Previous post

A lapdog's brainless zeal

The Entourage! Whence comes¹ such creatures so eager to abandon all pretense of the sedentary? One envisages haste of blubbering excitement, slippery gleam in the eye, a lapdog’s brainless zeal, as a canvas bag is stuffed full of slips and whatnot, with all the grace of a fakir backstage moments before performing before a gouty king. A whirlwind rush through rooms like shrines, and then out!

We get Flicker dropping back into his more heightened style, starting off with a declamation. Remember how we ended the last section

He would unveil himself in Farrog, and then they would all see. Calap Roud, that stunning watery-eyed dancer, Purse Snippet, and the Entourage too—

So this is very much an interruption. Previously we had Flicker placing himself inside Brash's head, until he mentions the Entourage, at which point he switches completely and breaks out into this much more heightened description.
Flicker is back in his picture-painting mode as well, as he imagines the backgrounds of these girls. The first sentence is posed as a question, but is really more of a statement. I love the phrase "abandon all pretense of the sedentary". They were clearly from a wealthy background, living a carefree life before, but now they've chosen to drop it all to follow (in this instance literally follow) their favorite artist.
He imagines the scenario surrounding their departure, with the "blubbering excitement", a "slippery gleam in the eye", and of course "a lapdog's brainless zeal". I'm curious about the "slippery" descriptor there. Especially when paired with the lapdog comment, it calls to mind a dog skidding and sliding on a slippery floor as they're completely unable to contain their excitement. Does anyone have a different reading?
Then they stuff a canvas bag full of slips (as in the clothing, not as in paper slips) and "whatnot", showing how they're clearly not thinking this through, but rather just throwing things in their bag and running out the door. I love the comparison to the fakir. First of all, it hearkens back to the Arabian Nights inspiration, while also giving us the image of a fakir rushing to get ready for his act, but more important is how it works as a metaphor.
The Entourage (who as we will soon learn are all young women) are here posed as a performer, performing in front of an old, fat, wealthy man. It really spotlights the power imbalance between them and their idol. Then we end the paragraph on a sentence that I'm having a really hard time figuring out. What is the significance of the rooms being like shrines? Shrines are (definitionally) places of worship. So it's like they're rushing past these places intended for worship in order to worship their idol, perhaps implying that it would have been more productive to stay and worship a real god. But these aren't shrines, but rather rooms like shrines, so it would be a worship of the home or something in that direction. I don't think this would imply a worship of domesticity, the metaphor is not fleshed out enough for that. I think it's simply saying that they should rather try to stay connected to their roots. I must say I'm not fully convinced by this reading. What do you all think?

Holding up a mirror

Pattering feet, a trio, all converging in unsightly gallop quick to feminize into a skip and prance once He Who Is Worshipped is in sight. The Entourage accompanies the Perfect Artist everywhere, gatherings great and small, public and intimate. They build the walls of the formidable, impregnable keep that is the Perfect Artist’s ego. They patrol the moat, flinging away all but the sweetest defecatory intimations of mortality. They stand sentinel in every postern gate, they gush down every sluice, they are the stained glass to paint rainbows upon their beloved’s perfectly turned profile.

I absolutely love this image we get here of these three girls "converging in unsightly gallop" with their "pattering feet". It's juxtaposing two images, one dainty and the other the exact opposite. If you've seen one of those videos of cows being released out to pasture after the winter, that's basically what I'm picturing. But as soon as they're in the presence of their idol they switch into an exaggeratedly feminine gait.
Then there's the intentionally vague description of their idol. We don't get the name, but he's called He Who Is Worshipped and the Perfect Artist. This is a reminder that we're not talking about particulars, but rather the general case, in particular how people behave in real life fandoms. Let's examine the rest of this paragraph while keeping in mind that this is Erikson is holding up a mirror to us. And you thought you were safe?
The Entourage is always where their artist is. I think this is especially true in the modern day where fans have practically unlimited access to their favourite artists. And they act as defenders of their artist, and notice how at no point here we get any sense that this Perfect Artist asked for any such thing. They build up their own unassailable version of their artist, and then dismiss any criticism except the most basic, toothless ones.
Finally we get these three statements, two quick ones, and a longer one. They "stand sentinel..." is essentially a continuation of the previous sentence. Then they "gush down every sluice". This is a strange turn of phrase to say the least. A sluice is of course a sort of water channel, and since we're in this castle metaphor, it's likely meant as a preventative measure against flooding. But it's not water that's the risk here, but the gushing of the fans.
And lastly they are the stained glass windows that "paint rainbows" on their idol (with a nice alliteration on perfectly and profile). I really like this one. They are not only viewing their idol through rose-tinted glass, but they have made themselves a piece of stained glass, that colors the artist in every color of the rainbow. They are creating a false, or at least exaggerated, image of the artist, and projecting that image to others as well. I think this whole description really mirrors how fanatically devoted some people can get around their favorite artist, and I don't think we should exclude ourselves from this.

Let's back up a little

But let us not snick and snack overmuch, for each life is a wonder unto itself, and neither contempt nor pity do a soul sound measures of health, lest some issue of envy squeeze free in unexpectedly public revelation. The object of this breathless admiration must wait for each sweet woman’s moment upon the stage in the bull’s eye lantern light of our examination.

