to cast their lessons aside in search of more worthy instruction. As bad lawsuits make bad law, however, bad people make worse people by example. We are often childlike in our emulation of what we see, and if we only see scoundrels, well … that script writes itself.

Which brings us to a most valuable teacher: a privileged, compromised, cowardly, racist, sexist, hate-swaddled, power-mad, greed-gorged, double-dealing, fathomless void where all integrity goes to die. I speak, of course, of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. If Donald Trump is the Devil waiting at that moonlit crossroads to tune our guitar at the cost of our souls, Mitch McConnell drove him there and paid for the gas.

McConnell is valuable because he teaches us in graphic fashion how not to be. In his own words, McConnell shines a light down that road to ruin — his road, his way — and compels us for our own sake to choose the other route. He serves to make the decision binary: zero vs. one, nothing vs. something, altogether elegant in its simplicity.

McConnell was featured in a recent Wall Street Journal article about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal and the mainstreaming of progressive policy initiatives. “I can pretty safely say,” he declared, “this is the first time in my political career that I thought the essence of America was being debated.”

Whoomp, as the song says. There it is.

If Donald Trump is the Devil waiting at that moonlit crossroads, Mitch McConnell drove him there and paid for the gas.

“American democracy has never accorded all the people a meaningful voice,” writes Nancy Isenberg in White Trash, her scathing examination of ignored U.S. history. “The masses have been given symbols instead, and they are often empty symbols. Nation-states traditionally rely on the fiction that a head of state can represent the body of the people and stand as their proxy; in the American version, the president must appeal broadly to shared values that mask the existence of deep class divisions. Even when this strategy works, unity comes at the price of perpetuating ideological deception. Instead of a thoroughgoing democracy, Americans have settled for democratic stagecraft.”

It is all of a piece, the centuries-old notion of this country as a paycheck for the few at the expense of the many. British colonialists sought to peel the land using kidnapped Africans and impoverished Britons, slaughtering and displacing Native peoples wherever and whenever they were encountered. Wealth must be compounded with wealth, power must be held by the few to wield against the many. The fiction of democracy provides an illusion of freedom to obscure the looting that was the whole point of the endeavor to begin with.

Mitch McConnell is a highly visible champion of that ideological deception, a deft practitioner of that stagecraft. The “essence of America” he spoke of certainly exists, but cunning politicians of his ilk are too canny to mention it in public. That essence — the belief that the nation and its population are a gilded platter to be gorged upon, a fertile field to be plundered and despoiled for profit with the people serving as replaceable tools for the aristocracy — is McConnell’s poisoned birthright, and he defends it with all the powers at his disposal, just as his colonial predecessors did.

By recognizing this, we recognize Mitch, and all who rally to his banner. They want freedom for themselves, not for you. Their “freedom” is elite, expensive and jealously guarded. Yet a thousand choices on Netflix is not freedom, any more than the constant choice of corporate political candidates is freedom, but therein lies the illusion. Pick your poison. See? You’re free!

McConnell’s “essence” is a con, a sham history inflicted upon us from our first kindergarten recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance: “With liberty and justice for all.”

The fiction of democracy provides an illusion of freedom to obscure the looting that was the whole point of the endeavor to begin with.

And yet there are six words that have caused great consternation over the years for men like Mitch. Nathaniel Philbrick, in his book Bunker Hill, compellingly describes “the unappreciated radicalism within the Declaration of Independence – ‘that all men are created equal.’” At the time, it was a lie, what Philbrick describes as “a rhetorical flourish.” Native peoples, enslaved Africans, women and the economically dispossessed did not merit equality in the eyes of the Framers. But those six words have come to be a thumb in the eye to what Mitch McConnell meant when he speaks of “the essence of America.”

Indeed, those six words are now correctly taken by many as a demand for equal rights for men, women, poor people, people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, the elderly, the incarcerated, children, laborers and every other human being who breathes the same air. The Framers did not mean it, but they damn well wrote it down, and public officials of every stripe swear an oath to defend it every single day.

Obtaining those rights has been an ongoing multi-century bloodbath because those who subscribe to McConnell’s “essence” choose to ignore the imperative embedded within those six words. For them, equality is bad for the bottom line and rattles the calcified infrastructure of entrenched power. Their violent devotion to that “essence” has caused unspeakable agony and degradation even to this day, but that is not their concern.

Men like Mitch McConnell flee the very notion of those six words, because at the far end of the struggle for equality lurks a bill to be paid. Nothing so final as a guillotine awaits them at the conclusion; merely a sharing of power and wealth, of rights and privileges, which is anathema to them and their rampant belief in their own superiority. To fight this rising tide, they divide and denounce, fashioning enemies out of natural allies because when we fight each other, we serve them.

Look no further than the tumult of the moment to witness how far the few will go to confuse and control the many. See their white nationalist puppets on the march and immigrants on the run; see the Black people cut down by the police officer’s gun; see women using a social media hashtag to explain how it has always been so it may someday cease to be; see the people deprived of options by the economics of enforced inequality fed into the maw of a profitable war machine; see LGBTQ+ people stripped of rights by a heteronormalized society that uses splinter Christianity to rationalize fear and hate; see the rage-flecked faces at one of Donald Trump’s rallies as they howl at enemies conveniently created to incur their distracted wrath; and see the oceans rising and the fires burning because the nature of plunder is damage. This is the place we have been, and the place we are going, if we choose poorly at this crossroads.

And therein lies the rub, because Mitch McConnell was absolutely correct. The essence of this country as he understands it is not merely being debated, it is being run to ground and throttled, finally. The anger on display from those who have been privileged to own center stage in this society comes from the fact that voices besides their own are finally being widely heard.

“Sharing” is not in their lexicon, and so we must see this as a teachable moment. Not a vengeance tour but an education, because we are all teachers, and there is a better way. Pediatricians call it “growing pains,” biologists call it “evolution,” and I call it fulfilling the promise of those six radical words. Hell, we might even get around to applying a long-required tweak to those words: “All people are created equal.” This version, at last, has the virtue of being true.

The road we have been on is littered with bones and sorrow. The road we must take is strange, and new, and dangerous, and difficult. There are no promises, other than it will be – by dint of our collective will – better than the way that is failing before our eyes. This crossroads is freedom distilled, and the time to choose is now.

Change is coming, Mitch. Not a slogan. A fact. Tell your friends.

Phroyd

#republicans #mcconnell #end

33 notes · View notes

moiraineswife · 7 years

Note

Why are you pissed at Rhys

Okay maybe that statement was slightly unfair....I’m not so much pissed at the character more...his characterisation (and also the way fandom praises him blindly and exaggeratedly though that’s another thing)

But I’m just...Pissed at the number of things that Rhys was allowed to do in ACOWAR that he completely got away with with no consequences or condemnation?

The biggest complaint being the Court of Nightmares scene with Mor. He puts her in a room with two of her abusers (and one of whom he doesn’t warn her abut being there because he ‘doesn’t trust her not to stop this’. He doesn’t even listen to her protests, he doesn’t even let her make them and chooses to shock and traumatise her instead) He takes away her safe space (both as an abuse survivor AND a closeted queer person) but more than that he takes away her city and he takes away her power.

(This ties into my being annoyed at fandom’s portrayal of him as the uber feminist) but the power that Rhys gives his female characters remains ultimately his power. He gives it out when it suits him and ‘empowers’ these women but it can be taken away just as easily whenever it suits him. Which means that they don’t actually have any power at all - simply the illusion of it.

We are told in ACOMAF that Mor governs both the Court of Nightmares and Velaris. So, like, the Court of Nightmares being allowed into Velaris is a decision that should be entirely hers. No-one listens to her in that meeting. She says ‘no’ repeatedly and every single man at that table ignores her. Rhys goes over her head on a subject that she has direct control over and doesn’t even tell her that it’s happening, never mind obtaining her consent.

Azriel, who is, in terms of court ranking, her inferior, also goes over her head and doesn’t inform her what’s going on with Rhys’ blessing. Keir also repeatedly dismisses and ignores her. She should have power over him as well. Mor is easily the most powerless person at that table and it’s painful and entirely facilitated by Rhys and his treatment of her.

