A lot of people go Atheist and convert back to whatever religion they were born into on their death bed. This is often seen with famous Christian atheists who make it their careers to be atheist speakers and authors of books or at least rumors spread that it happens they say in the final hours of their life they wish to be such and such religion again.
Would you live a life as an exMuslim just to convert back to Islam as you are near death? I wonder if this is usually the rational of justification for honor killings because some Muslims not only want to eliminate nonMuslims from their community,they want them screaming and praying to God to grant them mercy in their final moments?
Also the famous WW1 saying "no atheist in a foxhole" a foxhole for those who do not know are the front lines in combat, usually a defensive ditch.

I posted this on twitter but I thought I might bring it up here. Twitter user @Kendog47 asked if we had a dream Star Wars project, what would we make? So I responded with this:
Do a soft reboot of the franchise by making a trilogy set hundreds of years after the events of the Skywalker saga. There would be no one empire but rather multiple different galactic governments that characters have to navigate. There are multiple factions of force users that exist and follow different dogmas and traditions. Since this is Star Wars, though, there’s a WW1 but in space with multiple parties in conflict, each making their own weapons of mass destruction. Our heroes have to find a means of resolving this conflict before the galaxy itself is destroyed. Perhaps scaling up the danger a superweapon that utilizes a blackhole or quasar could be interesting, if we’re stretching the known laws of physics.
And bringing a personal conflict into focus, Star Wars at a basic level is a family ripped apart due to circumstances beyond their control. I have this idea for a father and son, who are both force sensitive, but the son disregards his ability and resents his father’s insistence on becoming a Jedi or learning the ways of the force. Destiny calls anyways when his father is kidnapped by one of these galactic empires he used to work for and the son has to traverse the galaxy and gain allies in order to rescue his father.
As for villains? We’ve seen Vader and dollar tree Vader coughKylocough We’ve seen Palpatine more times than we’d care too and we’ve seen killing machines like Maul and Grievous. We’ve seen tacticians like Thrawn and Dooku and double-edged swords like Ventress. What villainy do we expect from Star Wars now? Something iconic. Something markedly different each time but commanding our attention.
Something underutilized could be a duty-bound villain. Someone who is a functionary or tool of a government or group. Either a true believer or someone doing things a certain way because that's just the way it's done. Duty-bound villains are interesting because you get the feeling that a few small details in their life are the difference between them being a villain instead of a hero. Or even that they could be the hero if the narrator was unreliable or just poorly informed. Some bureaucrat showing the banality of a lot of evil. The ones who were just pen pushers who rationalized each incremental step that finally lead to slaughter as they believed it was their duty to do so.
Anyways everything else is up in the air. My general opinion is that Star Wars needs to get its ass out of the 1970s/80s nostalgia gamut and actually take some new inspiration and actual risks. Yes, it’s a franchise that was intended for 13 year-old boys, but you don’t have to sand off the edges or water it down for mass-marketability. It’s love and war in a galaxy far far away. The galaxy is much bigger than you can imagine.
If any of you have any ideas on this or want to discuss further I’d love to hear your opinions. Or if you completely disagree with me and feel that I have some gaps in my logic here, I’m okay with you disagreeing with me. Thank y’all for coming to my TedTalk.

As much as I hate to say this, Napoleon, and, almost to the same extent, Napoleon III, did France more harm than good. If there was just one conquest that Napoleon should have secured, it was the left bank of the Rhine which kings of France had been trying to acquire since Richelieu (primarily to solve the problem of Paris’ vulnerability to northeastern invasions). Additionally, particularly with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in continental Europe right after the Napoleonic wars and the crucial coal supplies on the left bank of the Rhine, France holding on to Belgium and western Germany would have been a geopolitical game changer, at least for the rest of the nineteenth century, if not twentieth. Indeed, Belgium led the Industrial Revolution on the continent. France would have been an unrivaled powerhouse on the continent thanks to Belgium’s coal supplies. Unfortunately, Napoleon, for all his military genius, failed to retain these provinces. Furthermore, for the thirty years that followed the fall of the First Empire, despite the loss of its natural borders, France had managed to regain a position as the preeminent, if not hegemonic, power in continental Europe. Unfortunately, Napoleon III squandered that through the catastrophic war against Prussia whose worst consequence for France was not so much the loss of Alsace-Lorraine as the reunification of Germany which definitively demoted France as the strongest continental power and made her helpless against Germany without outside help (Russia and Britain during WW1 and diplomatic pandering to Britain during the interwar period). French kings had been fighting to keep Germany disunited since the treaty of Westphalia to ensure France’s security to the east. Napoleon I destroyed that hard work by creating the Confederation of the Rhine and reinforcing the German national sentiment. Overall, I have much admiration for the glory and heroism of the Napoleonic wars but in terms of rational, geopolitical outcomes, the Napoleonic dynasty was terrible for France because it failed to solve the key two key issues for France which were securing the left bank of Rhine and maintaining the division of Germany. Both emperors, contributed to undoing the centuries-long work of the Kings of France who had slowly expanded the borders of France towards the Rhine and ensured to keep the neighboring German states divided.

TL;DR:
If you're only going to read one book, I suggest you start with 'Sabriel.' It is the strongest, stand-alone novel in the series.
If you want to read the entire series, here is my suggested reading order.

• Terciel and Elinor
• Sabriel
• Lirael
• Abhorsen
• The Creature in the Case (Novella)
• To Hold the Bridge (Novella)
• Goldenhand
• Clariel

This is mostly internal chronological order. 'Terciel and Elinor' serves as a strong prequel to set up the rest of the series. I think the series as a whole would be improved if a reader reads it first.
Before we begin, do you have a book which needs editing? Do you want to read more reviews? Here is a link: The Rest of My In Depth Reviews
In 1997, Harry Potter exploded like a nuke across popular culture. In 2008, The Hunger Games took it's turn to change the YA scifi/fantasy genre. These books are still massively influential on both Middle Grade, YA and Adult scifi and fantasy.
'Sabriel,' the first book in The Old Kingdom series by Garth Nix was published in 1995. This is a YA series which feels like a 'what could have been?' if the genre evolved without the one-two punch of Harry Potter and Hunger Games. The Old Kingdom, in some ways, feels like a throwback to the genre as it was before. It's unapologetically classical, with a strong Athurian undercurrent in early books and a repeating Chosen One narrative.
This series never tried to play it safe and be 'modernized.' Today, a LOT of YA and Fantasy books are about an underdog combating a government and trying to change it. The Old Kingdom is different. Instead of starring rebels opposing entrenched power structures, the heroes in this seek to repair and defend the entrenched power structures. This series is a modern coelacanth, a black sheep among whites.
Growing up, I read the books of 'The Old Kingdom' by Garth Nix a lot. Specifically, the first trilogy. They were a comfort read for me in a hard time in my life. Now an adult, I decided to read the entire series (novellas and newly added books included) to get a fresh perspective on a series which were highly influential on me.
Let's establish a baseline. The book 'Sabriel' was the first book in the series, and was published in 1995. Book 2, 'Lirael,' was published in 2001. Book 3, 'Abhorsen,' was published in 2003. 'Lirael' and 'Abhorsen' were originally written as a single book, but were split up for publication separately because together they'd be a really long book. 'The Creature in the Case' is a novella written in the same setting, starring Nicolas Sayre as the protagonist, and was published in 2005. Book 4, 'Clariel' was published in 2014. The anthology 'To Hold the Bridge' was published in 2015. Book 5, 'Goldenhand' was published in 2016. And finally, the most recent book 'Terciel and Elinor' was published in 2021.
This series is about the Abhorsen family. The Abhorsens are a hereditary line of monster hunters, empowered by ancient magical spirits to use both good and evil sorcery for the cause of good. They are necromancers who lay the dead to rest.
Personally, I am a fan of the original trilogy and less of a fan of the following books. I think this is a common sentiment among fans of this series. I'm not sure how much of this is sentiment putting blinkers on, and how much of it is the following books being less thrilling. I will say this: the climax of 'Abhorsen' feels like a definitive 'stopping point' for the series, so maybe a lot of people just fell away after that.
Sabriel
I feel like this is the best book in the series on a purely technical skill level. It's tightly plotted and paced, with nothing extraneous added in. The prose is lovely, almost purple, contrasting a grim setting. It provides just enough detail to the setting to leave the reader wanting more information about the Charter, the undead, the monsters, the history of the Old Kingdom. Overall, this is a great way to start a series.
If I'll ding points, it's in characterization. Sabriel and Touchstone are very reserved characters. It's true they have personalities, but they're subdued. Sabriel feels like a prim-and-proper school prefect, who feels the weight of responsibility and bears it with a stiff upper lip like a trad British aristocrat. Touchstone is SUUUPER depressed as a result of his backstory; naturally he won't be bombastic. As a result of both not being bombastic, both are bland.
This doesn't mean they're bad characters. However, if you're used to more angsty modern YA protagonists like Rin from Poppy War or Katniss from Hunger Games, you're gonna think they're boring AF. However, if you're in the mood for a more emotionally mature set of protagonists, Sabriel and Touchstone are really good. They are YA characters who actually feel like normal people who you'd meet in real life, as opposed to larger-than-life personalities.
The exception to this rule about characterization is Mogget (and later the Disreputable Dog). Where Sabriel and Touchstone are reserved, Mogget is a snarky asshole demon who's tame (for now). He never skips an opportunity to sass the main characters, and he's a hoot to have around. Tim Curry was a fantastic narrator, bringing Mogget to life.
I have a lot more to say, but I've already discussed 'Sabriel' here and here.
Lirael and Abhorsen
I personally love the first half of 'Lirael'. It starts with Lirael as a depressed teenaged librarian in a library which functions as a museum for ancient secrets, a prison for demons, and a repository for ancient prophesies, carved into the ice of a vast glacier. It's such a great setting. Lirael's adventures in the library are so fantastic, I wish we got an entire book in this setting.
The second half of 'Lirael' serves as the beginning half of the Orannis duology. Now an adult, Lirael must go on an adventure to save the kingdom from a 'Sealed Evil in a Can.' Orannis is an evil spirit from the beginning of time who's sole goal is destroying literally everything in flame. He's not a generic Big Bad; generic Big Bads usually involve some fascist thematic overtones, a la Sauron or Emperor Palpatine. Orannis is even more basic; he's a talking MacGuffin. I'll be honest, I think Orannis is a boring villain.
Hedge, on the other hand, is an interesting villain. A former Ancelstierran soldier who got lost in the monstrous north, and picked up sorcery and necromancy to survive. He gained immortality by serving Kerrigor in book 1, and now that Kerrigor is gone he's working for Orannis. Where Orannis is basically a boring MacGuffin, Hedge inspires fear in the hearts of all the characters. I liked him as a villain; he felt undefeatable. I wish he didn't go out like a chump at the end, but we can't always have nice things.
Chlorr was a fun villain. She was out of focus enough to be spooky, and scary enough to make even Hedge think twice about crossing her. Sometimes with villains, less is more; Chlorr sat perfectly in that 'less is more' area. The reveal at the end that she used to be an Abhorsen set up the latter half of this series. (And in the audiobook, Tim Curry does a fantastic job of making her intimidating.)
Nicholas was an odd protagonist. He doubles as an antagonist. I felt like the author did a good job of making him simultaneously easy to empathize with, and also making him threatening. I'm glad he appears in later books, he was fun. I like how he's a scientist who's suddenly struggling to rationalize the fact that he's gained magic even though he spent the first half of his life disbelieving in magic.
Lirael herself struggles with depression. She grew up an ugly duckling amongst beautiful ducklings, and always felt out of place. She's goth, in a glacier filled with normies. It was VERY easy to empathize with her. She's my favorite protagonist in this series. Sam struggles with imposter syndrome; he doesn't feel like he can live up to his mother's legacy as Abhorsen. He just wants to fiddle with devices and make magical artifacts, not slay the dead. This doubles down on the same theme as Lirael; people are happiest when they strive to be who they are and not who society expects them to be. Lirael cannot be Clayr, while Sam cannot be Abhorsen.
And finally, the Disreputable Dog. I think we all need a Disreputable Dog in our lives. Fun loving, a bit sassy, friendly, and wants what's best for you. Will trade belly rubs for sage advice. She's even willing to break the rules to help you. But Dog is not perfect; she can't get over her past prejudices even when it's long since time to forgive and give someone a second chance. Oddly, the dog sidekick in this series was the team's leadeGandalf figure.
This series is the character arc for one very angry cat. Mogget is the only character who appears in every book, so I think this series is technically his series. Mogget starts as a genocidal demon intent on wiping out the human race. He ends the series a sociopathic trickster demigod who now willingly protects the Old Kingdom in exchange for fish. Typical cat behavior. But also, that's good character growth.
Now let's talk about one aspect of this series I do NOT like. Magical bloodlines.
This duology really doubled down on the idea of magical bloodlines. The title of Abhorsen is passed down through the blood. The Royal line through the blood. The Clayr through the blood. No one else can defeat Orannis; it has to be these people whose ancestors were the correct people. Lirael becomes happy when she finds her biological family (Sabriel and the Abhorsen). Sam becomes happy when he discovers his ancestors (the Wallmakers, another magical bloodline). Kerrigor was scary because of his magical bloodline; Touchstone rebuilt the kingdom because of his magical bloodline. The Old Kingdom is helpless and can't fix it's own problems; it needs a Chosen One to come along and have it's problems fixed for it.
As a general rule, I don't like when authors use the magical bloodline trope because it tacitly legitimates an aristocracy/monarchy. There's no room for normal people in this system. There is no meritocracy; the Charter is strongest with these bloodlines. This series doesn't really develop any non bloodline characters until books 4 & 5, and even then the magical bloodline characters are still the protagonists.
The Creature in the Case
This is a novella (~100pages) taking place shortly after the events of 'Abhorsen.' Nicholas Sayre returns to Ancelstierre to recover from being demon haunted. He's invited to the dinner party of a deluded Aliester Crowley type- a man obsessed with the mysterious and mystical. One thing leads to another, and Sayre's involved in yet another demonic uprising.
I enjoyed this. It was short, sweet and to the point. The final reuniting between Nick and Lirael was understated, but I enjoyed it.
When I think of the Old Kingdom series, Ancelstierre is an important aspect of what makes the setting so vibrant. If you've not read the series, allow me to explain: on the southern border of the Old Kingdom is the Wall, and on the far side of the Wall is another universe. To the north of the Wall, we have a standard Medieval Fantasy kingdom which is in the middle of an undead apocalypse, while to the south we have what is an alternate 1920's Britain with primitive cars and airplanes, the rising threat of fascism and prudish culture. The contrast between the medieval undead apocalypse of the Old Kingdom with the banal normalcy of the WW1 era England in Ancelstierre really is something fascinating to read.
This coziness/darkness balance is particularly dramatic in 'Sabriel,' when the evils of Kerrigor are brought home to Wyverly College, and ordinary school girls are forced the pay the price of his defeat. Here in 'Creature in the Case,' the context changes: scientists from the south are trying to use modern science to figure out magic. The scientists are doomed by their hubris.
But the Ancelstierrans aren't universally good. Ancelstierre is based on the British Empire at it's most powerful and corrupt. It's made clear that Ancelstierre politics is riven with double dealing, dirty money and political assassinations. The antagonists are more than willing to stoke the flames of nationalism when there's an influx of refugees from a distant war.
The various military characters in this series are shackled to corrupt and stick-in-the-mud superior officers, so that when the heroic soldiers are forced into suicidal missions it feels reminiscent of the way the British valorize their defeats, a la the 'The Charge of the Light Brigade.' The whole setting has a 'right hand knows not what the left hand does' sort of vibe, and that makes it feel authentic.
Ancelstierre uses WW1 military technology (such as trenches and endless masses of barbed wire) in a fruitless attempt to keep the Old Kingdom at arm's length. I like the whole 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude that Ancelstierre uses with Old Kingdom, resulting in a sort of provincial contempt for their northern neighbors.
Part of the reason why I didn't like 'Clariel' as a book is because of the lack of that contrast between tea-and-crumpets and undead apocalypse. Speaking of which...
Clariel
I feel like this book is a bit of an ugly duckling in this series. Based on my skimming through internet message boards on this series, many people feel like 'Clariel' is when the series started going down hill. I understand why they think that.
Before I begin, I'll start with saying there are aspects of this book I enjoyed. I liked the dynamic between Clariel and her mom; they felt like a believably dysfunctional family. I liked the concept behind the political scenario. I liked how the author used the mechanism of 'Clariel is oppressed and trapped by her parents' as a metaphor to explain why she's sympathetic with Free Magic creatures who are oppressed and trapped by Charter Magic. And I enjoy that the protagonist is explicitly asexual.
The author has chops; no single chapter felt sloppy; everything was touched by a master of the craft.
I personally like the idea behind this story. What happens when an Abhorsen becomes evil? This is the origin story for Chlorr, a fallen Abhorsen. That's an innately cool idea.
Unfortunately, this book had the deck stacked against it from the beginning. I listened to the audiobooks of this series, in no small part because they got Tim Curry to be the narrator for the first three books in the series. 'Clariel' was the first book to not have Curry. Graeme Malcolm did a fine job as narrator, however he's no Tim Curry.
I need to defend this book in one aspect; many reviews I read complain that the protagonist is unlikeable. Clariel is so stubborn, she has to be dragged kicking and screaming into every twist of the plot. It's easy to understand why some people don't like her as a protagonist, she is stubborn to the point of being passive. HOWEVER, unlikeable protagonists can still be good protagonists.
Now THAT SAID, I struggled with Clariel as a protagonist. She really seemed to have a one-track mind, focused so much on returning to Estwael for so much of the book that other aspects of her characterization suffered. I'm fine with an unsympathetic character; I dislike flat characters.
This book was conceptualized as being the origin story for Chlorr of the Mask, one of the setting's main villains. I feel like there were two potential strategies for writing this story: either lean into the corruption arc, or tell a heroic story without any corruption.