Flicker yet again addresses the audience directly. The phrase "snick and snack" here is interesting. A snick can of course be a small cut, and there's definitely been enough of those so far. I think the snack is not intended to have a semantic meaning, but is rather intended to complement the onomatopoeic sound of snick. The word "overmuch" is also doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Some snicking and snacking is fine, but let's not get carried away.
The "each life is a wonder..." part is hilarious. This is definitely an example of overpraising, where Flicker uses hyperbolic language while implying a much more subdued meaning. He's now spent two whole paragraphs detailing how ridiculous and vapid the Entourage is, but now he's all "oh the miracle of life etc. etc." So even when he's talking about how he should stop mocking them, he continues the mockery. Absolutely savage.
He then encourages us to not view them with pity or contempt. Possibly because it would be condescending to do so. Certainly nobody likes being viewed that way, and Flicker claims that it is at best unhelpful to take those attitudes. I am a bit confused, however, about the mention of envy. Is Flicker saying that he is envious of them? Or is he warning us to not be envious? Is there a risk, when expressing pity or contempt, of appearing envious? Are the Entourage themselves envious when we do that? I admit I'm kind of lost here. What do you think?
Flicker ends by calling attention to the fact that we haven't really discussed the Entourage's Perfect Artist at all. He's been this remote figure this whole time, almost irrelevant to the conduct of his fans. Note also how he's called an "object". That word has been used once before in this story, and it was to describe the way Purse Snippet was viewed by Calap Roud. This is not an accident. FlickeErikson is saying that the way the Entourage views their Perfect Artist is not entirely dissimilar to the way Calap Roud, a disgusting old pervert, leers at a much younger woman. Again, this is not lust for the artist themself, but rather for the godlike image that the fans have constructed of the artist.
And before we can know that artist, we are going to be introduced to these three young women, each more ridiculous than the last, before we get to their Perfect Artist. Indeed, they must suffer the "bull's eye lantern light of our examination". This is a great description of what Flicker has been doing so far with his ruthless introduction. He also doesn't call it an interrogation or even a description. No, he's simply examining each of these characters, down to their core².
And that does it for this week's post. Next time we'll be discussing Sellup, the oldest member of the Entourage. See you all next week!
¹ I don't know exactly what to do with this seeming error. It strikes me as an editing artifact. That is, Erikson originally wrote this sentence differently, then changed the wording but forgot to change the whole sentence.
² And it's worth remembering that he may well be making all of this up.
Next post

Hi there,
I (21) am a frequent singer who usually joins in competitions and - although not the best - lands in the top 5. I never had stage fright all my life when it came to anything in front of an audience. Speeches, declamations, presentations, etc, none. Zero. It's my specialty...
Now, as I literally type this down, I had just got dismissed from a uni org event. The final act of the event was just letting a bunch of people request songs and sing or dance. I was hyping myself up for the past 30 minutes to go join the queue.
My hands started feeling Unreasonably Cold and Shaky by the time I had put down my chosen song - which is usually one I can do pretty well - but by now it was too late to back out so I just pushed through.
I completely fucking bombed it. I was shaking, voice cracking, not hitting my notes. It was awful. I had no idea what came over me and I just feel so- god. There were 4 professors in attendance as well as younger years of my bachelors program who I know pretty well. God I feel so- just- god
How do you deal??? I don't think I can move on from this fast enough