Rhys then proceeds to lord it over her. He dismisses her trauma, he’s got the disgusting line beforehand that Mor should be ‘used’ to working with Keir by now since she’s been doing it for years (on HIS goddamn fucking orders. And the ONLY reason that storyline works is because it gives Mor power and agency over her abusers which, as we see in CoN scene, she very blatantly doesn’t have - not something Rhys seems in a great hurry to address, though, doesn’t suit him, he needs Keir on his side, Mor’s empowerment, agency and well-being very obviously take a backseat for the sake of his ‘greater good’)

He gets up on his high horse and he tells her while she’s sobbing and trembling in front of him that she’s being selfish. He tells her, when she (rightfully) calls him out and demands to know how he’d feel if she worked with Amarantha behind his back and did what he’d done to her, how he’d feel about that. He throws it in her face and tells her that he’d have been happy Amarantha was there and that he wouldn’t give a damn about it.

Amren and Cassian both support Mor in this scene and Amren calls Rhys out on his shit but it’s not enough. It’s a single, brief scene with no lasting impact. I think this could actually have been handled well (for Rhys’ character, far as I’m concerned it was flat out OOC and bullshit for Az but that...is another debate entirely) but I could have made it work for Rhys without too much effort.

Rhys is ruthless, has never exactly had pure morals and has spent fifty years very recently completely and utterly on his own having to make fast, impossible decisions to protect himself and his court while Under the Mountain. Sustaining that here, choosing the greater good and the war over Mor’s happiness, even her well-being, in an impulsive moment where he made a rash, bad decision because he’s so used to doing this on his own, has massive trust issues and has forgotten that he can rely on and trust his court is something I could have gone with. If it had been properly explored and padded out afterwards. It wasn’t.

Instead what I got was Rhys’ man pain. He talked about how Mor was quite right and that if Amarantha had shown up, nevermind been working with someone in his Circle, his family, he’d have killed her no questions asked. (of course he doesn’t say this to Mor, he says it to Feyre, and he doesn’t say this as a condemnation of himself - it’s to stir up sympathy for HIS trauma that he so recently pretended didn’t exist in order to dismiss Mor’s)

And we get a long agonised monologue about why this is why he martyrs himself so much because he just can’t stand seeing Mor cry. I mean, never mind how awful it must have been to be triggered and stripped of her safe space by someone who is supposed to love, protect, and empower her, we must think about how sad Rhys is seeing her cry I mean?

And then it gets worse. Because not only does it generate man pain Mor forgives him the next day. There is no lasting damage done to their relationship. There is no condemnation of Rhys’ actions. In fact Mor forgives him and forgives him. She admits that he was right. She says that she was wrong to expect better from Azriel, to expect that anyone might look out for her and take her feelings and mental health into account. She says she was wrong to assume this. That is fucked up.

She tells Feyre that she and Rhys ‘had a conversation’ but based on what she tells Feyre Rhys didn’t get down on his knees and grovel for her forgiveness as he damn well should have done. Instead it seems as though all he did was explain how he really is a good man and oh well there will be restrictions and he spent all this time thinking about this and planning it (WITHOUT HER) to make it as painless as possible so he’s a good man really and she should forgive him.

I’m not here for it. The more I think about it the more this book seemed designed to put Rhys on a pedestal, to let him do whatever he wanted and then praise him for it. It was all about making him out to seem like The Best Ever. And he’s not. He’s flawed. He’s morally corrupt. He places huge emphasis on the greater good and throws those around him (Mor, Mor and more Mor) under the bus to get what he wants and he’s never condemned for it?

In fact he’s praised for it (see: the prologue: ‘Rhys gets an entire legion of men, his men, who trusted him to lead them, tortured and brutally killed to save one person and this makes him ‘the best’ ????? no ???? no it doesn’t ???? it makes him a ruthless bastard????? Which is okay, is even interesting, as long as the narrative actually deals with that and it doesn’t. Because Rhys must be The Strongest High Lord. The Most Handsome High Lord. The Most Feminist High Lord. The Best High Lord Ever and I’m tired of it.

I am tired of men being absolved for every shitty, fucked up thing they do because they’re fighting For The Greater Good and that makes everything okay. While women are condemned, demonised and considered selfish for protecting and being themselves (Mor, Nesta) I’m tired of people blindly screaming about how feminist Rhys is because he gives Feyre basic rights that we hate Tamlin for denying her but we praise Rhys to high heaven because he gives them to her? I’m tired of Rhys being called feminist when his female empowerment is an illusion that’s shattered when it does not suit his agenda (see: him completely stripped Mor of her power and agency, as well as traumatising her and dismissing her) I’m tired of this narrative of how Rhys is The Best and we should all want him for ourselves because nope. Rhys is fucked up and flawed like every other character in this series, difference is the narrative never calls him out on it and just continues absolving and praising him.

I’m tired of Rhys doing the bare minimum as a privileged male character and being showered with praise by both the narrative and the fandom that he genuinely does not deserve because he is not superior, he is not supremely feminist (and nor is Feyre’s narrative tbh), he is not that progressive, he’s just not an abusive twat but this is enough to place him on a pedestal and cry from the rooftops about what a wonderful being he is.

Most of this is a condemnation of how he’s written rather than the character of Rhys himself. Because I can see this working, I can see the potential in there, I can see a compelling character and a compelling narrative in there but nothing is being done with it. There is no engagement with Rhys. He just is. He just exists and he exists to be The Best which the narrative shoves down our throat over and over and good grief it’s not what I wanted.

Rhys was introduced to us as a grey character, Rhys has always been a grey character and therein lies what makes him a good, interesting, compelling character. He isn’t a good, interesting, or compelling character, frankly, in ACOWAR. He’s frustrating. He’s frustrating because he IS all of those things but he’s not being written as them. He’s being written as perfect. He’s being written as a flawless, self-sacrificing martyr who has never done anything wrong and must be forgiven by all those he does fuck over (Mor, Tarquin, etc) because the narrative must reinforce over and over and over again that he is The Best.

I don’t want him to be The Best. I want him to be the morally flawed, self-serving, pragmatic, ruthless, charismatic bastard he was introduced to us as who’s doing his best with a shitty hand and taking the flack that comes to him for making himself into a monster. I want the narrative to allow him to take responsibility for the fucked up choices that he’s made and it just doesn’t. Because SJM instead goes out of her way to shove down my throat what a good man he is rather than just showing it to me.

I don’t need to be spoonfed. And I don’t need the morality of every character’s decision argued out in-text. It’s just lazy and it’s boring. The purpose of having morally grey characters making morally grey choices especially in the setting of a war is to make the reader think and feel. And all I feel is frustrated because I’m being told what to think. Because a character makes a fucked up choice that should have long lasting, damning consequences, but three pages later the book is telling me that no, no! They’re doing it for the greater good. This decision is good and right, let’s accept that and move on.

THAT’S NOT THE POINT OF THIS KIND OF PLOT POINT. The point isn’t to tell me that it’s good. The point isn’t to actually tell me anything. The point is to have it in there, show me the consequences, show me how the character feels about it, show me the rewards of the decision, show me how the choice affects them, then let me make up my own damn mind. This is how this kind of plot point actually has any impact and none of these plot points have any impact whatsoever in ACOWAR because they’re all explained away and I’m told that they’re Good, Right choices made by Good, Right character thirty seconds after they take place.

ACOTAR got this right. We’re STILL debating some of the shit Rhys pulled in ACOTAR in a way that we aren’t discussing much of anything he did in ACOWAR because the narrative did all that for us (or tried to). In ACOTAR we get Rhys’ actions, we get his motivations, we get the consequences and we get to sit there and decide if we accept them, we get to weigh his actions and judge them based on our own morals and we don’t get spoonfed on how to think. That’s why Rhys was a compelling character, that’s why he was intriguing, that’s why he generated debate and feeling. There’s no feeling attached to him in ACOWAR because it’s too simple, it’s too easy, and it’s too forced.

Rhys fucks up. Narrative allows Rhys Man Pain. Narrative absolves Rhys. Rinse and repeat. (Same thing with Feyre) and that’s why there’s so little feeling, so little impact, and so little meaning in their story. Because there is nothing for a reader to engage with. There is nothing for a reader to think about themselves. We get told what to think. We get told how to feel about Rhys. Everything gets smoothed over. There is no real conflict. There are no real consequences and it’s boring and it’s frustrating and it just feeds this idea of absolving male characters for everything they do and it’s exhausting.

TL;DR: Rhys’ character, arc, and choices could have been compelling, intriguing and plunged him back into that moral grey area where we first met him in ACOTAR and where he belongs. Instead I’m both bored and frustrated by his arc because I’m tired of being shown male characters doing fucked up, morally flawed shit in the name of their Greater Good, and then being automatically absolved for it.