• If you tell a corruption arc, it would be the origin story for Chlorr of the Mask. I'm imaging something like 'The Poppy War' trilogy, where the reader follows a 'from nobody to nightmare' story of a character growing up from a young age as a relatively innocent child, to a demon in human flesh.
• If you go the heroic story route, you'll get to lean into the pathos of showing how tragic of a figure Clariel/Chlorr actually is; if someone so good can become evil, it makes her fall that much more sad.

To me, it felt like the author tried to do both a corruption story and a heroic story at the same time, and it didn't work. Clariel never does anything heroic; she never saves a cat, as an example. Likewise, she never does anything truly reprehensible or corrupt. The book just... kinda fell flat in the end. So, neither a corruption arc or a heroic story; the book felt underbaked.
The biggest problem with 'Clariel' is that 'Clariel' as a reading experience feels age appropriate for Middle Grade readers (8 to 12 years old). Whereas I would say that 'Sabriel' or 'Lirael/Abhorsen' are appropriate for YA readers (13 to 20 years old). Once upon a time, people complemented the 'Harry Potter' series for growing more mature with every new volume added; the 'Harry Potter' series was growing up from Middle Grade to YA even as it's readers were growing up. The Old Kingdom aged down even as it's readers grew up.
This book is innately a political story: 600 years before the events of the initial trilogy. The king has gone mad, the Clayr hide in their glacier and the Abhorsen wastes his time hunting foxes. Given that vacuum of power, the guilds have taken over the running of the Kingdom, repressing the common people. The common people are constantly rebelling against the bourgeoise, with hints of a 'French Revolution' style revolt on the horizon. Now the bourgeoise goldsmith guild leader is planning on performing a (mostly) bloodless coup and taking control of the entire nation. Meanwhile, various eldritch horrors are stirring in the dark places, trying to use the chaos of the King's madness and the Abhorsen being useless to gain power.
This idea is sweet! The author is cooking with gas!
The problem is that I don't think Nix is a very good author when it comes to political plots, and I say this as a fan who's read 12+ of his books.
This is a deeply political storyline, but the author picked just about the worst way to tell it. Virtually every other political fantasy novel I've read is multi-POV. ASoIaF is multiPOV, as an example. 'Clariel,' on the other hand, is single POV. The advantage of using multi-POV in a political novel is that it lets you explore multiple sides of a political tangle. The choice to make 'Clariel' single POV made the plot feel simplistic.
And then the whole political plotline is botched in the end, because Mogget becomes the final villain. Don't get me wrong, I like that Mogget had the chance to be evil. However, all the buildup in early tension in the 'evil bourgeois' plotline wound up deflating like a balloon because in the second half of the book all focus was put behind Mogget and the other Free Magic creatures. If you insist on having the final villain be Mogget, why not introduce Mogget early in the book, and show him be the mastermind behind the bourgeois all along? In retrospect, the first half of the book (Clariel going to finishing school) feels pointless.
Another big problem was that Clariel's motivations felt hollow. Clariel had two motivations: 'return to Estwael' and also 'save Aunt Lemon.' We're TOLD, not SHOWN that she had a happy childhood in Estwael. We're TOLD not SHOWN that Aunt Lemon is cool and needs to be saved. The reader is never shown Estwael, and the reader never is shown Aunt Lemon. As a general rule, SHOW>TELL is preferable to TELL>SHOW.
On this re-read, I tried to enjoy this book, but it misfired on pretty much every level. But my word isn't law. I know I nitpicked a lot here, feel free to disagree with me.
To Hold the Bridge
This is a short story/novella set in a small town north of the Clayr's Glacier. It's about a young man coming of age and independence after his abusive parents die, gaining confidence in himself. He gets a job working as a border guard on a bridge between the Old Kingdom proper, and the northern barbarian steppe.
I really like the protagonist. He's just a normal dude. Compared to Sabriel and Lirael and Sammeth, he's a bad swordsmen and not a powerful Charter Mage. He's just barely getting by in life. Compared to the monsters and ghouls who populate the Old Kingdom, he's desperately outmatched. When Sabriel sees some Dead Hands, she can defeat them no problem; when this protagonist sees a Dead Hand, he's intimidated. This story accomplishes something which nothing else in this series accomplishes: it brings the horror to life.
I enjoyed this book. It wasn't about the magical bloodlines of the Old Kingdom, and it showed that everyday life in the Old Kingdom can be both wonderful and terrible. As a piece of bite-sized fiction in this setting, I believe it's worth reading.
Goldenhand
This is written as a followup to 'The Creature in the Case,' following Lirael's perspective for those same events, as well as events following them. As the first book written since 'Clariel,' I found this to mostly be a return-to-form for the series. I enjoyed this book, and find it a worthy inclusion in this series.
I like Ferin as a protagonist; I liked the audiobook narrator, because the narrator did a good job giving Ferin a gruff harshness. Sabriel, Lirael, Sam, Nick and Clariel all are a bit milquetoast in comparison to Ferin; I liked how you can tell Ferin comes from an altogether harsher culture, because Ferin's view on life is brusque and to the point. She's called 'Ferin,' because that's short for 'Offering;' Ferin was raised to be a human sacrifice to appease Chlorr. Naturally, she has a warped view on life as a result of her childhood.
We don't get much of Ferin because she was only a secondary protagonist, but I think if we got more from her she might become my favorite protagonist in this series. She's smart and driven; after she suffers setbacks (such as losing a limb), she compartmentalizes the pain and focuses on the task at hand. After she gains her freedom from Chlorr, she realizes she wants to be a Charter mage. She goes out of her way and becomes a mage, even though other people don't think she can. I like how Ferin is willing to transgress social boundaries for the sake of getting shit done.
For the first 3/4 of the book, we have two groups of characters in separate locations running around doing adventures, trying to survive while they are being chased by villains and monsters... a very traditional Old Kingdom plotline. And that's good!
What's not-so-good is the payoff. I feel like the book was just beginning to get started when *bang* ChlorClariel was dead. I was left reeling with how fast we went from 'Act 1' to 'Act 3.' I feel as though this book lacks an Act 2. I needed another 50 pages or so.
I like the new setting and the new antagonists; having viking/raider enemies who use Free Magic and necromancy was a neat twist on earlier books.
Earlier books in the series had a bit purple prose... and I liked the purple. The prose was a bit colorful and stylish, almost ostentatiously so at times. With 'Clariel' and 'Goldenhand,' there isn't as much of that flair for the dramatic prose. But this is a personal taste thing; I as a reader have a high tolerance for purple prose, other people don't.
I enjoyed Lirael's character arc in this book. After the victory against Orannis in the last book, she suffered emotional as well as physical defeats. She lost her hand in that battle (hence the title of 'Goldenhand;' Lirael got herself a prosthetic). She also lost her best friend, the Dog, in the last battle. She's on the emotional back foot in this book, constantly struggling with feelings of being worthy of the Abhorsen legacy (aka imposter syndrome). She defeated Orannis, but other Clayr still disrespectfully see her as the quiet library girl.
Lirael wants to defeat Chlorr herself, to prove to everyone (and herself) she can stand on her own without Sabriel or the Disreputable Dog. In 'Goldenhand,' Lirael is learning to stand up for herself, a skill she never had to gain in earlier books because she had the Dog to be assertive for her. I feel like that's good writing; Nix was able to find more character growth for a character who's already gone through her Hero's Journey, which is no mean feat.
I did have a few problems with the end of the book.
The main antagonist (Chlorr of the Mask) was obscured for most of the novel. Chlorr only appears to say one or two lines of dialogue at the very end of the book. We got a LOT more of Chlorr in 'Lirael' and 'Abhorsen' and 'Clariel.' I think it's a bit weird that the novel where Chlorr is the main villain is also the novel where we get the least of her. Above I said that 'less is more' sometimes; in this case, 'more is more.'
At the very end of this book, Mogget and the Disreputable Dog returned.