J.V. Stalin Our Disagreements
First Published/Source: Jan 19, 1921 in Pravda, No. 12 Source: Works, J.V. Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953, Volume 5, pp. 4-15 Transcription/HTML Markup: Charles Farrell Online Version: Stalin Reference Archive (marxists.org) 2000
Our disagreements on the trade-union question are not disagreements in principle about appraisal of the trade unions. The well-known points of our programme on the role of the trade unions, and the resolution of the Ninth Party Congress on the trade unions, which Trotsky often quotes, remain (and will remain) in force. Nobody disputes that the trade unions and the economic organizations ought to and will permeate each other ("coalescence"). Nobody disputes that the present period of the country's economic revival dictates the necessity of gradually transforming the as yet nominal industrial unions into real industrial unions, capable of putting our basic industries on their feet. In short, our disagreements are not disagreements about matters of principle.
Nor do we disagree about the necessity of labor discipline in the trade unions and in the working class generally. The talk about a section of our Party "letting the reins slip out of its hands," and leaving the masses to the play of elemental forces, is foolish. The fact that Party elements play the leading role in the trade unions and that the trade unions play the leading role in the working class remains indisputable.
Still less do we disagree on the question of the quality of the membership of the Central Committees of the trade unions, and of the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions. All agree that the membership of these institutions is far from ideal, that the ranks of the trade unions have been depleted by a number of military and other mobilizations, that the trade unions must get back their old officials and also get new ones, that they must be provided with technical resources, and so forth.
No, our disagreements are not in this sphere.
I Two Methods of Approach to the Mass of the Workers Our disagreements are about questions of the means by which to strengthen labor discipline in the working class, the methods of approach to the mass of the workers who are being drawn into the work of reviving industry, the ways of transforming the present weak trade unions into powerful, genuinely industrial unions, capable of reviving our industry.
There are two methods: the method of coercion (the military method), and the method of persuasion (the trade-union method). The first method by no means precludes elements of persuasion, but these are subordinate to the requirements of the coercion method and are auxiliary to the latter. The second method, in turn, does not preclude elements of coercion, but these are subordinate to the requirements of the persuasion method and are auxiliary to the latter. It is just as impermissible to confuse these two methods as it is to confuse the army with the working class.
A group of Party workers headed by Trotsky, intoxicated by the successes achieved by military methods in the army, supposes that those methods can, and must, be adopted among the workers, in the trade unions, in order to achieve similar successes in strengthening the unions and in reviving industry. But this group forgets that the army and the working class are two different spheres, that a method that is suitable for the army may prove to be unsuitable, harmful, for the working class and its trade unions.
The army is not a homogeneous mass; it consists of two main social groups, peasants and workers, the former being several times more numerous than the latter. In urging the necessity of employing chiefly methods of coercion in the army, the Eighth Party Congress based itself on the fact that our army consists mainly of peasants, that the peasants will not go to fight for socialism, that they can, and must, be compelled to fight for socialism by employing methods of coercion. This explains the rise of such purely military methods as the system of Commissars and Political Departments, Revolutionary Tribunals, disciplinary measures, appointment and not election to all posts, and so forth.
In contrast to the army, the working class is a homogeneous social sphere; its economic position disposes it towards socialism, it is easily influenced by communist agitation, it voluntarily organizes in trade unions and, as a consequence of all this, constitutes the foundation, the salt of the earth, of the Soviet state. It is not surprising, therefore, that the practical work of our industrial unions has been based chiefly on methods of persuasion. This explains the rise of such purely trade-union methods as explanation, mass propaganda, encouragement of initiative and independent activity among the mass of the workers, election of officials, and so forth.
The mistake Trotsky makes is that he underrates the difference between the army and the working class, he puts the trade unions on a par with the military organizations, and tries, evidently by inertia, to transfer military methods from the army into the trade unions, into the working class. Trotsky writes in one of his documents:
"The bare contrasting of military methods (orders, punishment) with trade-union methods (explanation, propaganda, independent activity) is a manifestation of Kautskian-Menshevik-Socialist-Revolutionary prejudices. . . . The very contrasting of labour organisations with military organisation in a workers' state is shameful surrender to Kautskyism."
That is what Trotsky says.
Disregarding the irrelevant talk about "Kautskyism," "Menshevism," and so forth, it is evident that Trotsky fails to understand the difference between labor organizations and military organizations, that he fails to understand that in the period of the termination of the war and the revival of industry it becomes necessary, inevitable, to contrast military with democratic (trade-union) methods, and that, therefore, to transfer military methods into the trade unions is a mistake, is harmful.
Failure to understand that lies at the bottom of the recently published polemical pamphlets of Trotsky on the trade unions.
Failure to understand that is the source of Trotsky's mistakes.
II Conscious Democracy and Forced "Democracy" Some think that talk about democracy in the trade unions is mere declamation, a fashion, called forth by certain phenomena in internal Party life, that, in time, people will get tired of "chatter" about democracy and everything will go on in the "old way."
Others believe that democracy in the trade unions is, essentially, a concession, a forced concession, to the workers' demands, that it is diplomacy rather than real, serious business.
Needless to say, both groups of comrades are profoundly mistaken. Democracy in the trade unions, i.e., what is usually called "normal methods of proletarian democracy in the unions," is the conscious democracy characteristic of mass working-class organizations, which presupposes consciousness of the necessity and utility of systematically employing methods of persuasion among the millions of workers organized in the trade unions. If that consciousness is absent, democracy be comes an empty sound.
While war was raging and danger stood at the gates, the appeals to "aid the front" that were issued by our organizations met with a ready response from the workers, for the mortal danger we were in was only too palpable, for that danger had assumed a very concrete form evident to everyone in the shape of the armies of Kolchak, Yudenich, Denikin, Pilsudski and Wrangel, which were advancing and restoring the power of the landlords and capitalists. It was not difficult to rouse the masses at that time. But today, when the war danger has been overcome and the new, economic danger (economic ruin) is far from being so palpable to the masses, the broad masses cannot be roused merely by appeals. Of course, everybody feels the shortage of bread and textiles; but firstly, people do contrive to obtain both bread and textiles in one way or another and, consequently, the danger of a food and goods famine does not spur the masses to the same extent as the war danger did; secondly, nobody will assert that the masses are as conscious of the reality of the economic danger (shortage of locomotives and of machines for agriculture, for textile mills and iron and steel plants, shortage of equipment for electric power stations, and so forth) as they were of the war danger in the recent past. To rouse the millions of the working class for the struggle against economic ruin it is necessary to heighten their initiative, consciousness and independent activity; it is necessary by means of concrete facts to convince them that economic ruin is just as real and mortal a danger as the war danger was yesterday; it is necessary to draw millions of workers into the work of reviving industry through the medium of trade unions built on democratic lines. Only in this way is it possible to make the entire working class vitally interested in the struggle which the economic organizations are waging against economic ruin. If this is not done, victory on the economic front cannot be achieved.