#rhysand #acowar #anti acowar #anti sjm #i'm going to get SO much hate for this like i can FEEL IT ALREADY #i'm going to bleed followers like there's no tomorrow #i am Ready #this has been bothering me for SO LONG #and i'm not tagging this as anti rhys because it's NOT #i don't actually have a problem with his base character #or the things he does #i have a problem with how the narrative absolves him #and how the fandom (understandably) does as well #i'm just so tired of men being placed on pedestals and praised for like #giving women basic treatment and rights and stuff #while women are thrown under the bus and hated on for relatively minor infractions/doing basically the smae thing #but the narrative doesn't do any legwork to absolve them or explain them #because that is a position reserved only for The Men #apparently i'm saltier about all this than i thought i was #how about that #anonymous #answered #lauren answers #long post #rhys meta #acotar meta #my meta #acowar spoilers #acowarspoilers

319 notes · View notes

wawerrell · 7 years

Text

The Cult of Republican Victimhood

“You will not replace us! White Lives Matter!” That was all I needed to mute the video of angry, torch-bearing white nationalists marching in Charlottesville last night. The master race took time off from their busy schedule of collecting welfare benefits and flying rebel flags to protest the college town’s decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Of course, they lit their torches and took off their masks—your neighbor, your barber, your teacher, your minister—for more than a statue.

They were there because they feel as though the glory of their whiteness wanes. They were there because they fervently believe—and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, our Attorney General, agrees with them—that the generosity of the white man was taken advantage of, and, as a result, the white man now suffers undue and unchecked discrimination because of the color of his skin.

Gobs and gobs of campaign post-mortems point to identity politics as the fatal flaw in Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid. Critics fault her for running too much against Trump and his immorality—appealing to the scores and scores of those offended by his comments, marginalized by his proposals, and threatened by his policies—rather than running on her own qualifications and merits. The irony of all this is that identity politics were precisely the foundation of Trump’s campaign and already an essential aspect of the GOP’s election strategies.

Trump honed in on and gave a voice to the Cult of Republican Victimhood.

The depths of shamelessness within this Cult are unfathomable. Days after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, the NRA held a press conference. (Because they value the 2nd Amendment far more than the 1st, the NRA forbade all questions.) A member of the audience—heartbroken, frustrated, angry—interrupted Wayne LaPierre in the middle of his proposal to post armed guards in schools across the country. LaPierre, thus attacked, looked down as though he might cry. A gunman with an assault rifle had just murdered children at an elementary school, and a protestor was tasteless enough to scream angrily during his proposal to put more guns in school.

The transmutation of responsibility into victimization is their central communion. This communion enables the Cult of Victimhood to transmogrify the thrice-divorced Kim Davis (no relation to Kim Jong Un) from outlaw into Christian martyr.

So agile are these fantastical acrobatics that the Cult even consider Ayn Rand’s works to be literature. (If you thirst for poorly-written, thinly-veiled fascism, Charles Hill has written better screeds on Yale’s one-ply toilet paper.) And, dear reader, who is John Galt anyway? Is he:

a) an ego-driven capitalist who treats the people in his life as Lilliputian ladder rungs before throwing them away like soiled prophylactics?

b) a rugged individual who—despite being victimized by “the haters and the losers” (and antitrust regulations)—manages to make a success out of himself?

Perhaps it’s a matter of frames of reference. More accurately, I think the answer to that tired question in that tired book has to do with identity politics.

Trump presented himself as the Moses who would lead the beleaguered and besieged out of the desert, those huddled masses who change their profile pictures to a Nativity scene with the disclaimer: “Facebook says this is politically incorrect. Share and type ‘Amen’ if you’re not embarrassed by Jesus!” These are the Fox commentators who claim that a policeman was killed “because of the color of his uniform.” These are the men and women who suffer from Holocaust Envy, whose eyes gaze wistfully at pictures of Birkenau, looking for a grandmother or a distant relative—anything to let them to lay claim to the horror, to the undeniable suffering and inescapable discrimination, to having survived the fiery crucible of genocide.

Trump targeted those who are convinced that they once had greatness—a heaping portion of the American dream, a home, status, riches—and yet find themselves now wandering aimlessly in the desert. Wracked by the housing market, globalization, the opioid crisis, automation, a broken education system, and fading prospects, they look to foist the blame for their misfortune on some vague and vicious enemy. In her first novel, The Bluest Eye, Toni Morrison writes precisely about the need to focus hatred—and direct it onto that which is within your grasp, not something fathoms beyond your reach. Describing Cholly Breedlove, Morrison discusses his need to hurt and hate Pauline, his wife, and Darlene, his first lover:

“No less did Cholly need [Pauline]. She was one of the few things abhorrent to him that he could touch and therefore hurt. He poured out on her the sum of all his inarticulate fury and aborted desires. Hating her, he could leave himself intact.”

If Cholly cannot find an outlet for raging against his own life, the way his dreams bore no fruit, if he cannot funnel hatred towards something he could “touch and therefore hurt,” it will destroy him from within. And it is only because he can reach Pauline that he receives any sort of catharsis; Cholly cannot find that same expurgation of a frustrated lifetime in hating those with more power. It will do him no good, for instance, to hate the white men who forced him to “perform” for them—“I said, get on wid it. An’ make it good, nigger, make it good.”—when they catch him making love to Darlene. “Hating them,” Morrison writes, “would have consumed him, burned him up like a piece of soft coal, leaving only flakes of ash and a question mark of smoke.” The fire that rages with no target will burn itself out.

These conservative and victimized men and women are filled with anger at the world and filled with dread that their world will disappear. They are told by Sean Hannity and Donald Trump and the vacuous nabobs of Fox & Friends that they—“good country people,” as Mrs. Hopewell might misidentify them—have been supplanted, cast out, and thrown down by immigrants swarming like cucarachas across the border or by some millennial upstarts bankrolled by Soros. Republicans in rural Iowa take a perverse comfort in hearing from “Dr.” Sebastian Gorka that, once the ISIS armada lands and takes unawares our unarmed and unprotected coasts, the town of Decorah, Iowa will be Christianity’s Stalingrad. Reassured by Twitter that the raking claws of the MSM neither understand nor like them, they wear the name “Deplorable” as a badge of honor: their disregard for “political correctness” is kryptonite to liberal snowflakes. Trump tapped into that frustration, gave it a voice, and weaponized it—and then he targeted it towards a hateful place.

The very act of tapping into that frustration—grease-smeared, black-lunged, calloused—is a textbook example of identity politics at work, and therein lies the irony: “Donald, Donald on the wall, who’s the snowflakiest of them all?” He told them they were losers—and that they lost because they were victims of an un-American America. The core of the country was strong, he told them, but the coasts had rotten away in disgraceful excess. Trump’s supporters, then, were Tennyson’s Light Brigade: stuck and huddled in the valley of death, bombarded on either side by “safe spaces” and Affirmative Action and two guys kissing and Title IX and pronoun preferences and and and and—

They had done nothing wrong; it was Obama who stuffed totalitarian doctrines of social liberalism down their throats with his executive orders. Schrodinger’s Liberal—simultaneously a “libtard snowflake” and a highly-capable insurrectionist who will replace the Constitution with the Koran—had stripped the glory from their whiteness, had taken the Christ out of their Christmas, had passed a healthcare bill that would prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right to die in penury.

Self-righteousness is never stronger, however, than in the moment of martyrdom. Commercials on Fox talk about a global decline in Christian marriage, and pastors in church discuss the irreligious opulence of gay pride parades. The embattled and resilient minority—those who earnestly believe that Bill O’Reilly was the real victim of the sexual harassment accusations—gleefully gather nails and a cross to cling to their victimhood.

I can think of no better example to prove the existence of the Cult of Victimhood than the phenomenon of “reverse racism,” the fantastical belief that whites have been given the short straw. Look no further than the glee surrounding Sessions’ investigation or the white nationalists’ posters and cries exclaiming that whites are being replaced, that white lives matter.

The two are similar in that they both believe that whiteness should entitle a person to a certain amount of privilege rather than take away from. Abigail Fisher, a stunningly mediocre high school student described by VerySmartBrothas as “room temperature Aquafina,” represented a large swathe of angry white people with shitty GPAs whose parents and communities have convinced them that they didn’t get into the bridge program at Southern Coastal Technical College because “Jamal took your spot.” These myths about Affirmative Action are perpetuated from the top-down; Ben Shapiro, a would-be Buckley with neither the vocabulary nor the wit who runs a “news” website with invasive pop-up ads, claims that it is racist towards white people. The language of Shapiro and Fisher and her supporters was that of displacement—the same as the language last night and today in Virginia: “This once was ours, and now you’ve taken it away.”