• I liked the return of Mogget; he played a mission critical job to save the day at the very end in a way which was thematically interesting. Ferin is from the Mountain Lion clan of northern nomads, so she views Mogget as sacred because he's a talking cat. I wish the author had Mogget be her companion from the beginning of the story. There was something special here, which sadly went unrealized because we got too little of Mogget.
• I did NOT like the return of the Dog, even though the Dog is my favorite character in this series. Dog died at the end of 'Abhorsen;' her return here feels like it cheapened her death back then. Her return felt mainly like a Marvel Movie-esque cameo. It was distracting.

I liked the idea behind the final battle, where two armies fight against one another. This series hasn't had a human army versus human army battle yet, so this is a genuinely clever and new thing. But I feel like this Military Fantasy element didn't pay off. I can't really in good faith blame the book on this, but myself; I enjoy Military Fantasy, and the author wasn't really trying to make this Military Fantasy. I had unrealistic expectations.
And finally, the romance between Lirael and Nick. It was rushed. However, I liked it. It felt like a healthy relationship of two extremely awkward teenagers figuring out their emotions, how to express them, and sometimes failing. It was still rushed to the point of absurdity, but giving it the benefit of the doubt there is narrative meat on the bones of their relationship. They had actual chemistry.
Overall, a worthy addition to the series. I'd happily read it again, even if this isn't very memorable.
Terciel and Elinor
A complete return to form for the series! I think it was as well written as 'Lirael' and 'Abhorsen,' but not as much as 'Sabriel.' This was the first time I've read this book. Spoilers.
I enjoyed the fact that so much of this book took place in a Victorian-era Ancelstierre. Elinor is a member of the country gentry, who was sheltered by her family. After her family was impoverished, her mother was forced to make dark deals with Hedge to keep her family out of the poorhouse. With her mother's death, a Greater Dead takes possession of her body and goes on a rampage. Sheltered Elinor didn't believe that magic exists, so to see her mother become an undead abomination was great storytelling.
This book is about Sabriel's parents, Terciel and Elinor. Taking place over 20 years before the beginning of 'Sabriel,' the author relied on nostalgia to make this book work. It had many recurring characters and locations from earlier in the series such as Mogget and Filris and the Clayr's Glacier and Wyverly College. Kerrigor is the off-screen Big Bad in this book, while the main on-screen villain is a younger Hedge who serves Kerrigor.
I have mixed feelings about this nostalgia.

• On one hand, this book feels like a 'the best of The Old Kingdom series all return;' the author brings back many characters and locations which I am fond of, using them to enhance the depth of this story while also retroactively adding depth to earlier stories.
• On the other hand, so many recurring characters makes me think 'Why do the same people keep showing up in every book? Are there only like five people in this Kingdom?'
  • (You know how some people complain how the same characters keep re-appearing in the Star Wars stories, even though the Star Wars galaxy by all rights should have several trillion people? I'm starting to feel like that.)

Overall, I think this book used that nostalgia well. There's a risk for books which rely heavily on nostalgia that they'll retroactively ruin earlier books, but that DID NOT happen here, which is good. But I think future books (if we are so lucky) need a clean break with new characters.
One thing I didn't like was how the Clayr used prophesy in this book. Basically, the Clayr foreshadowed the events of 'Sabriel' and 'Lirael.' It felt unnecessary, and bogged the story too much in nostalgia.
Elinor as a protagonist is charming. She's a warm hearted, yet out-of-her-depth young woman who's thrust out of her home when her home burns down. She uses her acrobatics and theater skills to secure a place for herself at Wyverly College, as the theater instructor. She's a delightfully earnest character, who manages to not be crushed by the memory of her mother's possession, and the death of all her friends when her possessed mother killed them. While I can't say she's an all-time favorite character, I'd be happy to read more books starring her.
I didn't like the romance between Terciel and Elinor; it felt perfunctory. A lot of reviews for this book pointed out 'hey wait, this book was marketed as a romance but it's not actually a romance!' And I'm totally fine with that, I don't like romances. But still, this romance was a bit insta-love.
Terciel exists, in the same way that vanilla pudding exists. I enjoy vanilla pudding, but I'll probably not order it if it's on the menu. I feel like I'm being unfair to him; the author deliberately writes 'normal people' to be protagonists, and Terciel feels normal. If I'm willing to read between the lines a little, I can pretend that he's so bland because he's emotionally stunted after a lifetime of being bullied and intimidated by his aunt, the Abhorsen Tizanael.
And since I mentioned her, let's talk about Tizzy. You know Sanderson fans say 'Fuck Moash?' I'd like to say, 'FUCK Tizanael.'
Almost every time she's on the page, she's awful. When she first appears in the book, it comes with the reveal that a) she got Terciel's older sister killed and b) she allowed her nephew Terciel to labor in a poorhouse for the first decade of his life even though she could have easily plucked him out at any time. Tizanael is stubborn, hidebound, demeaning, tight-lipped and angry, holds a grudge for decades, and can be passive aggressive to boot.
And yet Tizanael isn't evil. Using the D&D alignment system, she's Lawful Good. She's firmly on the side of good, but she's also a dick. She's had multiple Abhorsens-in-Waiting, and I speculate that she got all of them killed by using them as bait to destroy Kerrigor and other Dead.
I loved Tizanael. Nix did an excellent job writing her, walking the line between making me feel 'I hate you' and 'I see where you're coming from and you're probably right.' She's in her seventies or eighties, but she's somehow managed to keep the threat of Kerrigor and the Greater Dead contained for her entire life. It makes sense that an Abhorsen who's survived 70 years of Kerrigor's Interregnum would be a piece of work. It's clear that Kerrigor has made MANY attempts to assassinate her over the decades, but she's too stubborn to die.
I was a bit mid about this book's pacing. It felt a bit listless at parts. I was never bored, but there were moments when the story felt directionless. I felt like there were some scenes which could have been trimmed down or deleted. Elinor in Wyverly might be my favorite part of the book, but I think the Wyverly section needed something more. They seemed to spend too much time in Abhorsen's House too.
As for plot, I think this needed more plot. When I review books, I usually say 'the author should have trimmed out 20 to 50 pages.' I generally dislike the bloated nature of fantasy genre wordcounts. I don't say this very often, but I think this book could have added another 50 pages of plot. It needed more action, more intrigue, more characterization. Everything felt rushed.
And finally, I was a bit disappointed by the ending. SPOILSERS!
The book contains a LOT of returning characters. Terciel, Hedge, Kerrigor, and even Elinor(briefly) all appear in later books. As a result, I was never afraid any of them would actually die. Put together, going into this book I knew the stakes we were playing with were reduced because of the old 'protected by canon' trope.
I think this book could have introduced a new antagonist and had them get killed, so the ending felt more juicy. I liked Tizzy so much in this book in part because she died, making the ending of this book feel more weighty. I wish a bad guy died along with her.
Taking a step back, let's discuss some more technical problems.
I wanted more try-fail cycles. A try-fail cycle is a recurring storybeat when the heroes attempt something, fail, and try again. It is used to show gradual character growth over time, and is generally fun to read. The heroes only fought Kerrigor once, and they beat him the first time; I think the book would have been improved if they fought him twice and failed the first time. But this is more personal taste thing.
This book had significant exposition. At around the midpoint, a bunch of characters convened on Abhorsen's House and there was a lot of dialogue. It slowed the pace. But this is another personal taste thing.
Oh, and I hate being a nitpicker like this, but this book needed an editor to trim down things. For example, the characters infodump the same information on Hedge three times in short succession. This is the sort of thing this book's publisher should have picked up. Maybe Nix has reached the stage of his career where his editors don't do a developmental edit on him anymore; I heard that happened to Stephen King so maybe that happened here. To be sure, the book functioned and didn't need a developmental edit, but a good dev edit would have smoothed out some of the unevenness.
Again, overall I very much so enjoyed this. I had a pleasant time and can heartily recommend it to anyone who read the original series. It's not the most spectacular book I've ever read, but I'll re-read this and I'll be happy every time.
Summary
Looking back on the series, I have mixed feelings. Growing up, 'Sabriel' and 'Lirael/Abhorsen' were some of my favorite stories. They largely hold up on modern re-read. The rest of the series is a bit touch and go. 'Terciel and Elinor' is good, 'Clariel' isn't good, while 'Goldenhand' is another example of vanilla pudding; I'm happy to eat it but it's not memorable.
There's something iconic in how Sabriel in 'Sabriel' discovers a bunch of decapitated Ancelstierran soldier corpses right after she crosses the Wall for the first time; it gave me as a reader a moment of 'oh shit this book is playing for keeps.' The series is at it's best when it leans into that almost grimdark element. 'Sabriel' was the first Dark Fantasy book I ever read, and it got me hooked on the genre for life.
I personally feel that 'Clariel' and 'Goldenhand' didn't have that dark element, and suffered for it. 'Terciel and Elinor' DID WORK, because it brought home early on the danger and darkness of the setting.
Anyway, that's my 2cents. Think for yourself.

I don’t know where to post this so I’m trying a few different subs. I see these people on YouTube doing taste tests on old canned food and old rations from ww1 and 2 . I wanna know where they buy these?. I’m also interested in collecting vintage early 1900s cans of like cambells or vintage Kraft boxes even maybe Swanson frozen dinner trays. Any help would be awesome as I’ve been on the search for a year and my dad actually does have some old freezer boxes from the 60s in great condition but he got those at the fleamarket like 15 years ago.