In short, conscious democracy, the method of proletarian democracy in the unions, is the only correct method for the industrial unions.
Forced "democracy" has nothing in common with this democracy.
Reading Trotsky's pamphlet The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions, one might think that he, in essence, is "also" in favor of the "democratic" method. This has caused some comrades to think that we do not disagree about the methods of work in the trade unions. But that is absolutely wrong, for Trotsky's "democracy" is forced, half-hearted and unprincipled, and, as such, merely supplements the military-bureaucratic method, which is unsuitable for the trade unions.
Judge for yourselves.
At the beginning of November 1920, the Central Committee adopted, and the Communist group at the Fifth All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions carried through, a resolution stating that the "most vigorous and systematic struggle must be waged against the degeneration of centralism and militarized forms of work into bureaucracy, tyranny, officialdom and petty tutelage over the trade unions. . . that also for the Tsektran (the Central Committee of the Transport Workers Union, led by Trotsky) the time for the specific methods of administration for which the Central Political Administration of the Railways was set up, owing to special circumstances, is beginning to pass away," that, in view of this, the Communist group at the conference "advises the Tsektran to strengthen and develop normal methods of proletarian democracy in the union," and instructs the Tsektran "to take an active part in the general work of the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions and to be represented in it on an equal footing with other trade-union associations" (see Pravda, No. 255). In spite of that decision, however, during the whole of November, Trotsky and the Tsektran continued to pursue the old, semi-bureaucratic and semi-military line, continued to rely on the Central Political Administration of the Railways and the Central Political Administration of Water Transport, strove to "shake up," to blow up, the A.R.C.C.T.U. and upheld the privileged position of the Tsektran compared with other trade union associations. More than that. In a letter "to the members of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee," dated November 30, Trotsky, just as "unexpectedly," stated that "the Central Political Administration of Water Transport . . . cannot possibly be dissolved within the next two or three months." But what happened? Six days after that letter was written (on December 7), the same Trotsky, just as "unexpectedly," voted in the Central Committee for "the immediate abolition of the Central Political Administration of the Railways and the Central Political Administration of Water Transport, and the transfer of all their staffs and funds to the trade-union organization on the basis of normal democracy." And he was one of the eight members of the Central Committee who voted for this against the seven who considered that the abolition of these institutions was no longer enough, and who demanded, in addition, that the existing composition of the Tsektran be changed. To save the existing composition of the Tsektran, Trotsky voted for the abolition of the Central Political Administrations in the Tsektran.
What had changed during those six days? Perhaps the railway and water transport workers had matured so much during those six days that they no longer needed the Central Political Administration of the Railways and the Central Political Administration of Water Transport? Or, perhaps, an important change in the internal or external political situation had taken place in that short period? Of course not. The fact is that the water transport workers were vigorously demanding that the Tsektran should dissolve the Central Political Administrations and that the composition of the Tsektran itself should be changed; and Trotsky's group, fearing defeat and wishing at least to retain the existing composition of the Tsektran, was compelled to retreat, to make partial concessions, which, however, satisfied nobody.
Such are the facts.
It scarcely needs proof that this forced, half-hearted, unprincipled "democracy" has nothing in common with the "normal methods of proletarian democracy in the unions," which the Central Committee of the Party had recommended already at the beginning of November, and which are so essential for the revival of our industrial trade unions.
In his reply to the discussion at the meeting of the Communist group at the Congress of Soviets, Trotsky protested against the introduction of a political element into the controversy about the trade unions, on the ground that politics had nothing to do with the matter. It must be said that in this Trotsky is quite wrong. It scarcely needs proof that in a workers' and peasants' state, not a single important decision affecting the whole country, and especially if it directly concerns the working class, can be carried through without in one way or another affecting the political condition of the country. And, in general, it is ridiculous and shallow to separate politics from economics. For that very reason every such decision must be weighed up in advance also from the political point of view.
Judge for yourselves.
It can be now taken as proved that the methods of the Tsektran, which is led by Trotsky, have been condemned by the practical experience of the Tsektran itself. Trotsky's aim in directing the Tsektran and influencing the other unions through it was to reanimate and revive the unions, to draw the workers into the task of reviving industry. But what has he actually achieved? A conflict with the majority of the Communists in the trade unions, a conflict between the majority of the trade unions and the Tsektran, a virtual split in the Tsektran, the resentment of the rank-and-file workers organised in trade unions against the "Commissars." In other words, far from a revival of the unions taking place, the Tsektran itself is disintegrating. There can be no doubt that if the methods of the Tsektran were introduced in the other unions, we would get the same picture of conflict, splits and disintegration. And the result would be that we would have dissension and a split in the working class.
Can the political party of the working class ignore these facts? Can it be asserted that it makes no difference to the political condition of the country whether we have a working class solidly united in integral trade unions, or whether it is split up into different, mutually hostile groups? Can it be said that the political factor ought not to play any role in appraising the methods of approach to the masses, that politics have nothing to do with the matter?
Obviously not.
The R.S.F.S.R. and its associated republics now have a population of about 140,000,000. Of this population, 80 per cent are peasants. To be able to govern such a country, the Soviet power must enjoy the firm confidence of the working class, for such a country can be directed only through the medium of the working class and with the forces of the working class. But in order to retain and strengthen the confidence of the majority of the workers, it is necessary systematically to develop the consciousness, independent activity and initiative of the working class, systematically to educate it in the spirit of communism by organizing it in trade unions and drawing it into the work of building a communist economy.
Obviously, it is impossible to do this by coercive methods and by "shaking up" the unions from above, for such methods split the working class (the Tsektran!) and engender distrust of the Soviet power. Moreover, it is not difficult to understand that, speaking generally, it is inconceivable that either the consciousness of the masses or their confidence in the Soviet power can be developed by coercive methods.
Obviously, only "normal methods of proletarian democracy in the unions," only methods of persuasion, can make it possible to unite the working class, to stimulate its independent activity and strengthen its confidence in the Soviet power, the confidence that is needed so much now in order to rouse the country for the struggle against economic ruin.
As you see, politics also speak in favor of methods of persuasion.
January 5, 1921
J. Stalin
Stalin Works Archive