The unabashed, racist white knights marching around Charlottesville have already accused their counter-protestors of stifling their freedom of speech; after all, any attempt to shush vacuous idiocy will be met with renewed victimhood: “You’re taking away my freedom of speech!” These are the very type of people who voted in favor of double standards in waiting rooms and schools—but now decry the double standard of public discourse: “If you can say it, why can’t I?” or, “If I said that about black people, I’d be called a racist.” Any asshole can say whatever atrocious, racist bilge he wishes to say; your freedom of expression does not free you from the likelihood of being called out for bigotry.

Of greater significance, however, is their fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is. They operate under the delusion that racism today is isolated to language, that it’s no more than a blanket, unsubstantiated claim about a particular race of people. Language is, of course, a part of it. But racism is mostly about power.

In the moment when these conservative whites feel their power waning, they are spurred with a renewed sense of urgency reclaim that power—or at least to stanch the hemorrhaging. They cite thousands of examples in which they were the victim: while white conservatives worked hard in the fields, blacks sat on couches and collected benefits; while white conservatives paid their taxes, welfare queens drove around the ghetto in stretch Cadillacs; while white conservatives were told they couldn’t put up the Nativity Scene on the town green, Obama honor raped fifteen Southern Baptists who went to visit the White House. The easiest way to reclaim a lost sense of dignity is to rip dignity from someone else. Just as Bob Ewell desperately needs racism—he lives next to the town dump and his daughter is the mother of his children, but at least he’s white—so, too, does the downtrodden conservative who has borne the injuries levied against his religion and the color of his skin for as long as he could.

The conservative whites in this country are sick and they are tired of being stepped on. As David Duke said today in Charlottesville: “We are going to take our country back. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump.”

#charlottesville #virginia #trump #donald trump #politics #racism

1 note · View note

araitsume · 5 years

Video

youtube

The Desire of Ages, pp. 298-314: Chapter (31) The Sermon on the Mount

This chapter is based on Matthew 5; Matthew 6; Matthew 7.

Christ seldom gathered His disciples alone to receive His words. He did not choose for His audience those only who knew the way of life. It was His work to reach the multitudes who were in ignorance and error. He gave His lessons of truth where they could reach the darkened understanding. He Himself was the Truth, standing with girded loins and hands ever outstretched to bless, and in words of warning, entreaty, and encouragement, seeking to uplift all who would come unto Him.

The Sermon on the Mount, though given especially to the disciples, was spoken in the hearing of the multitude. After the ordination of the apostles, Jesus went with them to the seaside. Here in the early morning the people had begun to assemble. Besides the usual crowds from the Galilean towns, there were people from Judea, and even from Jerusalem itself; from Perea, from Decapolis, from Idumea, away to the south of Judea; and from Tyre and Sidon, the Phoenician cities on the shore of the Mediterranean. “When they had heard what great things He did,” they “came to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases: ... there went virtue out of Him, and healed them all.” Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17-19.

The narrow beach did not afford even standing room within reach of His voice for all who desired to hear Him, and Jesus led the way back to the mountainside. Reaching a level space that offered a pleasant gathering place for the vast assembly, He seated Himself on the grass, and the disciples and the multitude followed His example.

The disciples’ place was always next to Jesus. The people constantly pressed upon Him, yet the disciples understood that they were not to be crowded away from His presence. They sat close beside Him, that they might not lose a word of His instruction. They were attentive listeners, eager to understand the truths they were to make known to all lands and all ages.

With a feeling that something more than usual might be expected, they now pressed about their Master. They believed that the kingdom was soon to be established, and from the events of the morning they gathered assurance that some announcement concerning it was about to be made. A feeling of expectancy pervaded the multitude also, and eager faces gave evidence of the deep interest. As the people sat upon the green hillside, awaiting the words of the divine Teacher, their hearts were filled with thoughts of future glory. There were scribes and Pharisees who looked forward to the day when they should have dominion over the hated Romans, and possess the riches and splendor of the world's great empire. The poor peasants and fishermen hoped to hear the assurance that their wretched hovels, the scanty food, the life of toil, and fear of want were to be exchanged for mansions of plenty and days of ease. In place of the one coarse garment which was their covering by day, and their blanket at night, they hoped that Christ would give them the rich and costly robes of their conquerors. All hearts thrilled with the proud hope that Israel was soon to be honored before the nations as the chosen of the Lord, and Jerusalem exalted as the head of a universal kingdom.

Christ disappointed the hope of worldly greatness. In the Sermon on the Mount He sought to undo the work that had been wrought by false education, and to give His hearers a right conception of His kingdom and of His own character. Yet He did not make a direct attack on the errors of the people. He saw the misery of the world on account of sin, yet He did not present before them a vivid delineation of their wretchedness. He taught them of something infinitely better than they had known. Without combating their ideas of the kingdom of God, He told them the conditions of entrance therein, leaving them to draw their own conclusions as to its nature. The truths He taught are no less important to us than to the multitude that followed Him. We no less than they need to learn the foundation principles of the kingdom of God.

Christ's first words to the people on the mount were words of blessing. Happy are they, He said, who recognize their spiritual poverty, and feel their need of redemption. The gospel is to be preached to the poor. Not to the spiritually proud, those who claim to be rich and in need of nothing, is it revealed, but to those who are humble and contrite. One fountain only has been opened for sin, a fountain for the poor in spirit.

The proud heart strives to earn salvation; but both our title to heaven and our fitness for it are found in the righteousness of Christ. The Lord can do nothing toward the recovery of man until, convinced of his own weakness, and stripped of all self-sufficiency, he yields himself to the control of God. Then he can receive the gift that God is waiting to bestow. From the soul that feels his need, nothing is withheld. He has unrestricted access to Him in whom all fullness dwells. “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” Isaiah 57:15.

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” By these words Christ does not teach that mourning in itself has power to remove the guilt of sin. He gives no sanction to pretense or to voluntary humility. The mourning of which He speaks does not consist in melancholy and lamentation. While we sorrow on account of sin, we are to rejoice in the precious privilege of being children of God.

We often sorrow because our evil deeds bring unpleasant consequences to ourselves; but this is not repentance. Real sorrow for sin is the result of the working of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit reveals the ingratitude of the heart that has slighted and grieved the Saviour, and brings us in contrition to the foot of the cross. By every sin Jesus is wounded afresh; and as we look upon Him whom we have pierced, we mourn for the sins that have brought anguish upon Him. Such mourning will lead to the renunciation of sin.

The worldling may pronounce this sorrow a weakness; but it is the strength which binds the penitent to the Infinite One with links that cannot be broken. It shows that the angels of God are bringing back to the soul the graces that were lost through hardness of heart and transgression. The tears of the penitent are only the raindrops that precede the sunshine of holiness. This sorrow heralds a joy which will be a living fountain in the soul. “Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God;” “and I will not cause Mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord.” Jeremiah 3:13, 12. “Unto them that mourn in Zion,” He has appointed to give “beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.” Isaiah 61:3.

And for those also who mourn in trial and sorrow there is comfort. The bitterness of grief and humiliation is better than the indulgences of sin. Through affliction God reveals to us the plague spots in our characters, that by His grace we may overcome our faults. Unknown chapters in regard to ourselves are opened to us, and the test comes, whether we will accept the reproof and the counsel of God. When brought into trial, we are not to fret and complain. We should not rebel, or worry ourselves out of the hand of Christ. We are to humble the soul before God. The ways of the Lord are obscure to him who desires to see things in a light pleasing to himself. They appear dark and joyless to our human nature. But God's ways are ways of mercy and the end is salvation. Elijah knew not what he was doing when in the desert he said that he had had enough of life, and prayed that he might die. The Lord in His mercy did not take him at his word. There was yet a great work for Elijah to do; and when his work was done, he was not to perish in discouragement and solitude in the wilderness. Not for him the descent into the dust of death, but the ascent in glory, with the convoy of celestial chariots, to the throne on high.

God's word for the sorrowing is, “I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners.” “I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.” Isaiah 57:18; Jeremiah 31:13.

“Blessed are the meek.” The difficulties we have to encounter may be very much lessened by that meekness which hides itself in Christ. If we possess the humility of our Master, we shall rise above the slights, the rebuffs, the annoyances, to which we are daily exposed, and they will cease to cast a gloom over the spirit. The highest evidence of nobility in a Christian is self-control. He who under abuse or cruelty fails to maintain a calm and trustful spirit robs God of His right to reveal in him His own perfection of character. Lowliness of heart is the strength that gives victory to the followers of Christ; it is the token of their connection with the courts above.