In a lecture about WW1 I learnt that the starvation suffered by Germany, and the grievance of which later amplified by the terms in the Treaty of Versailles, contributed to the chaos of interwar Germany and later their WW2 plannings about stabilize the home front.
From other unrelated lectures or sources, I've also learnt: 1) WW2 rationing in UK was so intense, some people considered it has wiped out traditional cuisines & cuisine culture from the average people's lives, which in turn created a popular belief/meme about UK cuisines being bland. 2) Hitler and his generals imagined capture & colonization of Ukraine, for food supply. I remember a lecture mentioned an interview of a rather high-ranked SS commander (whose name I unfortunately forgot), where he was asked something like "What were you thinking when you killed these people in the concentration camps?" and the answer was he thought about "the bread and honey in Ukraine". Evil as it was, the fanatic pursuit for food is intriguing and surreal to me. 3) WW2 Japan suffered mass starvation, although in my understanding they had less workable lands and no domestic petroleum production, and yet they made war against anyone in the vicinity & let their marine logistics go to hell in a handbasket after Pearl Habor's consequences started to roll in. 4) Bombing campaigns targeted industrial productions or cities, but I've never heard about bombing of farming facilities. Dams, maybe?
WW1 pushed industrialization forward. Yet, it seems everyone in the WW2 era still struggled to not starve. Was agriculture still not advanced enough, such that when total war demanded the most able-bodied to the fronts & others to the factory, nobody's left to farm? Was it mostly about domestic and/or global logistics collapsing? Did countryside do better than cities (if we ignore interwar USSR for a moment)? Finally, when did the more developed countries stop to worry about mass starvation at home caused by shortage of food?

Dear current or former members of Jehovah's Witnesses, or researchers involved in activism or historical literature:
This guide serves as an historical source of information regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, all its associates, its past, present and future, and will hopefully serve as a way to educate all who wonder about the real truth about the truth.
Enjoy :)

Basic summary

Jehovah's Witnesses, or formally and legally known as Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS) is a Christian denomination which had evolved from the Watch Tower Society International Bible Students(WSIBS). Its core beliefs appear to differ from the mainstream beliefs of Christianity. WSIBS was an American evangelism group founded by Pastor Charles Taze Russell.
Contrary to popular belief, Charles Taze Russell was not the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses/(WBTS). Three major schisms across the organization, the largest of which emerged from the false predictions made by Joseph Rutherford for the year 1925, had divided the Bible Students into three main factions:

• Laymen's Home Missionary Movement: Founded by Paul S. L. Johnson in 1920, the LHMM arose after the death of Charles Taze Russell. The organization is active in many parts of the world today, and their main doctrine is somewhat similar to the ideology of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Free Bible Students: As the name suggests, their main ideology frees themselves from the stem of Charles Taze Russell's original beliefs. The Free Bible Students were also founded mainly due to colossal changes in Russell's ideology past 1880, particularly regarding the New Covenant.
• Jehovah's Witnesses: The most prominent of the Bible Student factions, Jehovah's Witnesses were the remaining organization that Charles Taze Russell had possession of. They rebranded themselves to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931 to distinguish themselves from the other Bible Student associations. They believe that they are the only possessors of the Truth about God's Kingdom and God's original intents for creating the Earth and all other matter in the universe.

This is a basic summary, but in order to fully grasp the topic, you must hear the complicated summary.

PART 1: William Miller & Jonas Wendell

Before Charles Taze Russell, we need to understand the life of a pastor named Jonas Wendell. And to understand the life of Jonas Wendell, we need to understand the life of a pastor named William Miller.
William Miller Jr. was born in 1782 and raised to American Revolution veteran Captain William Miller Sr. A "voracious" reader after his youth, William researched frequently in the libraries of Judge James Witherell and Congressman Matthew Lyon. After marrying Lucy Smith in 1803, Miller rejected his Baptist beliefs instilled by his parents and became a Deist. From what I was able to observe, a Deist believes that everything that exists has a rational purpose and did not come from nothingness.

"I became acquainted with the principal men in that village who were professedly Deists; but they were good citizens, and of a moral and serious deportment. They put into my hands the works of Voltaire, Hume, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and other deistical writers." - William Miller

Miller then served in the War of 1812 with British North America(now Canada). After his military service, William returned to the town of Poultney, Vermont, where he came to become deeply concerned with the thoughts of what occurs after death and the future of mankind. His Deist beliefs started phasing out as he became fascinated with the beliefs of the Baptist church. His attendance had eventually became commitment and devout devotion to the religion he once abandoned.
William Miller was prompted by his Deist friends to prove the legitimacy of Baptist beliefs. To do this, he thoroughly studied the Bible and would not continue until a prophecy made sense. In hindsight, this was likely a colossal mistake for Miller, as this would lead him to near hysterical conclusions that tainted the accuracy of his beliefs. If not out of spite, out of his need for an ethical conclusion to the Bible's teachings, he required an answer in order to move on.
Miller rapidly assumed a following of preachers and evangelists across America, and 1840 marked a key date in the history of Bible students: the formation of Millerism, Miller's own denomination of Christian beliefs. An important belief of Millerism was the return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ on October 22, 1844. When Jesus expectedly did not appear on that date, with the failure of Miller's doctrine brought the beginning of The Great Disappointment for Miller's students.
Enter Jonas Wendell. Jonas was a Millerite student who dealt with weak faith after the predictions of William Miller were proven false. But Jonas regained his faith after researching Biblical chronology and preaching extensively throughout the eastern United States. At a presentation led by Jonas in 1870, Wendell restored the faith of a young attendant named Charles Taze Russell who was 18 years old at the time. Without Jonas, the Bible student movement would have never started, unbeknownst to him.

PART 2: Charles Taze Russell's Spiritual Beginning

Charles Taze Russell was raised in the Presbyterian Church, but left at the age of 13, joining the Congregational Church. Charles was such a devout believer in his youth that he would "chalk Bible verses on fence boards and city sidewalks in an attempt to convert unbelievers". He began to question his beliefs, however, after a childhood friend of his brought up inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the doctrine of the Congregational Church.
He was sixteen when he came to these conclusions, but the presentation hosted by Jonas Wendell reinstalled his faith in Christianity. Although not fully agreeing with Wendell's statements, this presentation helped him come to his realization the word of God is found in the Bible. This gave Russell the push he needed to gather those seeking the truth during this "harvesting time." Students of Russell viewed him as the faithful and wise servant, or God's channel to Earthly ones.
Around this time, Russell was introduced to a man named Nelson Barbour, and they both began to assist, compare and sponsor each other's ministry and ideologies in the 1870's. A core belief of Barbour was that devout Christians who had died in the past would be resurrected in 1878. When 1878 had arrived, well, nobody was resurrected of course. Now, with both 1844 and 1878 being failed dates of prediction, the Bible Students(literally abbreviated to B.S.) had a history of false predictions.
After the "Second Great Disappointment," Russell asked Nelson to be removed from Barbour's paper, "Herald of the Morning", stating the following:

Now I leave the 'Herald' with you. I withdraw entirely from it, asking nothing from you… Please announce in next No. of the 'Herald' the dissolution and withdraw my name. - Charles Taze Russell

Their relationship slowly ceased after they began to write about contradicting ideas for the future.

Part 3: Founding of Watchtower Society

In 1881, Russell founded the Watch Tower Society International Bible Students(or Watchtower for short.) Watchtower would be ran by Russell and William Henry Conley as secretary-treasurer and president, respectively. Colporteurs would distribute the material printed in Russell's private company, and Watchtower was officially incorporated in 1884.
During this period when the Watchtower Society was thriving the most in the 1800's, Russell released many publications, some of which include the Photo Drama of Creation, an eight-hour long frame-by-frame presentation "harmonizing science, history, and the Bible." Its main selling point was "Bring skeptical friends."
The preaching work of the Bible Students began and was encouraged by Russell beginning in 1881, when Russell encouraged all those in the body of Christ to "witness" to their neighbours. Russell was a looked up-to leader at the time, and many trusted his instructions to "seek for the little flock of saints." It was clear that Russell was cautiously and slowly replacing Biblical truth at congregational meetings with his own word.
In 1905, a major update to the way meetings progressed was installed when Russell suggested replacing studies of the Bible's direct verses with topics of choosing, referred to as "Berean studies." This practice is still mostly followed by Jehovah's Witnesses today, as brochures, tracts and articles are the centre of discussion for most meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1900, overseas branch construction began in London, Germany, Australia, and Switzerland.
1914 marked the first public screenings of the Photo Drama of Creation(mentioned earlier) with attendance reaching around 9 million people(or 1/205th of the world's population at the time.)

Part 4: The three schisms(1909-1931) & Russell's death

In 1909, the first major schism amongst the organization of Bible Students took place when Paul S. L. Johnson, a travelling Lutheran minister pointed out to Russell inconsistencies in his teachings from before and after 1880. Russell immediately took action and updated his doctrine to the way it was in 1800. This lead some of the most prominent pastors in the organization to hate the new doctrine of Russell, which had a new organization, the Free Bible Students, form.
Free Bible Students, in a nutshell:
The FBS discarded many of Russell's original teachings, but kept some significant parts of his ideology. Other names include the Berean Bible Students and New Covenant Fellowship. Today, the Free Bible Students have less than 200 members and are insignificant compared to the three other organizations that stemmed from the schisms.
Russell passed away in 1916, and Joseph Rutherford was elected president, unopposed. But this led way to a leadership dispute, and the second and most important schism in shaping the Bible Student history. Four members from the board of directors in Watchtower ruled that Rutherford was becoming "autocratic" in his ways, but Rutherford hastily gained a legal opinion from a Philadelphian corporate law firm that he was not ruling in an autocratic fashion as they had accused him of.
An interesting shift in the leadership of the Bible Student movement had taken place shortly after the accusations from the four director members. Rutherford had supposedly filled in those four accusers with four new Bible students. You can make your own conclusions regarding Rutherford's motive to replace the accusers. By 1919, 1/9th of the organization had left due to Rutherford's poor leadership, and a new organization was formed.
Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, in a nutshell:
Similarly to the FBS, the Laymen's Home movement was formed as a branch of Rutherford's teaching. Earlier mentioned Paul S. L. Johnson formed the LHMM, and his history with handling the inaccuracies in Russell's doctrine may have assisted him in building the semi-reputable church it is today. Some countries today still possess LHMM, most notable of which are Poland, the United States and India.
By 1931, few remained amongst the organization, and the three schisms severely damaged the reputation of Watchtower. The Bible Students had then adopted the name, "Jehovah's Witnesses." The name Jehovah evolved from palaeographical evidence in the papyrus "Fouad 266". (It is a very interesting topic to research, if you are a Jehovah's Witness, other religion or not, and I highly suggest you research it on Wikipedia or another website.)
According to this chart by 1931, the remaining members who were now rebranded as Jehovah's Witnesses were to view all of their former brothers as any other evil as instructed by Russell and Rutherford. And with the end of the Bible student title, we move on to the second chapter of the story of Jehovah's Witnesses: The part where they're actually called Jehovah's Witnesses.