This follows on from part 1.
The rain-cloud high above seethed. Lightning and static discharge flickered between the voluminous purple banks. Periodically the bolts of electricity flickered downwards with thunderous declamations. These shook the earth, and leaves fluttered down from their branches.
Unperturbed, my lawyer was giving his opening statements. He’d been giving them for the last forty minutes. I found myself quite uncomfortable as the djinn espoused my virtues to the assembled court of forest animals, using terms that would have made a saint blush.
“-and might I add your honor,” he continued, “the absence of a court stenographer is a clear violation of standard court protocol. Not to mention the conflict of interest that is presented by having the chief plaintiff serving as the arbitrator in a contractual dispute.”
Looking into Elthwyn’s eye’s, it became apparent that he was the cause of the weather disturbance. Fury burned in those bright blue eyes, threatening to slip its leash and burn all it saw. Elthwyn clicked his fingers, and a small rabbit hopped up onto the judge’s bench, and proceeded to tap against a typewriter that appeared in front of it.
Elthwyn cocked an eyebrow at the djinn questioningly. The djinn simply nodded. His name was Hazan, an old acquaintance I had once done a favour for. He had come to make good on his debt, and no doubt to test himself against the Fae lord’s who were worthy rivals for one of his power. His navy-blue suit, professional and well-fitted, was in stark contrast to his forest surroundings. I wore my woods clothes, dirty and ragged from many miles on backcountry tracks, and Elthwyn wore a long flowing silk robe that fluttered in the breeze.
The djinn finally nodded assent to the magistrate Fae, and resumed his place at my side.
Elthwyn leaned forward on his elbows. “If you're all done master Hazan, may we proceed to the matter at hand.”
“Of course your Honour.” The Djinn replied, stretching the honorific in a way that spoke volumes, “I would be most grateful if we could deal with this directly, I have other appointments this afternoon.”
The glib wit obviously annoyed the Fae, for a bolt of lightning crashed into the center of the glade with an ear-splitting crack. The djinn looked down and checked his wristwatch nonchalantly.
Elthwyn brought his fists down on the table. “Direct? This worthless earthworm signed a pact with me. He broke that pact. His soul is forfeit to me, for me to do as I please. How’s that for direct?”
“Of course, the pact. One moment,” The djinn turned and rummaged in his open briefcase. He pulled out and discarded several items as he searched, digging arm deep in the small case, like a two bit magician performing a parlor trick. “Ah yes here it is.”
The lawyer-genie presented the faded document, holding it up in his hands. The faded yellow parchment was cracked and much worse for wear.
At the sight of the document, Elthwyn reached quickly into his robe, and snatched his empty hand back out. His face contorted into a sneering, fang-prominent grimace.
“How did you get that…” The Fae lord growled, “you worthless mystic piece of-”. The earth began to rumble, as all around the forest, lightning crashed into the earth.
Hazan simply smiled abashedly, “So we agree this is the document in question?”
The scowling Elthwyn controlled himself, easing back into his dais. “Yes, that’s the document in question. It’s the master copy, which you must be aware of since you pilfered it.”
The djinn held his free hand to his chest in mock outrage, “My lord, you surely cannot be implying… It’s beggars belief to think that you are insinuating…that you are accusing me of… of… stealing a legal document? My lord I can assure y-”
“Enough!” Screamed Elthwyn, “It’s the document. Make your point.”
The djinn smiled, and turned with the document outstretched, as though to show it to the assembled gallery of animals.
“This document is signed by both yourself and the accused?”
“It is.”
“Is it notarized?”
“Notarized?”, The Fae questioned, “Are you seriously asking me if the soul-binding contract between a Fae and his protege is notarized?”
“It is fairly standard practice for important legal documents, my lord. But no matter.” He flipped through the pages and found his mark. “Here; page three, this passage outlining the conditions of the pact, punishments and retributions. Is this smudge supposed to be a comma?”
The djinn held the book out to the Fae and showed him. The Fae squinted and reviewed the parchment. The page was marked with soot and dust, and was falling apart. Between two words there was a dark mark, not quite a comma, not quite a smudge, but close to both.
“I can’t tell.” The Fae admitted. “But it doesn’t matter.”
“It wouldn’t matter if you had notarized this my lord, or had stored redundant copies in a more suitable area than this….lovely locale.A comma in this sentence has serious implications for the definitional basis of the contract.”
“You can’t seriously be hanging the validity of this pact on a single comma, master djinn.” The judge objected, “This is a binding contract.”
“Not a single comma my lord. This is just the first of seven-hundred inconsistencies or illegible markings in this document. I had thought we would simply best start from the beginning of the book.”
The Fae lord sighed, and looked directly at me. “You’re very lucky. Not many of my patrons cross me and live. Make sure you remember that for next time.”
The djinn straightened up, “Am I to take it that we won’t be proceeding further, your honour?”
“For now. I’ll need the document amended.”
The djinn nodded, “Check your other pocket. A notarized and signed agreement, so that this won’t happen again.”
The Fae lord reached into his robe, and produced a similarly old-looking manuscript.
“Get the fuck out of my forest.”
When I awoke back under my tree, a business card lay on my chest. On its front in tastefully watermarked and embossed script read, Hazan Djinn Esquire and Associates. On the back, there was a handwritten note.
Consider our debt settled.