“Though the Lord be high, yet hath He respect unto the lowly.” Psalm 138:6. Those who reveal the meek and lowly spirit of Christ are tenderly regarded by God. They may be looked upon with scorn by the world, but they are of great value in His sight. Not only the wise, the great, the beneficent, will gain a passport to the heavenly courts; not only the busy worker, full of zeal and restless activity. No; the poor in spirit, who crave the presence of an abiding Christ, the humble in heart, whose highest ambition is to do God's will,—these will gain an abundant entrance. They will be among that number who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. “Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.” Revelation 7:15.

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness.” The sense of unworthiness will lead the heart to hunger and thirst for righteousness, and this desire will not be disappointed. Those who make room in their hearts for Jesus will realize His love. All who long to bear the likeness of the character of God shall be satisfied. The Holy Spirit never leaves unassisted the soul who is looking unto Jesus. He takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto him. If the eye is kept fixed on Christ, the work of the Spirit ceases not until the soul is conformed to His image. The pure element of love will expand the soul, giving it a capacity for higher attainments, for increased knowledge of heavenly things, so that it will not rest short of the fullness. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled.”

The merciful shall find mercy, and the pure in heart shall see God. Every impure thought defiles the soul, impairs the moral sense, and tends to obliterate the impressions of the Holy Spirit. It dims the spiritual vision, so that men cannot behold God. The Lord may and does forgive the repenting sinner; but though forgiven, the soul is marred. All impurity of speech or of thought must be shunned by him who would have clear discernment of spiritual truth.

But the words of Christ cover more than freedom from sensual impurity, more than freedom from that ceremonial defilement which the Jews so rigorously shunned. Selfishness prevents us from beholding God. The self-seeking spirit judges of God as altogether such a one as itself. Until we have renounced this, we cannot understand Him who is love. Only the unselfish heart, the humble and trustful spirit, shall see God as “merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” Exodus 34:6.

“Blessed are the peacemakers.” The peace of Christ is born of truth. It is harmony with God. The world is at enmity with the law of God; sinners are at enmity with their Maker; and as a result they are at enmity with one another. But the psalmist declares, “Great peace have they which love Thy law: and nothing shall offend them.” Psalm 119:165. Men cannot manufacture peace. Human plans for the purification and uplifting of individuals or of society will fail of producing peace, because they do not reach the heart. The only power that can create or perpetuate true peace is the grace of Christ. When this is implanted in the heart, it will cast out the evil passions that cause strife and dissension. “Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree;” and life's desert “shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.” Isaiah 55:13; 35:1.

The multitudes were amazed at this teaching, which was so at variance with the precepts and example of the Pharisees. The people had come to think that happiness consisted in the possession of the things of this world, and that fame and the honor of men were much to be coveted. It was very pleasing to be called “Rabbi,” and to be extolled as wise and religious, having their virtues paraded before the public. This was regarded as the crown of happiness. But in the presence of that vast throng, Jesus declared that earthly gain and honor were all the reward such persons would ever receive. He spoke with certainty, and a convincing power attended His words. The people were silenced, and a feeling of fear crept over them. They looked at one another doubtfully. Who of them would be saved if this Man's teachings were true? Many were convicted that this remarkable Teacher was actuated by the Spirit of God, and that the sentiments He uttered were divine.

After explaining what constitutes true happiness, and how it may be obtained, Jesus more definitely pointed out the duty of His disciples, as teachers chosen of God to lead others into the path of righteousness and eternal life. He knew that they would often suffer from disappointment and discouragement, that they would meet with decided opposition, that they would be insulted, and their testimony rejected. Well He knew that in the fulfillment of their mission, the humble men who listened so attentively to His words were to bear calumny, torture, imprisonment, and death, and He continued:

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

The world loves sin, and hates righteousness, and this was the cause of its hostility to Jesus. All who refuse His infinite love will find Christianity a disturbing element. The light of Christ sweeps away the darkness that covers their sins, and the need of reform is made manifest. While those who yield to the influence of the Holy Spirit begin war with themselves, those who cling to sin war against the truth and its representatives.

Thus strife is created, and Christ's followers are accused as troublers of the people. But it is fellowship with God that brings them the world's enmity. They are bearing the reproach of Christ. They are treading the path that has been trodden by the noblest of the earth. Not with sorrow, but with rejoicing, should they meet persecution. Each fiery trial is God's agent for their refining. Each is fitting them for their work as colaborers with Him. Each conflict has its place in the great battle for righteousness, and each will add to the joy of their final triumph. Having this in view, the test of their faith and patience will be cheerfully accepted rather than dreaded and avoided. Anxious to fulfill their obligation to the world, fixing their desire upon the approval of God, His servants are to fulfill every duty, irrespective of the fear or the favor of men.

“Ye are the salt of the earth,” Jesus said. Do not withdraw yourselves from the world in order to escape persecution. You are to abide among men, that the savor of the divine love may be as salt to preserve the world from corruption.

Hearts that respond to the influence of the Holy Spirit are the channels through which God's blessing flows. Were those who serve God removed from the earth, and His Spirit withdrawn from among men, this world would be left to desolation and destruction, the fruit of Satan's dominion. Though the wicked know it not, they owe even the blessings of this life to the presence, in the world, of God's people whom they despise and oppress. But if Christians are such in name only, they are like the salt that has lost its savor. They have no influence for good in the world. Through their misrepresentation of God they are worse than unbelievers.

“Ye are the light of the world.” The Jews thought to confine the benefits of salvation to their own nation; but Christ showed them that salvation is like the sunshine. It belongs to the whole world. The religion of the Bible is not to be confined between the covers of a book, nor within the walls of a church. It is not to be brought out occasionally for our own benefit, and then to be carefully laid aside again. It is to sanctify the daily life, to manifest itself in every business transaction and in all our social relations.

True character is not shaped from without, and put on; it radiates from within. If we wish to direct others in the path of righteousness, the principles of righteousness must be enshrined in our own hearts. Our profession of faith may proclaim the theory of religion, but it is our practical piety that holds forth the word of truth. The consistent life, the holy conversation, the unswerving integrity, the active, benevolent spirit, the godly example,—these are the mediums through which light is conveyed to the world.

Jesus had not dwelt on the specifications of the law, but He did not leave His hearers to conclude that He had come to set aside its requirements. He knew that spies stood ready to seize upon every word that might be wrested to serve their purpose. He knew the prejudice that existed in the minds of many of His hearers, and He said nothing to unsettle their faith in the religion and institutions that had been committed to them through Moses. Christ Himself had given both the moral and the ceremonial law. He did not come to destroy confidence in His own instruction. It was because of His great reverence for the law and the prophets that He sought to break through the wall of traditional requirements which hemmed in the Jews. While He set aside their false interpretations of the law, He carefully guarded His disciples against yielding up the vital truths committed to the Hebrews.

The Pharisees prided themselves on their obedience to the law; yet they knew so little of its principles through everyday practice that to them the Saviour's words sounded like heresy. As He swept away the rubbish under which the truth had been buried, they thought He was sweeping away the truth itself. They whispered to one another that He was making light of the law. He read their thoughts, and answered them, saying,—

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Here Jesus refutes the charge of the Pharisees. His mission to the world is to vindicate the sacred claims of that law which they charge Him with breaking. If the law of God could have been changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have suffered the consequences of our transgression. He came to explain the relation of the law to man, and to illustrate its precepts by His own life of obedience.

God has given us His holy precepts, because He loves mankind. To shield us from the results of transgression, He reveals the principles of righteousness. The law is an expression of the thought of God; when received in Christ, it becomes our thought. It lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. God desires us to be happy, and He gave us the precepts of the law that in obeying them we might have joy. When at Jesus’ birth the angels sang,—

“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14),

they were declaring the principles of the law which He had come to magnify and make honorable.

When the law was proclaimed from Sinai, God made known to men the holiness of His character, that by contrast they might see the sinfulness of their own. The law was given to convict them of sin, and reveal their need of a Saviour. It would do this as its principles were applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. This work it is still to do. In the life of Christ the principles of the law are made plain; and as the Holy Spirit of God touches the heart, as the light of Christ reveals to men their need of His cleansing blood and His justifying righteousness, the law is still an agent in bringing us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Psalm 19:7.