Part 5: Jehovah's Witnesses' ACTUAL Beginning

Rebranded, reformed, and remade. Jehovah's Witnesses, in a desperate attempt to forget about their divisive past, sought out to move on from their Millerite history and focus on preaching. Slowly, Jehovah's Witnesses became less of a one-man led mission and a mission led by a group of "faithful and discreet slaves," known as the Governing Body.
Using WW1 as an example of how 1914 began the time of days as they had "mathematically presumed" decades ago, the organization switched to a more urgent message to regain followers. Of course, persecution in the Nazi Republic was a major chapter in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses. And even after defeat in the second World War, persecution was still a major tsuri for Watchtower to overcome. The most prominent place for JW persecution was and is, Russia/the former USSR.
Link:itnesses was reported in other first-world countries like Canada, and China. China and Russia remain as two of Watchtower's biggest national opposers, as well as over 20 other nations in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctrine were thriving in the decades leading up to the present day, as new brochures and publications were being released. More and more countries began accepting Jehovah's Witnesses into their country, and the Governing Body got an extreme re-work after the death of Nathan Knorr, third president of Watchtower after Rutherford passed away. Today, JW is near unrecognizable compared to its former Watchtower counterpart from 1931.
​

Item	Watchtower Society (1951)	Jehovah's Witnesses (2015)
Population	100,000 or so	8 million
Memorial Attendance	200,000 or so	20 million
Lands Preached In	Unknown	200+

Glossary of Major Practices Upheld by Watch Tower

Disfellowshipping
Disfellowshipping is a practice upheld by Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses since the days of Charles Taze Russell. In older congregations, if a member committed an act of sin or apostasy(spreading "false word" or putting the organization into a negative light,) the congregation could vote for his disfellowshipping. In modern halls, two or three "qualified" men can decide in a judicial committee the fate of the particular sinner's relationship with the congregation.
When disfellowshipped, you are allowed to attend the weekly meetings of Jehovah's congregation, however you will likely have to sit in an enclosed room in the back of the building where you can see the talk without being able to participate. Or, as most prefer post-pandemic, stay on the video /Zoom broadcast of the meeting until further notice from the members. Your family and closest friends may have to limit or cut off contact with you as displayed in this video by the organization. (2:56)
Eventually, if elders notice you make good spiritual recovery, you may be reinstated as a normal member of Watch Tower.
Sanctity of Blood
As in Leviticus 17:11, blood is a sacred object in Jehovah's eyes and as a result, surgeries that require blood transfusions or other handlings of blood are not permitted by the organization. Until the age of 18 in most nations, medical decisions may be made by the caregiver or parent of the child. Of course, the child has the right to influence the caregiver making the decision since the child will be undergoing whatever is chosen by the caregiver.
But some children who have been raised devout worshippers of Jehovah's Witnesses feel that it is their right to sacrifice their life so that Jehovah will bless them for refusing blood transfusions. Some have died out of this unconditional fear they faced since childhood, and more adults have died or remained paralyzed for their life for not accepting this life-saving surgery. The bible explicitly mentions the preciousness of life, but refusing to undergo a medical operation may undermine this statement.
However, fractions of blood cells are allowed and are up to a Christian to decide.
Bethel/World Headquarters
Nearly every country where Jehovah's Witnesses are an active religion, the organization has a headquarter known as "Bethel." Bethel is where all of the products are manufactured in that home nation's language(s). Some are invited to live at Bethel with the basic necessities of life rent-free in exchange for working in a department of Bethel. The first few locations of Bethels include the United States, the U.K., Australia and Germany.
Preaching Work
Preaching to unbelievers can take form in many different ways. During the COVID-19 pandemic, witnessing to people through telephone calls and/or mail was a popular method. Pre and post-pandemic, going in the "house-to-house" ministry by knocking on people's doors and offering them a brochure. The governing body has since wanted to move on from that uniform method of witnessing and advertise a more "people-friendly" method known as "informal witnessing."
This way, you can be in any type of clothes without needing a fancy get-up, and the situation could be a place like the grocery store. Statistics for people attending the meetings or partaking in the Memorial of Jesus' death have decreased in the past decades, so the organization would like to provide an option of service preferred by both preachers and the once being preached to. There are some form of rankings amongst preachers. Here are the following:

• Publisher: No certain requirement for hours. An un-baptized publisher is allowed to go in service and count their own hours, but as of 2024 hours are no longer being counted for non-pioneers.
• Auxiliary Pioneer: Requirement for hours is 30 every month. Not reaching that mark or exceeding that mark will not affect your position in the congregation.
• Regular Pioneer: Requirement for hours is 50 every month.
• Special Pioneer: Requirement for hours is 70 every month.
• SKE Attendants: The School for Kingdom Evangelizers is a Watch Tower led program for those who would like to exceed in their ministry.
• Gilead Attendants: Gilead is a school with select members who attend for even deeper spiritual teaching. We are on our 154th Gilead so far.

Meetings
Depending on the instruction of the elders in that area, meetings may take place at the local congregation building once or twice a week where "spiritual food" is served for attendants to "partake." This is just fancy for: spiritual lessons are displayed at meetings. The format of these meetings is copied off of Charles' Berean Studies.

Glossary of Terms Used By Unbelieving Members

Members of this subreddit and others who have disassociated from Watch Tower use these five abbreviations to describe a member of the organization.

PIMI	Physically In, Mentally In	A devout worshipper in the Christian congregation who engages in preaching work.
PIMO	Physically In, Mentally Out	A worshipper in the Christian congregation who no long shares the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses but does not tell members out of fear for retribution or shunning.
POMO	Physically Out, Mentally Out	An ex-worshipper who left the organization and is now considered "deactivated."
PIMQ	Physically In, Mentally Questioning	A questioning member who is re-evaluating their faith.
POMI	Physically Out, Mentally In	A deactivated member who secretly would like to become "reactivated."

Glossary of Terms Used By Believing Members

Devout members of the organization use these terms to describe many things.

Apostate	A former member of Jehovah's Witnesses who is spreading falsehood or information that puts the religion into a bad light.
Worldly	Anyone who has no knowledge of the truth or Jehovah's Witnesses.(Around 3/4 of the world.)
Needgrating	A more recent term, needgreating(or going to where the need is greater) is a term to refer to travelling to countries where the preaching work may not be thriving to assist.
Disassociating	Someone who has left the organization out of their own free will. (Different from disfellowshipping, mentioned earlier.)

Hierarchy of Watch Tower

1. Governing Body: A group of men who are in charge of the worldly organization. They are also referred to as the "faithful and discreet slave," as well as "God's Channel."
2. Circuit Overseers: CO's oversee a group of congregations, and make visits to congregations twice a year.
3. Elders: Elders in a congregation are in charge of overseeing the rest of the congregation's members and handling any troublemakers.

Watch Tower is ran on a patriarchal system, and women are given very few privileges in the organization but are still buying into the men-dominant system.

Major Inaccuracies and Inconsistencies in JW Doctrine

• Support of the United Nations: Up until 2001, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was affiliated with the UN. This proves a major flaw in the ideology of Jehovah's Witnesses; the UN and its affiliates are represented in the Bible as puppets of Satan's government. While the organization claims it was solely for library access, the Officer of CSOs and FBOs in the UN reached out to a member of this subreddit and provided a detailed explanation linked at the top of this item.
• Child Sexual Abuse Hidden: To not spoil the reputation of the organization, crimes may be covered up to prevent news sources from spreading information that may put Jehovah's Witnesses in a bad light. Protestors or former members who spread negative information about Watchtower, true or false, are referred to as apostates, however news networks and channels are not generally referred to as apostates unless their main mission is to put the organization in a bad light. Child Sexual Abuse(or CSA) is a criminal offence in nearly every sovereign nation, andJehovah's Witnesses have been proved in court to cover up accounts of CSA, even when thedefendant plead guilty to the judicial committee they answered to. (Judicial committee is a term explained later.) Some victims have been known to be stripped from privileges in the congregationor shunned for reporting the abuse they face regularly.
• Disfellowshipping Ability in Elders: In the modern Jehovah's Witness society, two or three elders in the board of any congregation may be assigned to deal with members of the congregation who may have sinned or committed an act of immorality. This is known as a judicial committee. However, in the older teaching of Charles Taze Russell, he believed that it was a congregation, or even a circuit(explained later)'s decision to choose if a brother or sister is disfellowshipped.

Media/Information Watch Tower Covers Up

• Unfulfilled Predictions: Almost all major predictions made by influential elders in the Bible Students organization were proved to be false. Barbour's 1878 prediction, for example, was immediately disproven after October 22, 1878, but Charles Taze Russell seemed unfazed about Barbour's failed prediction for the dead Christians to rise up in 1878.
• Irrational Thinking: When Miller was studying the Bible to prove to his Deist friends that his beliefs had solid grounding, he would not let go of a topic until he either harmonized with another subject in the Bible or came to a solution. He could not come to a conclusion in which the Bible said a falsehood or inaccuracy. This may have led him to provide his Millerite worshippers some near-crazy ideologies and doctrine just so he could feel closure or prove his doubters wrong.
• The Split-Up Of Bible Students: The history of Jehovah's Witnesses was built on a foundation of schisms, splits and disunity, yet one of their main qualities is unity amongst the congregation. Despite that, JW is only a denomination of what was once the Bible Students of Watchtower. Which was a descendant of Freemasonry, the religion Miller once possessed, but that has origins in the 1300's which at that point had little to no trace of Millerite or Russellite belief.
• Illegal Preaching Work: In accordance with the Bible's instruction to preach the word throughout the Earth, even in nations where Jehovah's Witnesses are banned(most notably Russia,) Jehovah's Witnesses partake in undercover work by pelting religious material to citizens. Many have ended up in prison for this.

So yeah, if you are contemplating your worship to Watch Tower, use this article to back up your leaving from the organization. Thanks for reading

I posted this comment just because I like it, to be able to find it, and because, by spirit, it is similar to https://reddit.com/StopNewDarkAges/comments/18a6rms/appeal_to_germans_deleted_comment/
​
From the start of WW2 France become confined by WW2 and Cold War narratives and expediencies. Thinking by their "in-box" solutions. When free from them, "out of box" thinking France something like this:
"Fuck USSR for stealing our socialism and mixing it with feudal, imperialistic, authoritarian/monarchic elements.
Fuck British ban on USSR criticism during Nuremberg Trials and closed soviet archives.
Fuck German inability to grasp that Nazism it's just state sectarianism with fascistic wrapper, and therefore it should be resisted exactly by skepticism and rationalism.
Fuck American postmodernism, that frequently contradicts to not only to "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite", but even to substantial part of its, ours, fundamentals: Rational Humanism, Secularism, Rule of Law, Democracy, Liberty.
Fuck our contradictory attempts to maintain influence over former colonies, created to oppose things that now part of culturally stagnant, rigid, conservative/conformist France. Part of sometimes senile Europe.
Fuck everything that was after 1938 year. It's all not real France, not the legacy of the French Revolution. Not legacy of Age of Enlightenment. Not legacy of Renaissance. Fuck all of this inertia of WW2 and Cold War.
For now most French should know Academic Logic, to be much more rational, and Cognitive Distortions, Logical Fallacies, Defense Mechanisms, to have better self/social understanding. And then fully embrace Fourth Industrial Revolution.
It's not a panacea, far from it, but it's at least some way out from modern clusterfuck. To what France and French wanted during French Revolution and between WW1 and WW2. Viva la revolución?"

One of Hitlers main characteristics was his antisemitism, not just that (antisemitism was pretty common back then) but the murderous form of it. It seems extremely dumb to make enemies out of a group who could have been an allie, namely the jews. Why this totally unnecessary murderous behavior towards them, while many where patriotic and fought for germany in ww1? Wouldn't it be smarter to try to integrate them as german jews into germany? Many where already assimilated also and did feel more german than jewish. Not to mention the gigantic brain drain out of germany which benefited its enemies. From a rational perspective the hole antisemitism thing just seems to hinder his other goal to make germany strong.

I am male, not religious, but I reject pre-marital sex. Not that I mind others having it, but that I will not have it myself. I want to reserve sex with the person whom I have committed (as least as best as I can) to spend the rest of my life with as it is for me a very important ritualized symbol for enjoyment and happiness. Am I now like a fossil-dinosaur? Are there people out there who, like me, reject premarital sex on non-religious grounds?
BTW, no disrespect to people who have premarital sex. And to clarify: I'm not seeking a virgin partner. It's just that I myself do not engage in premarital sex.
About sexual drive: for much of human history, we were not supposed to have premarital sex, no? That premarital sex is Ok is only a thing of the last century, somewhere after WW1 or even WW2. I mean not everyone actually conformed of course but I suppose still a significant proportion of people, if not actually the majority, conformed to this? Surely it's controllable to avoid premarital sex?
About worth: I'm not arguing that people who don't have premarital sex are worth more than people who do. I'm just saying that for me, sex ritualized in such a manner would bring a lot more happiness than otherwise. And it's good way for me to test my love for her and vice versa.
I want to address the issue of why not test it before you buy it? For me, choosing a partner and then committing is not the same thing as choosing a car. A car is a product. Buying a car is a transaction. There is a relatively objective standard against which you can measure the cost-effectiveness of a car. A romantic relationship is totally different. Part of the reason why it's beautiful and why we need it lies exactly in the inherent uncertainties of life. We are seeking emotional security in a relationship. It is for this reason that we cannot be like choosing a product when we choose a partner. If we are being too calculational, we are taking away the main allure in a romantic relationship. A security that results from rational cost-benefit calculation will never be emotional security.
To love someone requires a leap of faith (lat. Saltus Fidei) here. It requires that you committ to someone even though you know that there is a lot of inherent uncertainty ahead. And you expect your partner does the same. You DON'T want the choice to be transactional.