Hello, Guys im here to ask for help regarding a urdu declamation topic "adab saraye nahi hota toh yatri goongha hoskta tha". If there is any pre-written speech on this or any video of someone delivering speech on this topic. kindly let me know. i need help related to this asap.

Mine was in 10th grade. I represented my college in a Bilingual Declamation contest organized by a Uni on World Environment Day and got first prize. During the post-event dinner, this very competitive girl (a second semester student of a Uni who got second prize) came up to me, congratulated me and slyly proceeded to talk shit. She said, "you do know that you won bc you were the youngest competitor and it's also well-known that your college buys positions to maintain reputation". I didn't disagree with her bc I was quite euphoric that day. I admired her speech, congratulated her and jokingly said "you can have my shield if you want but I'll keep the cash bc I need a new phone". She took offence at that and said, "Idc about the shields, positions or cash. I just wanted you to know the truth". And she walked away with a sarcastic smirk.
A couple weeks later, she hit me up on FB with, "Just a reminder, I'm still better than you". And then we started talking. Fell for each other a while later after meeting a few times. It didn't last long mainly bc of me. But it made me realize that I had a thing for assertive, confident and preferably older-than-me girls. That's the story.
What's yours?

The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one's wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class!
If in the political struggle against the bourgeois state the workers succeed only in extracting concessions, then they are guilty of compromise; and this is contrary to eternal principles. All peaceful movements, such as those in which English and American workers have the bad habit of engaging, are therefore to be despised. Workers must not struggle to establish a legal limit to the working day, because this is to compromise with the masters, who can then only exploit them for ten or twelve hours, instead of fourteen or sixteen. They must not even exert themselves in order legally to prohibit the employment in factories of children under the age of ten, because by such means they do not bring to an end the exploitation of children over ten: they thus commit a new compromise, which stains the purity of the eternal principles.
Workers should even less desire that, as happens in the United States of America, the state whose budget is swollen by what is taken from the working class should be obliged to give primary education to the workers' children; for primary education is not complete education. It is better that working men and working women should not be able to read or write or do sums than that they should receive education from a teacher in a school run by the state. It is far better that ignorance and a working day of sixteen hours should debase the working classes than that eternal principles should be violated.
If the political struggle of the working class assumes violent forms and if the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeois class with their own revolutionary dictatorship, then they are guilty of the terrible crime of lèse-principe; for, in order to satisfy their miserable profane daily needs and to crush the resistance of the bourgeois class, they, instead of laying down their arms and abolishing the state, give to the state a revolutionary and transitory form. Workers must not even form single unions for every trade, for by so doing they perpetuate the social division of labour as they find it in bourgeois society; this division, which fragments the working class, is the true basis of their present enslavement.
In a word, the workers should cross their arms and stop wasting time in political and economic movements. These movements can never produce anything more than short-term results. As truly religious men they should scorn daily needs and cry out with voices full of faith: "May our class be crucified, may our race perish, but let the eternal principles remain immaculate! As pious Christians they must believe the words of their pastor, despise the good things of this world and think only of going to Paradise. In place of Paradise read the social liquidation which is going to take place one day in some or other corner of the globe, no one knows how, or through whom, and the mystification is identical in all respects.
In expectation, therefore, of this famous social liquidation, the working class must behave itself in a respectable manner, like a flock of well-fed sheep; it must leave the government in peace, fear the police, respect the law and offer itself up uncomplaining as cannon-fodder.
In the practical life of every day, workers must be the most obedient servants of the state; but in their hearts they must protest energetically against its very existence, and give proof of their profound theoretical contempt for it by acquiring and reading literary treatises on its abolition; they must further scrupulously refrain from putting up any resistance to the capitalist regime apart from declamations on the society of the future, when this hated regime will have ceased to exist!
Political Indifferentism, Karl Marx Written: 1873; Translated: from the French by Bignami; Source: The Plebs, Vol. XIV, London 1922; First Published: 1874 in the Italian, Almanacco Repubblicano per l'anno 1874;

ID, III. APRILIS. JUPITER VICTOR. THIRD DAY OF THE FULL MOON.