“Till heaven and earth pass,” said Jesus, “one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The sun shining in the heavens, the solid earth upon which you dwell, are God's witnesses that His law is changeless and eternal. Though they may pass away, the divine precepts shall endure. “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Luke 16:17. The system of types that pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God was to be abolished at His death; but the precepts of the Decalogue are as immutable as the throne of God.

Since “the law of the Lord is perfect,” every variation from it must be evil. Those who disobey the commandments of God, and teach others to do so, are condemned by Christ. The Saviour's life of obedience maintained the claims of the law; it proved that the law could be kept in humanity, and showed the excellence of character that obedience would develop. All who obey as He did are likewise declaring that the law is “holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12. On the other hand, all who break God's commandments are sustaining Satan's claim that the law is unjust, and cannot be obeyed. Thus they second the deceptions of the great adversary, and cast dishonor upon God. They are the children of the wicked one, who was the first rebel against God's law. To admit them into heaven would again bring in the elements of discord and rebellion, and imperil the well-being of the universe. No man who willfully disregards one principle of the law shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

The rabbis counted their righteousness a passport to heaven; but Jesus declared it to be insufficient and unworthy. External ceremonies and a theoretical knowledge of truth constituted Pharisaical righteousness. The rabbis claimed to be holy through their own efforts in keeping the law; but their works had divorced righteousness from religion. While they were punctilious in ritual observances, their lives were immoral and debased. Their so-called righteousness could never enter the kingdom of heaven.

The greatest deception of the human mind in Christ's day was that a mere assent to the truth constitutes righteousness. In all human experience a theoretical knowledge of the truth has been proved to be insufficient for the saving of the soul. It does not bring forth the fruits of righteousness. A jealous regard for what is termed theological truth often accompanies a hatred of genuine truth as made manifest in life. The darkest chapters of history are burdened with the record of crimes committed by bigoted religionists. The Pharisees claimed to be children of Abraham, and boasted of their possession of the oracles of God; yet these advantages did not preserve them from selfishness, malignity, greed for gain, and the basest hypocrisy. They thought themselves the greatest religionists of the world, but their so-called orthodoxy led them to crucify the Lord of glory.

The same danger still exists. Many take it for granted that they are Christians, simply because they subscribe to certain theological tenets. But they have not brought the truth into practical life. They have not believed and loved it, therefore they have not received the power and grace that come through sanctification of the truth. Men may profess faith in the truth; but if it does not make them sincere, kind, patient, forbearing, heavenly-minded, it is a curse to its possessors, and through their influence it is a curse to the world.

The righteousness which Christ taught is conformity of heart and life to the revealed will of God. Sinful men can become righteous only as they have faith in God and maintain a vital connection with Him. Then true godliness will elevate the thoughts and ennoble the life. Then the external forms of religion accord with the Christian's internal purity. Then the ceremonies required in the service of God are not meaningless rites, like those of the hypocritical Pharisees.

Jesus takes up the commandments separately, and explains the depth and breadth of their requirement. Instead of removing one jot of their force, He shows how far-reaching their principles are, and exposes the fatal mistake of the Jews in their outward show of obedience. He declares that by the evil thought or the lustful look the law of God is transgressed. One who becomes a party to the least injustice is breaking the law and degrading his own moral nature. Murder first exists in the mind. He who gives hatred a place in his heart is setting his feet in the path of the murderer, and his offerings are abhorrent to God.

The Jews cultivated a spirit of retaliation. In their hatred of the Romans they gave utterance to hard denunciations, and pleased the wicked one by manifesting his attributes. Thus they were training themselves to do the terrible deeds to which he led them on. In the religious life of the Pharisees there was nothing to recommend piety to the Gentiles. Jesus bade them not to deceive themselves with the thought that they could in heart rise up against their oppressors, and cherish the longing to avenge their wrongs.

It is true there is an indignation that is justifiable, even in the followers of Christ. When they see that God is dishonored, and His service brought into disrepute, when they see the innocent oppressed, a righteous indignation stirs the soul. Such anger, born of sensitive morals, is not a sin. But those who at any supposed provocation feel at liberty to indulge anger or resentment are opening the heart to Satan. Bitterness and animosity must be banished from the soul if we would be in harmony with heaven.

The Saviour goes farther than this. He says, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Many are zealous in religious services, while between them and their brethren are unhappy differences which they might reconcile. God requires them to do all in their power to restore harmony. Until they do this, He cannot accept their services. The Christian's duty in this matter is clearly pointed out.

God pours His blessings upon all. “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” He is “kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” Luke 6:35. He bids us to be like Him. “Bless them that curse you,” said Jesus; “do good to them that hate you, ... that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” These are the principles of the law, and they are the wellsprings of life.

God's ideal for His children is higher than the highest human thought can reach. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” This command is a promise. The plan of redemption contemplates our complete recovery from the power of Satan. Christ always separates the contrite soul from sin. He came to destroy the works of the devil, and He has made provision that the Holy Spirit shall be imparted to every repentant soul, to keep him from sinning.

The tempter's agency is not to be accounted an excuse for one wrong act. Satan is jubilant when he hears the professed followers of Christ making excuses for their deformity of character. It is these excuses that lead to sin. There is no excuse for sinning. A holy temper, a Christlike life, is accessible to every repenting, believing child of God.

The ideal of Christian character is Christlikeness. As the Son of man was perfect in His life, so His followers are to be perfect in their life. Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours. The Lord says of those who believe in Him, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” 2 Corinthians 6:16.

Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), He lived a sinless life. Now by His divinity He lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by His humanity He reaches us. He bids us by faith in Him attain to the glory of the character of God. Therefore are we to be perfect, even as our “Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

Jesus had shown in what righteousness consists, and had pointed to God as its source. Now He turned to practical duties. In almsgiving, in prayer, in fasting, He said, let nothing be done to attract attention or win praise to self. Give in sincerity, for the benefit of the suffering poor. In prayer, let the soul commune with God. In fasting, go not with the head bowed down, and heart filled with thoughts of self. The heart of the Pharisee is a barren and profitless soil, in which no seeds of divine life can flourish. It is he who yields himself most unreservedly to God that will render Him the most acceptable service. For through fellowship with God men become workers together with Him in presenting His character in humanity.

The service rendered in sincerity of heart has great recompense. “Thy Father which seeth in secret Himself shall reward thee openly.” By the life we live through the grace of Christ the character is formed. The original loveliness begins to be restored to the soul. The attributes of the character of Christ are imparted, and the image of the Divine begins to shine forth. The faces of men and women who walk and work with God express the peace of heaven. They are surrounded with the atmosphere of heaven. For these souls the kingdom of God has begun. They have Christ's joy, the joy of being a blessing to humanity. They have the honor of being accepted for the Master's use; they are trusted to do His work in His name.

“No man can serve two masters.” We cannot serve God with a divided heart. Bible religion is not one influence among many others; its influence is to be supreme, pervading and controlling every other. It is not to be like a dash of color brushed here and there upon the canvas, but it is to pervade the whole life, as if the canvas were dipped into the color, until every thread of the fabric were dyed a deep, unfading hue.

“If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.” Purity and steadfastness of purpose are the conditions of receiving light from God. He who desires to know the truth must be willing to accept all that it reveals. He can make no compromise with error. To be wavering and halfhearted in allegiance to truth is to choose the darkness of error and satanic delusion.

Worldly policy and the undeviating principles of righteousness do not blend into each other imperceptibly, like the colors of the rainbow. Between the two a broad, clear line is drawn by the eternal God. The likeness of Christ stands out as distinct from that of Satan as midday in contrast with midnight. And only those who live the life of Christ are His co-workers. If one sin is cherished in the soul, or one wrong practice retained in the life, the whole being is contaminated. The man becomes an instrument of unrighteousness.

All who have chosen God's service are to rest in His care. Christ pointed to the birds flying in the heavens, to the flowers of the field, and bade His hearers consider these objects of God's creation. “Are not ye of much more value than they?” He said. Matthew 6:26, R. V. The measure of divine attention bestowed on any object is proportionate to its rank in the scale of being. The little brown sparrow is watched over by Providence. The flowers of the field, the grass that carpets the earth, share the notice and care of our heavenly Father. The great Master Artist has taken thought for the lilies, making them so beautiful that they outshine the glory of Solomon. How much more does He care for man, who is the image and glory of God. He longs to see His children reveal a character after His similitude. As the sunbeam imparts to the flowers their varied and delicate tints, so does God impart to the soul the beauty of His own character.