In my continuioty, the Calamity was FAR longer then the books said. It lasted at least 10,000 years. Because even the Elves have little memory or knowledge of what came before. All they have are just scattered records written by war refugees and survivors who also had little knowledge of the war because most records from the Age of Arcanum were destroyed.
In my version, the Age of Arcanum was a technolgically advanced civilization that would make us real life humans look like primitive apes. But while the people of then were strong in technology and power, they were weak in culture and morality. In my version, the AoA was filled with slavery, oppression, genocide, environmental devastation, and every other evil you can think of. And they created evils and monsters, weapons, and even artificial intelligence that began to see themselves as gods. The nations were also viper pits squabbling over meaningless minutia.
As for the Calamity itself, it was more then just a war among gods. It was also similar to WW1 in terms of causes. A failure of diplomacy and rational thinking. The nations of the Age of Arcanum found themselves almost helplessly falling into two armed camps, each side linked together by a labyrinthine of diplomatic agreements which left little room for actual diplomacy. Country A was treaty-bound to Country B, who had promised to come to Country C's aid if it went to war with Country D, who was similarly allied to Countries E, F, and G. Disputes became battles, battles became wars. The release of the Betrayer Gods was just the straw that broke the camel's back and united all these wars into one.
All the advances in the AoC were forgotten. The masque of civilization vanished, and people became monsters. Originally, this conflict was called "The Great War." But as the war dragged on, 30, 50, 100, 300, 500 years, the causes faded from memory. No mortal knew why they were fighting, only hatred towards those who were not them past down generations, and the gods who ravaged all they knew. Civilizations rose, fell, and were forgotten in the Calamity, as did alliances. Technologies vanished, as did records. And by the time it was all over, civilization was little more then scattered tribes of refugees who would form the foundations for the post calamity civilizations that followed.
So, that's me. What about you?

As asked here by u/Veg0ku, but unfortunately my response couldn't fit in Reddit's comment length requirements.
To some degree, but with two large caveats - 1) "The Frankfurt School" is a post-hoc, after the fact, construction. They weren't seen as a singular unified group of radically different academics at the time. They were just individual people, each active in their own way, and with their own separate projects and focuses... and 2) I think to figure out their impact on general culture you would have to look at both their social impact, and then also their academic impact as left wing theorists.
In terms of their social impact, I think the silent generation and war trauma from WW2 probably had the most impact on the social changes in progress during the 1960s and thereafter.
It was a time of great upheaval, WW2 was in transition to post-war and cold war politics (both of which were brand new). The USSR was still going strong, and presented a never before seen nuclear threat. The french almost had a civil war in the May '68 riots. The hippie movement, and drug related counter culture was in full swing in America, with popular figures like Timothy Leary, Ram Das, Owsley Stanley, Alan Watts and The Beatles all somewhat endorsing either endorsing LSD and drug culture, and/or introducing the Christian west to ideas of eastern enlightenment, meditation, and religious practices (every now and then at communes or cults)... at the same time black civil rights activism was coalescing, as was 2nd wave feminism.
I say all this to provide context to Marcuse' conception of himself at the time, he was of the viewpoint that these movements, this radical upheaval was already in full swing well before he participated in any noticeable way... and The Frankfurt School as a bunch of stuffy theorists had already done most of their theoretical work at that point. Enlightenment as Mass Deception was written by Adorno in 1944, Horkhiemer wrote Eclipse of Reason in 1947. The Authoritarian Personality (by Adorno) was published by 1950... their Secret Reports on Nazi culture in Germany for the OSS were written in the 1930s.... so really, by the 1960s, Marcuse was the main member of The Frankfurt School who was writing, and was doing so as an individual.... and he was lucky enough to have written a book considered influential by the May 68 rioters; his 1964 one dimensional man, and also his 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance.
But he himself notes that they provided some voice, and some of the ideas that were already coalescing. He simply, plucked them from the Zeitgeist of pre-existing movements, and the pre-existing sense of social change. He says as much in this interview.
...and as if a counter weight, you have Adorno, who was in America at the time... and went against Marcuse to some degree by calling the police when Student Radicals tried to occupy his campus. Adorno was fairly conservative, and was greatly offended when some of his female students responded to this by protesting him topless. He felt this was an affront to himself, his marriage, and his wife. He has writings (name 1949's On The Problem Of The Family) on the decay of the multi-generational family structure as one of the causes for Hitler's rise - and comes pretty close to blaming liberalism for this. The Student Radicals developed a slogan against Adorno; "Capitalism will never cease if Adorno is left in peace".... so The Frankfurt School was definitely not a set or singular ideology, or set of agreements.
What's more they drifted far away from Marxism, and there's a whole article here which lists many of their pushes against communism... even Marcuse wrote a series of reports to aid the CIA to understand and find the vulnerabilities within Soviet Society, namely his 1958 Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis....
So I think it's decidedly deceitful to use a term like "Cultural Marxism" to label them as a bunch of communists, or a group looking to overturn Western Liberal Democracy. I don't think that was something they were interested in.
I think much of the misunderstandings about their views and what they wrote came from a Conservative resentment towards Marcuse in particular... and against the fact that so much of their work established a baseline for leftwing viewpoints. Not those of identity politics or modern social justice, but of social democrats, and critiques of the mainstream media.
There's an often mis-understood section of Repressive Tolerance in which Marcuse talks about when undemocratic tactics (such as deplatforming, and derailing discussions) might be pursued... and he's very specific in saying when such tactics can be used. He states:

"Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc."

...and in doing so, he sort of endorses a kind of protest that became the ambient default modern leftwing form of protest. I think this is a major part of the modern politics that were being defined in the 1960s... and again, Marcuse just put it into words. After all, the May 68 protests were over much the same things that the Occupy Wallstreet protests were.
Likewise, Adorno's critique of mass media, that it's all funded by large corporate interests, or as he puts it:

"In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry – steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect their appeasement of the real holders of power if their sphere of activity in mass society (a sphere producing a specific type of commodity which anyhow is still too closely bound up with easy-going liberalism and Jewish intellectuals) is not to undergo a series of purges. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven. All are in such close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different firms and technical branches to be ignored. "

It should be noted that his reference to Jewish intellectuals (a set he was included in), is more so informed by the fact that it was written in 1944, and so is a reference to the antisemitism in Germany at the time. All the same, it set up much of the precedent for how the left still looks at media and the world at large.
But what they are distinctly not responsible for, is Identity Politics, and modern Social Justice. Both of those come from American Black Civil Rights movements. Identity Politics its self as a term was originated in a Black Feminist Lesbian organisation known as the Combahee River Collective, and specifically came from a lady named Barbara Smith, who had nothing to do with The Frankfurt School. Likewise, "Intersectionality" as a term came from another female Black American activist in the form of Kimberle Krenshaw... who again, has little to do with The Frankfurt School in terms of historical action and events.
Were they, as academics and activists familiar with The Frankfurt School? Probably. But I don't think that's the same as being a product of The Frankfurt School, or as being able to "blame" The Frankfurt School for Identity Politics.
It's members of the feminist movement, the black civil rights movements, the gay rights movements, and now the trans rights movement - that push the ball forwards.... and it's those groups who anyone wanting to question identity politics have to interface with and dialogue with in order to find out about the activism of today.
But really, the left is far behind if they're still concerned with or using the frameworks of The Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School I think can best be seen as transistionary thinkers. Adorno's views on the media have since been replaced by other new left thinkers like Stuart Hall's encoding decoding model (which basically noted in the 1980s that we can create our own media and recontextualize mainstream messages in doing so). Marcuse' ideas about repressing conservatives when they don't respect the rights of some groups are somewhat in decline now that we're having one large and constant internet discussion that never ends, and never goes away.
One can't really be cancelled if they can just immediately sign up a new account, or write a book, or make a youtube video about their experience.
So getting back to your question; Did the Frankfurt School have an impact on general culture? Yes, but it was part of a pre-existing and broad reshuffling of Western Civilization's understanding of it's self, and of the now 200 year old experiment in democracy we're all a part of.
....and that experiment in democracy goes through these phases. We were serfs, then citizens, we were subjects of monarchs and empires, and now we're members of democratic nations. WW1 was the last battle of empires (aka The Great War), WW2 was a much bigger bombshell which left a brand new understanding of what it meant to be modern globalized citizens of a Western Liberal Democracy.
...and that Western Liberal Democracy needs to think about its self. It needs groups like The Frankfurt School, and The Birmingham School in Britain to write down ideas about what's going on, and what that means. Those ideas aren't plans or an ideological take over though - they're observations about the transformations that were taking place in real time before them. Which themselves were merely ripples from earlier events.
That's how it's always done. People watch the unfolding and comment on it. Much like we do every day now. Those comments indicate cultural changes... and it's only when those cultural changes indicate a possible change to some wider framework - like for instance, the gig economy, or globalized trade, or the stake holder model, or identity politics, or the alt-right insurrection, that we realize change is possible, and it's those times we pay attention to and look for answers about.
As the internet has grown, those changes happen more often... and they're still happening today. Not as a product of what happened during The Frankfurt School's time, but as a product of all that has come since WW2... and now, all that will come from this point forwards (with eyes on Russia, Israel, cyber warfare, drone warfare, AI bot nets, and any number of other challenges to the democratic experiment).
It's what Walter Benjamin called "The Angel of History".

"There is a painting by Klee called Angelus Novus. An angel is depicted there who looks as though he were about to distance himself from something which he is staring at. His eyes are opened wide, his mouth stands open and his wings are outstretched. The Angel of History must look just so. His face is turned towards the past. Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet. He would like to pause for a moment so fair [verweilen: a reference to Goethe’s Faust], to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise, it has caught itself up in his wings and is so strong that the Angel can no longer close them. The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm."

History, society, and the experiment in Western Liberal Democracy is ever changing from generation to generation... and this is an inevitable state of observation all members of our Capitalist society are in, as the geopolitics and social phenomena play out within the resource related bounds and constraints of a Historical Materialism we all seek to find a moral, spiritual, political, and emotional alternative to... but alas, few can't find such a path when committed to (as we all seemingly inevitably are) a rational and reasonable course through life.
We are thus in a constant state of revolution, not wanting these to be our observations and our bounds, but constantly finding them to be, over and over again. Few can go beyond.

Youtube video, 15 minute clip I ran into, I don't yet know if there's more to it (there probably is) but this is the only one I've come across and imagine the rest are similar.
It's titled:

Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s Putin Interview & Trip to Russia The Daily Show

Here are rough, approximate sections of the clip with general summaries:

0:00-4:00

The first four minutes is Jon talking about Tuckers pre-interview rhetoric, mocking how it's "so brave" to interview Putin. That's pretty much it.

4:00-7:00

Next three minutes: zooms in on Putin talking about post ww1 territory changes leading to German-polish conflicts, specifically the city of Danzig and Poland controversial military policy at the time.
This is cool because it's the only part of the actual interview Jon even brings up. Here is what Putin says on that, rough transcript:

... In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler – it did collaborate with Hitler – Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship, and alliance, demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Königsberg. After World War I, this territory was transferred to Poland and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused.
... By the way, the USSR, I have read some archive documents, behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet plans flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia under the well-known [Molotov Ribbontrop] [typo, corrected] Pact.