Salve full-moon feast goers,
So, impressed by the reads on that little “it’s not woke mate” article a while back and having fired up those areas at the back of the head and the tip of the spine that glow like little aureate marbles whenever I think about provincial management I have decided to carry on a little with what I refuse to call “politics” but what I will call ‘Civics and Production Power’ instead. I think I stumbled on this phrasing when writing that article, that: “it is an accurate thing to say that every ounce of nonsense which occupies our heads, we in the West, on the matter of our society our government – sexuality, religion, race – and the absurd contentions and false dichotomies, that all of those things are displacing and delaying us as individuals from attuning to the blunt reality of our place within the economic system.”
We do not think of this even for a moment; our entire culture looks to take our minds far away from this, and that is precisely my point: that half our lifetime goes by in distraction before we wake up the reality of this – it being largely too late by that point to extricate ourselves from the consequence of twenty or forty years of error; seeds sewn under false assumptions that bore no fruit and leave us as helpless dependents.
There is something to be said for the paradigm or framework of Class Warfare before a near century of Red Scare propaganda censored this from the public forum and brought us into the present day; the words do mean things, after all, and even if we have been turned against Labor Unions or come to consider everything community-focused (i mean ‘community’ in real ways, mind you) as ‘communism’ then perhaps that is for the best since that enables us to take a fresh look at these concepts and deduce them as they exist around us in the world today rather than as they may have existed a century ago:
First of all then, who are the bourgeois?
Why these are the managerial class in the offices who are nominally ‘in control of all we suffer’ (and who are anyway paid as if they were); they control hiring and are responsible for the unfathomably high turnover rate of temps, they are responsible for the lack of training and absence of organization, they intricately implement worthless exercise in morale which they believe substitutes for organizational skill, they are the sleepy-headed Women of so-called Human Resources who possess less work ethic or care for their industry than a snot-nose retail clerk from the early 90’s – plainly: they would not be there occupying a station that could be better filled by almost anybody else if they did not greatly desire the money to buy silly clothes (read: Esther Vilar of how actually this is a great con on Women who enjoyed a much superior time of things as Ladies of the Household and not bothering with boring work).
Now, it is ‘interesting’ to notice that that ‘manoeuvre’ which was introduced under the pretense of Liberal Politics had the effect of putting Women into the role of human shield in the job-site; a premise mirrored in the hiring and placement of female Police Officers and Public Relations too I think, that is: Men will take seriously another Man and hold them accountable for shortcomings which are prescient to Men of other Men, whereas Men will not hold Women to the same level at all – having no expectations and being generally pacified; as if like a toddler making-pretend with Mummy. One could say that is sexism but that isn’t the point here at all, rather: that if we were to examine “whose face to smash” if we were like Steel Workers in 1910 who were being grossly abused by the bourgeois filth then when looking for that bourgeois filth we would not find a Man to take by the scuff the neck and throw down the stairs but instead we would find a twenty-four year old girl with a running nose, a thick layers of make-up and our desire to “take the matter seriously” would dissipate because throwing her down the stairs, bless her, would be unthinkable and, bless her as well, we know she doesn’t have the wits to understand what’s going on around her so she can’t possibly be of any help to us. The funny thing is that the young girl takes home a higher salary than the skilled workforce; nominally she ‘manages’ the affairs and resolves the labor disputes and so on, but she doesn’t actually do any of that; it is a great emotional drain for her to put forth the effort even if she is lauded by male sycophants she can show no results to justify her salary or, outside of the narrow scope of dismissing incoming queries, to justify her job. As like in Public Relations she says a few words to dismiss the critique about the falling building and the building keeps falling down – worthless. But it is not the case anymore that we have to contend with a class who denies that the building is falling; as if there is some way to win their graces and let them swallow their pride and allow to us repair it, but a class who have allowed the building to fall down and still stand there to draw a salary to deny the fact – even more worthless: that is all that can be said when productive simply jobs do not exist, social services barely function and currency debasement and inflation have hit some colossal figure over the last century (8,000% I think), that is: there is nothing left to repair.
So, when we do look for the bourgeois class in the ‘language’ ‘of’ ‘Class’; i.e. being aware of who were are, we become immediately aware that a massive reordering of the Bourgeois along Gender lines has taken place between today and let’s say thirty years ago, which has in effect established a massive Gender divide in that great efforts have been made to pit the sexes against each other and to “promote Women” into managerial positions simply because of their sex – likewise with peoples from random Ethnic groups, as if the notion in the head of the Capitalist – and I think this is absolutely how stupid they are – believes that a managerial position or the skilled labor trade A and trade B are nothing very much and interchangeable and that ‘basically anyone can do it’ and so their mind the notion of gutting their labour pool and replacing the chiefs and the workers with random persons based on superficial differences that are not job-related seems to them to have been a ‘fine idea’.
The proof of the malicious ‘intent’ of this I think can be argued in that the proponents of all such instances where ‘Liberal-seeming’ political platforms which turn out to implement some ruinous policy were (and obviously remain) hotly championed and not at all censored by Capitalist owned tabloids, and that these ‘political things’ occupy front and centre of the most pressing news of the day and the most emotionalistic declamations in governments buildings; being the currency to trade back and forth over those superficial things as badges of some form of pseudo-Virtue or badges of accusation of the pseudo-Sin of some competitor.
I have argued elsewhere this ‘culture’ is essentially only form of culture which exists in the West; since it is a constant thing which draws us all in – but that is perhaps another subject.
The point here, however, is to raise the question of and then assess the manners by which labour has been destroyed in the West, or how in turn a people are to organize on the grounds of economic Class; to identify Bad Management; which remains more real than ever (especially so if the reader unlike myself believes that repair is worth the hassle), when the concept of the Bourgeois has been stuffed into Gender divide and the ability to engage in these discussions has been essentially nullified.
A good question which we might consider to weigh on of the matter ‘politics’ in the West is to look back just for a moment on that depressing slew of madness of what is called ‘Identity Politics (or ‘Woke’)’ and consider ‘why’ it is that every year some new insanity is shunted out though the tabloids and digital media despite there being no interest whatsoever on the part of the public. We figure out a few years later however when we find that thing suddenly having constituted another brick in the wall in front of us barring us from moving forward on some vital issue that we had not even been thinking about at the time – at the time we rolled our eyes on one thing or another but those things then became policies and occasionally national laws, so that my words here might constitute a prison sentence in some backwater country for my having recognized and articulated the manner by which the Bourgeois Class in the West has been reconstituted along the lines of Gender, as: nobody ‘can’ articulate such concepts as pertaining to Economics without having to wade through a minefield of recently introduced legalism of which it would require a fairly high grasp of English language and Law to be able to sufficiently ‘prove’ that I was saying nothing ‘bad’ about Women, for instance.
Simply: to call this ‘Leftism’ is absurd since every actor involved is a Capitalist and every ruinous policy has been formulated upon crushing the common people absolutely and relentlessly and in ways which don’t even make any sense; e.g. removing the ability to earn money from the people you want to be able to afford your product, highlighting the ‘Anarchy of Capitalism’ of which Stalin described (see: previous).
As we dig down into the brainpan of the Capitalist we find that the desire to delay others from reaching this realization forms the chief output of their political and social activities; to add layers and layers of superficiality over a thing to conceal it, but that we perceive this as a far more visceral danger only when we understand that their chief economic activities comprise that of the liquation of a Nations assets, and that in turn we are faced with a relatively strange landscape where it is almost the case that there is nothing to gain by taking over such a place as there is no real wealth that can be seized from, say, a Sullan Proscription, apart from the bare bones of rusting factory machinery in small pockets of such a Nation of which barely even exist in the West now there is nothing to be gained. I mean to say that to storm into, for example, a Trump Towers and make off with the golden sign would just be revealed as stucco and coloured plastic; that there is truly no ‘wealth’ that exists and no people wealthy enough to accomplish anything either who we might look to for some degree of leadership and innovation, such as Ford or Roosevelt, and that this is chiefly because of the Economic conditions from the bottom-up, i.e. a Nation with no production power and no jobs possesses no individuals who can command the production power of labour, so they cannot do very much, that is: I mean say that ‘such persons’ can be of no help to their Nations. I think here is a fair proof of the matter: that a Capitalist looks to ‘demonstrate’ wealth by existing surrounded by poverty so that a single boat, painstakingly crafted over many years, seems impressive; but what has that little Man say to a real State which possesses the labour to muster and build three hundred state-of-the-art battleships within thirty days? That Man says at that point very little, he is like the fellow in the Sicilian verse; that is: on his knees and calling that State ‘Lord and Great King’ – the gormless sycophant! But it was his problem in the first place; to seek to exist as like the only rich Man in a poor town; so as to claw from the common people in wretched clipped coins all that would otherwise have made his State mighty and powerful; that is: only by enriching the people does he fortify himself, and many of us know this without it needing to be told to us, as Wu Zhi pointed out when he was still a bandit captain at the head of light cavalry in the earliest days before the Empire of China would first take shape - a valuable old book of which I advise any reader of mine to become familiar with,

Tu Gao; Mapping the Country, Book One, Chapter Four

Wu says,

"Where the rule of lawless parts of country is governed by the army, it must be taught by example of ritual; to see the ready willingness to serve and at the time same exemplary discipline of the soldiers, and by such righteous examples those parts of the country will be made to feel ashamed that they are lacking.

And it is always the lady, first of all, who is ashamed to see the soldiers contrasted with her own men.

But always, regardless of this, if great peril threatens her; if she finds herself in a big enough battle she will prove to be cunning enough to protect her 'own self' in that situation! It may be easier to her to save herself than to work towards common victory for her own people; it is a country of women of that sort, or even a single woman of that sort, which proves the most difficult to defend - let alone do anything constructive with."