All who choose Christ's kingdom of love and righteousness and peace, making its interest paramount to all other, are linked to the world above, and every blessing needed for this life is theirs. In the book of God's providence, the volume of life, we are each given a page. That page contains every particular of our history; even the hairs of the head are numbered. God's children are never absent from His mind.

“Be not therefore anxious for the morrow.” Matthew 6:34, R. V. We are to follow Christ day by day. God does not bestow help for tomorrow. He does not give His children all the directions for their life journey at once, lest they should become confused. He tells them just as much as they can remember and perform. The strength and wisdom imparted are for the present emergency. “If any of you lack wisdom,”—for today,—“let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” James 1:5.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Do not think yourself better than other men, and set yourself up as their judge. Since you cannot discern motive, you are incapable of judging another. In criticizing him, you are passing sentence upon yourself; for you show that you are a participant with Satan, the accuser of the brethren. The Lord says, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” This is our work. “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 11:31.

The good tree will produce good fruit. If the fruit is unpalatable and worthless, the tree is evil. So the fruit borne in the life testifies as to the condition of the heart and the excellence of the character. Good works can never purchase salvation, but they are an evidence of the faith that acts by love and purifies the soul. And though the eternal reward is not bestowed because of our merit, yet it will be in proportion to the work that has been done through the grace of Christ.

Thus Christ set forth the principles of His kingdom, and showed them to be the great rule of life. To impress the lesson He adds an illustration. It is not enough, He says, for you to hear My words. By obedience you must make them the foundation of your character. Self is but shifting sand. If you build upon human theories and inventions, your house will fall. By the winds of temptation, the tempests of trial, it will be swept away. But these principles that I have given will endure. Receive Me; build on My words.

“Everyone therefore which heareth these words of Mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.” Matthew 7:24, 25, R.V.

0 notes

kathleenseiber · 5 years

Text

Fox-snout bag contains ancient traces of ayahuasca

Archaeologists have discovered traces of the hallucinogen ayahuasca in a 1,000-year-old leather bundle buried in a cave in the Bolivian Andes.

Chemical analysis of a pouch—made from three fox snouts sewn together—tested positive for at least five plant-based psychoactive substances. They include dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and harmine, key active compounds in ayahuasca.

“This is the first evidence of ancient South Americans potentially combining different medicinal plants to produce a powerful substance like ayahuasca,” says Melanie Miller, a researcher with the University of California, Berkeley’s Archaeological Research Facility who uses chemistry and various technologies to study how ancient humans lived.

She is lead author of the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Ritual bundle contents include leather bag, carved wooden snuff tablets and snuff tube with human hair braids, pouch made of fox snouts and camelid bone spatulas. (Credit: Juan Albarracin-Jordan and José M. Capriles)

Powerful plants

Miller’s analysis of a scraping from the fox snout pouch and a plant sample found in the ritual bundle—via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry—turned up trace amounts of bufotenine, DMT, harmine, cocaine, and benzoylecgonine. Various combinations of these substances produce powerful, mind-altering hallucinations.

The discovery adds to a growing body of evidence of ritualistic psychotropic plant use going back millennia, says Miller, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Otago in New Zealand who conducted the research during her doctoral studies at UC Berkeley.

“Our findings support the idea that people have been using these powerful plants for at least 1,000 years, combining them to go on a psychedelic journey, and that ayahuasca use may have roots in antiquity,” says Miller.

Archaeologists found the remarkably well-preserved ritual bundle at 13,000-foot elevations in the Lipez Altiplano region of southwestern Bolivia, where llamas and alpacas roam. The leather kit dates back to the pre-Inca Tiwanaku civilization, which dominated the southern Andean highlands from about 550 to 950 CE.

Fox snout pouch and more

In addition to the fox snout pouch, the leather bundle contained intricately carved wooden “snuffing tablets” and a “snuffing tube” with human hair braids attached, for snorting intoxicants; llama bone spatulas; a colorful woven textile strip; and dried plant material. All the objects were in good shape, due to the arid conditions of the Andean highlands.

Though the cave where the artifacts were found appeared to be a burial site, an excavation did not turn up human remains. Moreover, the plants found in the bundle do not grow at those altitudes, suggesting the bundle’s owner may have been a traveling shaman or another expert in the rituals of psychotropic plant use, or someone who was part of an extensive medicinal plant trading network.

“A lot of these plants, if consumed in the wrong dosage, could be very poisonous,” Miller says. “So, whoever owned this bundle would need to have had great knowledge and skills about how to use these plants, and how and where to procure them.”

Of particular fascination to Miller is the pouch made of three fox snouts. She describes it as “the most amazing artifact I’ve had the privilege to work with.”

“There are civilizations who believe that, by consuming certain psychotropic plants, you can embody a specific animal to help you reach supernatural realms, and perhaps a fox may be among those animals,” Miller says.

Ayahuasca recipe

Ayahuasca results from brewing the vines of Banisteriopsis Caapi and the leaves of the chacruna (Psychotria viridis) shrub. The leaves release DMT, and the vines release harmine—and therein lies the secret of the ayahuasca effect.

“The tryptamine DMT produces strong, vivid hallucinations that can last from minutes to an hour, but combined with harmine, you can have prolonged out-of-body altered states of consciousness with altered perceptions of time and of the self,” Miller says.

Once the drugs take effect, ayahuasca users typically enter a purgative state, which means they vomit a lot.

Though its use is currently fashionable among Silicon Valley techies, Hollywood celebrities, and spiritual awakening-seekers worldwide, Miller says these latest archaeological findings pay homage to ayahuasca’s ancient history.

From cave to lab

Miller joined the Cueva del Chileno excavation project when archaeologists Juan Albarracín-Jordán of the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés in Bolivia and José Capriles of Penn State sought her expertise to identify the plant matter they had found in the bundle.

She traveled for two days to reach the cave site near the remote south Bolivian village of Lipez and helped with the final phases of the excavation. The bundle then went to a laboratory in La Paz and, once permits were in place, samples to the lab of Christine Moore, chief toxicologist with the Immunalysis Corp. in Pomona, California.

Moore’s lab provided the liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry technology needed to conduct toxicology tests on the samples. Once the contents of the Andean bundle tested positive for five kinds of psychotropic substances, Miller’s research team was over the moon.

“We were amazed to see the incredible preservation of these compounds in this ritual bundle,” says Miller.

Source: UC Berkeley

The post Fox-snout bag contains ancient traces of ayahuasca appeared first on Futurity.

Fox-snout bag contains ancient traces of ayahuasca published first on https://triviaqaweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

anniejobaker · 5 years

Text

Feminist Reclamation of ‘Un-feminist’ Things

There’s been a lot of discussion around the new Gillette ‘Masculinity’ ad—some praise the corporation for taking a risk and doing good in the process, while others criticize its commodification of feminism. I say we stop arguing over this, acknowledge both sides, and move forward—using this ad, stripped of its commercial context, as a tool for education. Think of it this way— A communist needs a new shirt. He goes to Walmart to buy this shirt, because he can’t afford anything more expensive or because there is no ethical consumption under late capitalism. It doesn’t matter why he buys the Walmart shirt. The point is—he goes to a meeting with the local leftist group, while wearing the new Walmart shirt, to build a tenants’ union to fight against landlord injustices. This Walmart shirt—made in a sweatshop in Taiwan and sold at an alarmingly cheap price that hurts everyone in the chain of production and sales except for the Walton family—becomes a literal tool of resistance. After all, the communist needed the shirt. Or maybe think of it like this— You go and you read the Ancient Greek tragedies, and then you go and you read the literature ON these tragedies. ‘Is Antigone a villain or an antihero?’ asks Mr Dr Old White Man, DPhil from Oxford. ‘Is Electra a villain or an antihero?’ asks Mr Dr Other Old White Man, PhD from Cambridge. ‘Hold up,’ you say, ‘Why can’t Antigone or Electra be the hero?’ The (anti-?)heroines of Ancient Greek tragedies live by their own moral code—a feminine as opposed to a masculine, Athenian morality. Their morality is family-oriented and individualistic, as opposed to centered around abstract ideas of honor and the polis. It’s more concrete, even as it exists in a world parallel to the men around whom they move. So you read these tragedies and you tire of Creon and Orestes and Clytemnestra’s boyfriend (what even WAS his name? I certainly don’t remember) and the morality of these (anti-?)heroines begins to rub off on you. These millennia-old plays, written and performed by and for men, these old, old tools of women’s oppression, become formats for feminist resistance in the twenty-first century. So let’s take that Gillette ad, and stop calling it ‘that Gillette ad’, because the fact it’s a commercial for a razor company has very little to do with the message contained therein—that masculinity doesn’t have to be toxic. That adult men should be good role models for boys [regardless of the gender we perceive the boys to be now] who will grow up to be men. That’s a GREAT message. So let’s keep sharing that ad, but stop referring to it by its origins. Let’s make it a crowd-renamed PSA—a tool in the fight against toxic masculinity, in the fight for feminism. After all, comparatively few people are willing to sit down and read hard theory. Theory, like Sarah Ahmed, says in Living a Feminist Life, CAN be a lifeline. But not everyone is going to pick up theory. That’s not an insult against anyone—bell hooks tells a story in ‘Theory as Liberatory Practice’ of a woman at a meeting hooks was at, who stayed quiet while everyone else spoke and at the end said that she was sick of talk and wanted to take action. A straightforward video that immediately inspires action is an ideal middle ground. It hits people literally at home, offering them the distilled bare essentials of feminism (thank you, commodification) on a spoon. Yes, it’s sad that all that hard theory that so many women worked decades of their lives on is so reduced, but that’s better than keeping it on a high shelf for only the privileged, ladder-owning few. And maybe a short video about what feminism really is, about toxic masculinity, can function as an old milk crate that people can stand on to reach that theory. After all, theory is good and fun and powerful and emotional, and, often times, what people capable of reading it NEED.