A rational person would summarize this and say that Putin claims Poland blocked a potential anti-Nazi-invasion coalition between the USSR and Czechoslovakia, so they should have expected to lose the city of Danzig (which Germany also claimed, like the Czech territory).
Here's how Jon quotes Putin and attacks Tucker's "enabling" of Putin's speech, without interrupting during that:
https://youtu.be/oM2h3KnWAWY&t=293

"But what if Putin starts saying shit like WW2 was Poland's fault because they forced Hitler to invade them"

So that's the best you get out of content discussion. He adds in a reference to "Polish jokes".
Keep in mind while he makes his claims, Putin actually worked as a Soviet KGB officer in East Germany. Putin basically talks about bad partitions of states in the 1900s Europe leading to future wars, as well as his own curiosity-driven reading through Soviet archives of their interventions. There's probably some pro-Soviet bias there, but Putin has a mix of praise and criticism for the Soviet interventions at home, in neighboring states, and abroad, so his perspective is interesting.

7:00-11:00

Anyways, the next 3 minutes are fanatically attacking Tucker for admiring a nice train station in Russia, and Tuckers praise for the fact groceries seem affordable in Russia (ie less inflation there).
He zooms in on Tucker remarking such a non-inflated economy will "radicalize you against our leaders", pointing out what a pro-dictator anti-democracy propagandist (not journalist, as he points out) Tucker is.

11:00-13:00

He does shit like pointout the "cost" of affordable groceries, lack of freedoms, etc, and Navalny.
He then quotes Carlson's outrage over Navalny's death and emphasizes "no decent person would defend it" in a snarky way.
This is kind of cool I guess because this is the second time that Jon brought up something that's even relevant with respect to the subject matter (Russian politics, international relations, etc).

13:00-15:10

It ends when there's a skit of a guy pretending to be Tucker, surrounding himself with cheap candy while casually saying "death to America" type remarks.

Sidenotes:

This is all especially, especially funny given that Jon Stewart gave Clinton/Rice an interview where he let Clinton rant on about how Libya became so free and democratic and stuff after we intervened to aid rebels and overthrow Gadaffi, as Jimmy Dore's video is great on

Jon Stewart Gives Tongue Bath To War Criminals Hillary & Condi Rice

No "interrupts" needed in those cases because Jon is "just a comedian" I think. So all those Libyans who died and had their lives ruined can laugh it off.
But be warned, even if you ARE a comedian, and you criticize Jon on a big platform, he will lose his shit and leave a psychotic 1-hour long voicemail, and force you to be silent, or sign an NDA, or something

During an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan scheduled to air Wednesday evening, the Family Guy creator recounted an hour-long “angry call” he and Stewart had in 2008 after a joke ran on The Family Guy poking fun at Stewart.
“I think his response was ‘Who the hell made you the moral arbiter of Hollywood?'” MacFarlane told Morgan.
“People have disagreements about unions…In that situation I think it is incumbent on people in a certain position to stand up for people who haven’t made it yet,” MacFarlane said.
MacFarlane was shocked Morgan even brought the phone call up during their interview. “How do you find out about these things?” he said. “My publicist has forbidden me to talk about this since it happened.”