The world of war and the habits of the country itself are intermingled and all obtain victory in each area in cooperation so that the victories seem to be occurring simultaneously: if the country is partitioned into a hypothetical five sectors then as the fifth sector triumphs, the fourth sector triumphs, the third sector triumphs, the second sector triumphs, the first sector triumph; victory upon victory!

and,

Tu Gao; Mapping the Country, Book One, Chapter Six

Wu, after he had heard what Wen Hou Yi had to say, decided for himself:

"I am willing to hear the soldiers and the people; to hear the way of the country."

This is what he was told,

"The Ancient King of the First Dynasty must be upheld in the ceremonies of the monarch and minister alike; to be at the forefront of their mind in all duties they undertake, and honored by all peoples of the upper and lower countries (China, Tibet and India).

Jin Wen Zhao mustered an army 40,000 strong to succeed in this ambition, and Qin Yu set aside the luxuries of his own people to better serve the neighboring states to reach this ambition too.

Thus, be it in matters of war or benevolence the king of a strong country must be expected to be a citizen rather than a lord. Only then do the people have the courage to gather together and become an effective body; especially in effectiveness of the battle, to show their loyalty and good order, to gather together and fight as one body, only then can they surpass the highest peak and farthest plain; to see in the light and become good to go, gathering themselves together as one.

Wang Chen lost his position and even in disgrace still expected to see the merits of his people, and his people gathered together as one. Inspired to maintain and wanting to get rid of their shame, they gathered together as one.

Men like this, providing that the military's training is also sharp: there might be 3,000 of them in a battlefield of 30,000; so long as they, on the inside, are determined they can survive the carnage and massacre on the outside."

vale.

ID, III. APRILIS. JUPITER VICTOR. THIRD DAY OF THE FULL MOON.

PREVIOUS IN THIS SERIES: IT’S NOT “WOKE”, MATE, IT’S LATE STAGE CAPITALISM H.G. WELLS INTERVIEW WITH STALIN (1934)
​

I am a firm believer in finding my person and building a genuine connection. Yes, soul mates are built and not found. I would want to experience and cherish moments of peace and security while experiencing the world through an adventurous perspective. Experiences such as cute picnics, being a cook for your tired days, and staying strong for our relationship are things I would live for. If you wish to experience this, please consider what I have to offer and vice versa :)
About You:
22 years old and above (would make exceptions for anyone younger, but only a 2 years age gap)
Preferably Morena (Open to all tho, just have my preferences hehe)
Plus kung Religious ka
Politically aware/active and Liberal values (I do understand that not all values have to be liberal, but we can always discuss and conclude what we think is suitable)
Passionate over hobbies/interests, sasabayin kita sa interests mo plus will make activities around your interest
Kind of Physically active, not required tho (I'm planning to gym soon, and pursue boxing or tennis baka naman gusto mo sumama)
Open-minded and respectful of boundaries
About Me:
22 years old
Mestizo
Diverse interests (movies, books, historical contexts, random facts, comic books, social issues, cooking, gaming) Marami tayong puwedeng usap based from this ngl
Taking Masters/MA in the future (if this matter)
Loves banter and intellectual conversations
Loves fashion (Zara is the only answer HAHA0
Likes to read from academic journals to fiction
Former debater, and emcee for school activities (Used to participate in declamation)
Would learn your interests or your preferences in the relationship to make you happy
If you want to experience all these and are interested in exploring more, please don't hesitate to DM me. Thank you and have a nice day! :)

School me abhi weekly test chal raha hai aur teachers bol rhe hai ki ye project Mai add hoga.(OP is in 10th). Like 10 marks ka test hai usme jitna aya uska half add hoga like 15 + test mark= 20.
Aur for some fucking reason englis projact me declamation (speech) bolna padh raha hai.

English: rhetoric

1. the art of composition
   
2. fine language or declamation without conviction or earnest feeling
   
3. especially, elegant composition in prose
   

––––––––––––
Translations

• Catalan: retòrica
  
• Esperanto: retoriko
  
• French: rhétorique
  
• Galician: retórica
  
• German: die Rhetorik
  
• Hindi: अलंकारशास्त्र
  
• Italian: retorica
  
• Portuguese: retórica
  
• Romanian: retorică
  
• Spanish: retórica
  
• Swedish: retorik
  

––––––––––––
Fill in missing translations @ https://wordofthehour.org/translations

I got a lot of great advice on my last post and I'm looking into refurbished phones as a possibility, but I'm worried about how long they last after purchase.
When looking at reviews of the refurb shops most of them are about delivery time and how the phone looks and performs on arrival, not about how long they last.
I've learned that it's important to get one that doesn't become (software/firmware) obsolete in a minute, have OK battery life etc, but what about low vs mid vs high range phones, the different conditions the refurb shops offer etc.
Have you purchased a refurbished phone?
How long did it last?
What other pros and cons are there?
(The sub doesn't allow recommendations for specific products, so I'm looking for general advice on refurbished phones)
ETA: and what about declamations and repairs, what's your experience with that at refurb stores?

I'm going to give a DI speech at a tournament soon, and I need to make an introduction.
I've done the declamation(OI) category before. Are the introductions any different? Do I need to step out of character for my introduction and separate it from the rest of the speech? Does it need any specific details?

Hello I'm competing at my school's declamation contest, it's my first time attempting one. Last year I did improvised speech contest which I won third place on, I originally wanted to join this year's impromptu to get my revenge but sadly it was cancelled so I joined declamation instead.
Sadly enough, I don't know much about declamation and realized how different it is from any other speech contests. I'm not good at acting or using my voice , but I'm very willing to learn. I only have a week and a half to practice till the event , does anyone have any guides or recommendations of things I should learn? Also is it alright if I added some extra words in my script for more dramatic effect?
I want to win as this is also my last year in my Highschool.