#Gws350

0 notes

getstaffed-blog · 7 years

Text

The Daily Recruitment Hymn: Always Be Scouting

Championship sports teams are made both through organic growth and through strategic talent acquisition. Locally, the most prominent example of a championship-calibre sports team is the Toronto Raptors. Let me explain.

Prior to the deal that landed the Raptors both Coach Dwane Casey & GM Masai Ujiri, this team was sad - correction, this team was horrible - to watch. Ever heard of a trainwreck? That was what my Toronto Raptors was. Fans like myself who had been around for a reasonably long while were always left disappointed by the poor performance of our beloved basketball club.

It all began in the summer of 2010, just prior to the start of the 2010-2011 basketball season - the entire landscape of the NBA changed. Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and LeBron James all merged their individual talents to form a so-called 'super-team', poised to dominate the NBA for many seasons to follow. The sting to the Raptors' organization, losing their star player Chris Bosh, was painful for fans. The organization felt that they were a work in progress, and although they appeared stuck in what appeared to be perpetual mediocrity, the team was looking to make the right on-court talent acquisitions to elevate them from a mediocre basketball club to a championship level basketball club. Never did they think, however, that the loss of Bosh would result in them being a bottom-feeder in the standings.

Flash forward several losing seasons and several key personnel decisions occurred: firstly, the ownership group for Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) changed. This ownership group, comprised of many key individuals but also included the newly added Bell and Rogers TV and Internet empires in Canada, strategically mapped out their collective futures. The rationale appeared simple: Yes, Toronto sports fans are loyal to their teams, but there is only so much losing an organization can succumb to before fans begin to lose their patience; therefore, the organizations must win now rather than become perpetual losers. Secondly, a coaching change was in order, along with a key player acquisition - and who better than defensive specialist Dwane Casey, the mastermind behind the Dallas Mavericks' championship winning season, and high-rising point guard formerly of the Houston Rockets, Kyle Lowry?

Furthermore, MLSE orchestrated a shake-up of the executive branches for virtually all of the teams under the banner of MLSE. In particular, the Raptors organization lost the weight of long-time general manager Bryan Colangelo. Although he was single-handedly responsible for developing a bridge of communication that resulted in the successful hiring of Dwane Casey and the trade for Kyle Lowry, Bryan himself represented a losing tradition for a Raptors organization desperate to re-brand themselves as a winning basketball club that talented players would be privileged to play for. Therein lies a key hire by MLSE: Masai Ujiri, a maestro in the boardroom capable of negotiating deals that bore fruit not simply for his home club, but also for those on the other end of the deal.

There, Masai went to work - canvassing for talent across the NBA, studying the roster he inherited from Bryan Colangelo, and ultimately making key trades that bring us to where we are today. Masai not only leveraged his roster depth to add complimentary talent to a young and nimble basketball club, but he also empowered his coach - whom he decided to keep as Dwane Casey - to play a style of basketball that Dwane wanted to play. In fact, the scouting process was - and still is - a mutual exchange of ideas between Dwane and Masai. As GM, Masai listens carefully to his coach and looks to acquire talent that will compliment Dwane's practical coaching style and the roster whom Dwane and Masai mutually agreed should remain with the club.

This aggressive canvassing resulted in what we see in today's Toronto Raptors basketball club: a championship caliber team that can play with the best teams anywhere in the world; a winning mentality and culture that every player is expected to embrace; and a revival of love for a basketball club that was on the verge of collapsing in on itself. Now, the Raptors are poised for future growth because not only are they healthy for the moment with their current roster, but the mentality of always scouting for talent and seeing where the gaps are and where the successes lie will ensure that this team is competitive long after the retirement of key players like Kyle Lowry and Demar DeRozan.

Interesting story, right?

There are practical lessons here that all organizations should study and emulate in their own growth:

Be aware of changes to your team and the effect that may have: Just like the sudden loss of Chris Bosh dramatically dwindled the fortunes of the Raptors basketball club, so too can the loss of key staff dramatically hurt your bottom line. It's important for you to be aware of the culture with which you build your team under. If the culture is a perpetual bottom feeder or, perhaps, is perpetually mediocre, then you stand to lose your key staff. Sometimes, these personnel changes are out of our control - after all, people are effectively agents of their own destiny and may leave your organization no matter what you do. That's not an excuse to allow your culture to deteriorate internally; rather, it's a reality check. The simple solution: Always be Scouting.

Study your organization from the top-down, not the bottom-up: MLSE demonstrates the power of this model. Prior to the ownership change, MLSE ownership was content with mediocrity on the basis of their faith that the Toronto sports fan would support their franchises under any and all circumstances. However, with the fate of multiple organizations under jeapordy, MLSE made ownership changes that brought in organizations with a vested interest in seeing success from their franchises. Bell and Rogers want to see winning teams because that's how you encourage people to watch the live broadcast of the games being played. Following this key move, MLSE essentially stripped down the executive branches of all of their popular franchises - the Jays, the Raptors, Toronto FC, and the Leafs - and revised their collective strategic growth initiatives to ensure that they were all aligned with one goal in mind: winning. The Raptors added the highly talented executive, Masai Ujiri, with is a maestro of scouting and deal-making. The result: The Raptors will Always be Scouting.

Hold all members of the organizations - from the top-down - accountable for failures and reward their successes: Masai knows that if he decelerates at any moment and shows cracks in his character, then the MLSE ownership will be on the hunt for new talent. Just look at the Jays' former executive Alex Anthopolous as an example. Winning is the cultural norm now and absolutely nothing less ought to be expected from an MLSE franchise. That is not to say that you hastily execute fires and new hiring, especially since every situation warrants its own unique assessment and evaluation. Rather, this is an opportunity for the executive team and the ownership team to ensure that there exists a mutual interest in seeing success within their respective franchises. Furthermore, reward those who do good work for your organization - just as the Raptors have done with Demar DeRozan, Kyle Lowry, Dwane Casey, Jonas Valanciunas, and even Masai himself. But as owners, know you must always be actively seeking the best talent to join your organization. The result - you need to Always be Scouting.

Utilize all resources available to you in your recruitment efforts: It is clear to me and other professionals whom proudly call themselves recruitment consultants that MLSE was in consultation with the most savvy recruitment consultants in the business. Why? The simple answer is that although they may have had access to every single individual player and executive in the business, they MLSE ownership group focused on what they do best: delegating responsibilities to experts in their respective fields. By the way, in case it was lost on you from earlier - that includes utilizing recruitment consulting agencies. If your organization wants to be successful, it must develop trusted relationships with advisors from this vertical - we have a pulse on the market and are able to get our hands dirty to identify, evaluate, and source key talent for your success. In this manner, whether your organization itself is actively hiring or actively reviewing potential candidates for hire, you will always have dedicated eyes and ears on the ground whom will be living the recruitment mantra: Always be Scouting.

Simply put, you owe it to your organization to take recruitment and staffing efforts very seriously. If you need any reason to understand why it's important, you should study the Raptors and their ascension to a championship-calibre for inspiration.

#LoveYourJob #getstaffed #alwaysbescouting #careers #success #bestpractice

0 notes