Why Did The Tsar Abdicate in 1917?
Intro
The greatest cause of the Tsar’s abdication was the effects of World War One, which brought long and short term resentment towards autocratic rule. The war was unpopular among many, including soldiers, who endured harsh conditions, which caused them to turn against Nicholas. The war also brought economic strain as well, which meant unrest among the workers grew, due to rationing, and the rising inflation. Historian Orlando Figes argues that it was the war which ultimately led to the abdication, whereas Alan Wood argues it was his poor decision to become commander in chief which led to the end of Tsarism. Other factors also played into his abduction, however unlike world war one, they mainly brought bitterness towards the political oppression. Historian H.W Chamberlain argues that it was the oppression of the people which caused the revolution, whereas J.P. Nettl stated it was his inability to meet the demands of the people which led to his abdication.
Factor 1- WW1 (argue the poor war effort vs commander in chief)
Russia’s inability to foresee World War 1 meant it had little time to prepare for a battle of attrition, which would carry for many years. This was a fundamental cause to Nicholas’ abdication because it had multiple long and short term consequences. Orlando Figes describes the war as “a titanic test for the states of Europe – and one that Tsarism failed in a singular and catastrophic way.” This was completely true, as it threw Russia’s economy, and society into chaos. Unlike the rest of central Europe, Russia had not industrialised due to its large size and conservative population, this meant that it could not mass produce equipment and ammunition for the war. Pre-war assumption was that Russia would play a huge part in a war, as they had the largest army of 5,000,000 soldiers, however; due to the lack of industrialisation, they were unable to produce enough weapons for each man, having only 4.6 million. To make matters worse there was a lack of ammunition, Alexander Kerensky (The later prime minister of the Provisional Government) states, "Untrained troops were ordered into battle without adequate arms or ammunition. And because the Russian Army had about one surgeon for every 10,000 men…” Kerensky's statement has validity as he was present at the time, being a member of the Duma, however being the leader of the SRs meant he wanted social and political change in the form of a new government. His statement has accuracy, as the high mortality rate was around 1,451,000 dead or wounded by 1915. Kerensky’s statement is useful as it shows the weakness of the army along with it being unprepared. The “untrained troops” were mainly conscripted peasants, who had received only a small amount of training, and made up 80-84% of the army. This was evident in The Brusilov Offensive (June-September 1916) which was a clear indication of the lack of military coordination and training among soldiers. The Russians intended to do a huge push against the Austro-Hungarian forces on the Eastern front and sent waves of soldiers. During the first major attack the Habsburg fourth army advanced on Austro-Hungarian lines in the Northern sector with 117,800 soldiers, by the end of the attack they had lost seventy percent of that with only 35,000 soldiers left. In the Southern sector the Habsburg seventh army had similar results, losing 76,200 soldiers out of 194,200 within four days. Although the start of the offensive had a surge of patriotism in Russia, it turned into an anti-war stance, further enhancing the demand for an end to the war, which had been damaging Nicholas’ reputation. This supports Figes viewpoint, as at this point many demanded an end to the war, one of Lenin’s key points in his April Theses was peace, which many were drawn towards.
Yet the war effort had been doomed from the beginning which was evident from the first few battles. The battle of Tannenberg (August 26-30th) was fought on the Eastern front under General Alexander Samsonov. Samsonov faced off against German forces led by General Paul Von Heidenburg and Erich Ludendorff, who, by the end of the battle, had annihilated the Russian Second Army in a decisive victory. The defeat highlighted a significant issue in Russia, which was its poor command by leaders. Historian William. A. Peltz states “On bad days, czarist officers would order assaults on enemy trenches even if their soldiers were without bullets.” Peltz backs up Figes by reiterating how the Tsarist regime was unprepared for WW1, the incompetence among generals stemmed from them being appointed through status rather than skill or experience. Peltz’s statement mirrors Figes by claiming the weakness of the Tsarist army meant Russia would be overwhelmed by the war. This had short term repercussions, as soldiers became less receptive towards their higher ups, meaning Nicholas’ would find it harder to consolidate power through suppression, which is evident in the February Revolution, when soldiers joined the people and handed out weapons. Furthermore, the number of deserters in the army had drastically increased, with almost 160,000. On the 7th of July 1915, Nicholas wrote to his wife Alexandra- "Again that cursed question of shortage of artillery and rifle ammunition - it stands in the way of an energetic advance. If we should have three days of serious fighting we might run out of ammunition altogether.” The letter further highlights the ammunition crisis, in 1915 it got so bad that mortar squads were limited to three shells a day. Nicholas’ letter had validity as it was written by Nicholas himself meaning it would have privacy. The Battle of Tannenberg supports Figes because it emphasises the weakness of the Tsarist regime to rule at such an unstable period, with World War One catalysing its end.
In March 1915, Nicholas dismissed the Grand Duke and became commander-in-chief, historian Alan Wood states “The tsar foolishly added to his own isolation by assuming personal command of the Russian army in 1915.” Wood’s condemns Nicholas’ choices, which is backed up by the failure during the war. Nicholas’ position as commander-in-chief allowed Russian society to blame him directly for the failings of the war, he no longer had a scape-goat to redirect society’s unrest. Wood’s argument differs from Figes, he blames Nicholas’ neglection of the issues in Russia, rather than the impacts of WW1 for the abdication. His poor leadership is evident in The Gorlice-Tarnów Offensive in 1915, which had a significant blow to the Tsar. Germany, in an attempt to relieve pressure of the Austro-Hungarian army in the south and eastern front, began an offensive. Initially The offensive was conceived as a minor push into Russian territory, yet by mid spring, the central powers had sent more soldiers to the Eastern front. The offensive lasted all the way to October and was seen as a huge defeat to the Russians, who had been forced out of Galicia and Poland. Following the Gorlice-Tarnów Offensive, the Russian army was forced into the Great Retreat of Summer 1915 where the Russian army lost a considerable amount of territory to the central powers. Within the first two days of the retreat, German forces under Alexander Litvnov captured 7000 prisoners. For the Tsar, an immense amount of embarrassment would follow, the military failures of the Russian army characterised the Tsar’s incompetence to lead an army, as well as the poor military command. The loss of territory during the war would outrage Russians, key slavic countries such as Poland and Lithuania were lost, as the army was pushed further back by German opposition. Erich von Falkenhayn, a German officer present at the offensive is quoted to say “The Russian Imperial army for the first time completely switched to strategic defence.” This further iterates the embarrassment Russia faced, as the largest army, they had lost vital slavic countries, and been forced into a ‘defensive’ retreat.
Nicholas’ decision to become commander-in-chief caused political issues, as he left Russia without a central leader. He appointed his wife- Alexandra- along with Grigory Rasputin, a holy man to take his place. This was an unpopular move by Nicholas for many reasons. Firstly, Nicholas’ wife was a German princess by birth, which caused many to question her allegiance to Russia during wartime, there were many rumours speculating whether she was a spy. In addition to this Alexandra was a poor leader, historian Bendar Pares states “his wife to flout all thinking Russia, his Ministers, the Duma, the organs of local government and the general public” which is evident when she began sacking competent ministers for loyalist ‘yes-men’. An example of this can be seen in the sacking of Vladimir Kokovtsov, Prime Minister of Russia in 1914. Although this was not when Nicholas was away, it was rumoured Rasputin had some influence in his sacking. Kokovtsov was an experienced minister, and his sacking made many question the Tsar’s authority. This would cause Nicholas’ abdication as the government became corrupt, which further damaged the Tsar’s image, causing the demand for revolution to grow. This backs up Woods as Nicholas 'isolation meant that he was no longer in court which left Tsarism weak.
Another issue which would cause Nicholas abdication was Rasputin presence in court which angered many. He was born in the peasantry class, where his family were farmers in Siberia, his peasant upbringing angered the Russian elite class who viewed his rise to power as a threat. This meant the Tsar would lose the support of the elite, which in turn would cause his abdication, to some extent, as the elite supported the autocratic rule because it benefited them. Furthermore the support of the social elites was vital as they made up the high ranking officers of the army, meaning they had a lot of influence on the military, the elites were also responsible for managing parts of the empire as it was so vast, they would often be the head of local governments. This caused Nicholas to abdicate as they could guide the opinions of the masses. Another issue with Rasputin’s appearance in court was his provocation towards the church who saw him as a blasphemous character, claiming to be a healer. This was how he got closer to Nicholas and Alexandra, by miraculously healing the “the tragedy of their young son’s haemophilia” Nicholas relied on the church to keep order, as they legitimised his authority and supported his autocratic role emphasising the divine right of the Tsar. The church had a strong presence in the rural areas of Russia, where the peasants lived. By losing support of the church, Nicholas potentially turned 80% of the population against him. Historian Robert Service sums up Rasputin's issue in court;“they reviled Rasputin while refusing to recognize more basic political problems.” Here, Service blames Nicholas’ incompetent ministers who were more preoccupied with disliking Rasputin than saving Russia. Both Service and Lincoln blame Rasputin and Alexandra for the abdication, claiming that the two had caused the traditional supporters of Tsardom, religion and the elites, to abandon them.
In conclusion WW1 was the most important factor, as it turned the majority of the Russian population against Nicholas, and revealed the weakness of the regime. Figes argues that it was the war that caused an end to Tsarism, which is true to some extent, as its long term economic and political impacts caused resentment, furthermore the army, who nicholas was reliant on, turned their back towards him. Woods argues against this, blaming his decision to become commander-in-chief as the reason for his abdication, as it turned the small -but influential- groups such as the church against Nicholas. His decision to leave also left him outside his power base, such as Moscow or StPetrograd, meaning he could not retain power on his return back from the front lines. This supports Wood’s argument as Nicholas being unable to return summed up his loss of power to the revolution.
Factor 2- Nicholas’ personality (argue his oppression vs his inability)
Historian W.H.Chamberlin argued that it was not the oppressive nature of the Tsar, but his incapability to rule the land, “Nicholas II, whose personal misfortune it was to rule in a period of wars and profound social and economic changes, was less fit for the role of an autocrat than any sovereign” . Nicholas’ inability to rule throughout his reign can be seen when he dragged Russia into the Russo-Japanese war, believing Japan to be an inferior, smaller nation. This was an embarrassment to the Tsar and his regime who had effectively lost the war, and had to give up their pursuit to gain dominance within Far East Asia. This defeat would have long term repercussions as it left the population unhappy at the rising inflation caused by the war. Furthermore, foreign loans from France -who gave 800 million francs- showed the economic impacts. Even before the war Russia had 106.3 million pounds in their gold reserves, the fact that they had to take foreign loans to carry on fighting proved that Russia had underestimated Japan . In addition to this the war embarrassed Russia with the Treaty Of Portsmouth, which damaged Russia’s international prestige. The arrogance of the Tsar had led to 34000-54000 soldiers killed, with an additional 70000 prisoners of war being taken. The war would also lead to the Potemkin mutiny, as sailors were subjected to poor conditions, such as rotten food. Even though this occurred in 1905, it led to the October revolution, which turned Russian citizens against the Tsar, including the working and middle class. This would help cause the abdication, as resentment towards the poor economic situation would turn the people against Nicholas, as inflation rose and salaries lowered.
His incompetence as a leader is also seen through his policy of Russification The introduction of Russification was not new, as it had begun under Nicholas’ father -Alexander the third- it was a severely enforced method that attempted to limit the influence of non-Russian national minorities. It did this by emphasising the superiority of all things Russian.Under Nicholas, Russian was established to be the official language, meaning all legal inquiries including trials, would be done in the Russian language. This would lead to the public office closing its doors to non-Russian speakers, which would tarnish the Tsar’s reputation as many became angry at the drastic changes being forced upon them. More than half of Russia’s population were from other countries, Pyotr -Semenov-Tyan-Shansky revealed in a census taken in 1905 that 69,972,552 were non-Russian natives whereas 55,667,469 were Russian. Nicholas’ form of russification would have officials throughout the empire invested in keeping Russian dominance, discrimination against minorities, which had previously been a hidden part of Russian life, became more open. The national minorities made up a large bulk of the army, through conscription, Nicholas’ persecution would make them less sentized to follow his orders, meaning he would not be able to control the population.
A long term issue under Nicholas there were very little reforms that would modernise the country. The political freedom of the Russian people was particularly bad, in 1884 it was still a criminal offence to oppose the Tsar or his government. There was no parliament and although there were political parties, they had no legal right to exist. Historian Richard Pipes
states, In my opinion, the principal causes of the downfall in 1917 were political, and not economic or social. Pipe’s statement is true to some extent as we see in the October Manifesto, which mainly revolves around Nicholas giving more political freedom to the people. The creation of a legislative duma was one of the outcomes, however, Nicholas never intended to support the Duma’s new reforms. We know this to be true as we see four dumas pass through Nicholas’ reign, each being dissolved for their somewhat ‘radical’ reforms. The formation of the Progressive Bloc was intended by the dumas to replace the cabinet of ministers the Tsar had appointed, and work with Nicholas. Nicholas’ rejection of the Progressive Bloc summarised his political blindness, and destroyed his last opportunity to appeal politically to other parties. Paul Milyukov, the leader of the Kadet party complained that Nicholas had “brushed aside the hand that was offered to him”, which explains that the Tsar's abdication was in fact, his own doing. Milyukov’s statement has validity because he was a key member of parliament, being a member of the duma, therefore he would have good insight on the current events. However, Milyukov was also aiming to undermine Nicholas in order to build support for a democratic government. What he says has accuracy because we have also seen Nicholas do similar actions in his later years, when he rejected help from the Zemstva and War Industries Committee (WIC) who offered war supplies and medical care for the Russo-Japanese war. Altogether Nicholas' resistance to political reform would cause his abdication, the opportunity to work with an alternate, working organisation such as Zemstva would have benefited him during the war, but his inability to give power to the working class turned them towards more radical groups.
On the other hand historian J.P. Nettl argues “the tendency was repression and greater extremism, not compromise or reduction of conflict.” which caused the end to Tsarism. This is prevalent in Nicholas' actions during Bloody Sunday, a peaceful protest led by father Gapon. After the emancipation of Serfs was passed in 1861, thousands of peasants moved towards urban towns and cities. They were generally unskilled, but were subjected to poor conditions, long working hours and low wages. The peaceful protest, led by Father Gapon on the 22nd of January, was a march to the winter palace with families wanting to beg him to relieve their situation. Although Nicholas was not at the palace at the time, police began to fire at the protestors, it is estimated 200 were killed and another 100 were injured. This incident severely damaged the Tsar’s traditional image as the ‘Little Father’ (guardian of the people). The immediate reaction to Bloody Sunday was widespread disorder, which often took the form of strikes in major cities and towns. The suppression of the Moscow uprising on December 7th was more violent; the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and SRs had come together to begin a general strike. They were successful in taking over key installations, yet Nicholas had sent a Tsarist regiment to shut down the strike. Soviet resistors surrendered the Tsarist forces on the 18th, the twelve day uprising had led to the death of 1000 people further suggesting the Tsar’s violent nature. Stalin writes “It was their faith in the tsar that was riddled by bullets on that day. They came to realise that they could win their rights only by struggle.”
We see the oppressive nature of Russia was not only limited to the Tsar, as the government also had a tight fist on society. After the sacking of Witte, Pyotr Stolypin would replace him as Prime Minister. Under Stolypin, 3000 political members and suspected revolutionaries were arrested, put on trial and executed. This was known as Stolypin’s necktie, it caused unrest and further deteriorated Nicholas’ reputation. Stolypin would also implement his ‘Wager on the strong’, which revolutionised the peasantry class, who traditionally supported the Tsar. This period is described by many as repressive, Lenin calls Russia a “prison house of nations”, Lenin’s statement has validity because he would receive updates from Bolsheviks within the country, additionally, he was a victim to the oppression. However, this would also cloud his judgement, as he would, like other revolutionaries, want to overthrow the Tsarist regime. Trotsky notes that “The events of 1905 were a prologue to the two revolutions of 1917” Trotsky’s statement supports Nettl’s by blaming the government’s reliance on suppression for his downfall. Trotsky, being a member of the Menshevik party, was in exile, however, as a key member of the party, he would receive accurate news on incidents within Russia. The large amount of death would further tarnish the Tsar’s ‘father figure’ into a bloody tyrant, who needed to be overthrown.
In 1912, the Lena Goldfield massacre summarised the Tsarist regime, by subduing demands for reform rather than working with them. Miners at Goldfield were under harsh conditions, for every 1000 workers, there were 700 incidents. With 15-16 hour work days and meagre salaries, the workers became revolutionised by their discontent. By March 17th, they had begun strikes ,demanding a 30% pay raise and shorter work hours. In response Tsarist troops were sent, by April 6000 workers had been arrested, the remaining workers (2500) decided to march towards the prosecutor’s office to complain. They were met by soldiers, who were ordered to fire on them, the local newspaper - Zvezda- reported 270 were killed. The short term results were widespread strikes totalling 300,000 Lenin argued the massacre had 'inflamed the masses with a revolutionary fire'. This is accurate to some extent because it further developed the discontent towards authoritarian rule, and spread a nationwide image of a tyrant. The Lena Goldfield massacre backs up Nettl’s argument that Nicholas’ suppression caused his abdication, as, in a way, was a repeat of Bloody Sunday. This highlights the Tsarist government inability to revolutionise Russia to meet the people’s need as well as its incompetence to reflect on past issues.
Overall both Chamberlin and Nettle arguments argue that Nicholas’ weak rule over Russia would cause his abdication. Chamberlain disputes that his inability to rule would cause his abdication, as it piled long term resentment towards Tsarism. In contrast, Nettl argues that his suppression of the people, caused both political and social unrest, changing his ‘father-like figure’ into an enemy of the Russian people. His personality as a ruler would revolutionise most groups in Russia, which meant he could not rally enough support, additionally his poor decisions led Russia into an economic crisis, with inflation, rationing and social instability. However, world war 1 is a more important factor, as it caused the army to turn against Nicholas, meaning he could not use them against the people, this allowed the
Factor 3 Revolutionary Groups (Long term cause vs short term cause )
The revolutionary groups with Russia also played a part in Nicholas’ abdication, as they coerced the population into becoming revolutionised. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa states that “The Bolsheviks’ insistence on the insurrection of the masses without the help of any other class in society appealed to the workers’ sense of independence and was compatible with their resentment of privileged society” He argues that their long term impacts were through propaganda, as well as organising a small amount of strikes within cities. The revolutionary groups mainly focused on the working class, who they saw as the most important to overthrowing the Tsarist regime, this is why we see most of their activity in Petrograd and Moscow, such as the Moscow Uprising of 1905. Although it had no significant impact at the time and proved a socialist revolution was not ready, it underlined the key issue of the poor conditions. The revolutionary groups were able to produce propaganda on the political repression and conditions that rallied the working class against Tsarism. Examples of these can be seen through the Pravda (the truth) and izvestia (the news), newspaper agencies owned by the communist party of the soviet union. The revolutionary groups used the newspapers to galvanise the masses and indoctrinate the people, by reporting the poor conditions, and oppression under Nicholas.
In contrast, historian B. Williams argues “the initiators of the revolution were the workers and reserve troops in the capital…” His statement pins the underlying cause of the revolution on the built up unrest among urban workers and soldiers. However, William’s argument differs from (), as he sees the workers and soldiers as the main cause of the revolution, not the revolutionary groups. This was true to some extent, as we see the nature of the February revolution was influenced by the demands of the working class, and mainly revolved around the strikes in key cities. The unrest among the urban workers was the greatest threat, in terms of social groups, as the upper class only made up 12% of the population, and the peasantry masses were resistant to change. In contrast the workers had become educated, and therefore more political, meaning that they would become revolutionised by the political groups who appealed to their needs. One way we see the workers being the ‘initiators’ of the revolution was the International Women’s Day strike in Petrograd. In early 1917, rumours of bread rations began to spread in Petrograd, which caused the women in Petrograd to form a protest against the shortage on the 8th of March. The protest led by the women, continued even after the 8th, gaining support from workers and soldiers in the streets. Trotsky describes the situation “nowhere in the country were there any groups of the population, any parties, institutions, or military units ready to put up a fight for the old regime” Trotsky’s statement has accuracy as the garrisons within Petrograd had 150,000 reserves, however by the 26th of February there were only a few thousand left. It also has validity, as Trotsky was a key member of the Bolshevik party, he would receive reliable information. The high desertion levels also support William’s argument, as soldiers in Petrograd joined the strikes, meaning nicholas’ could no longer rely on them. William’s argument is also backed up by historian W.H. Chamberlain statement “one of the most leaderless, spontaneous, anonymous revolutions” . Which is true, as most of the leaders were in exile in Siberia or abroad. This further emphasises the importance of the workers over the revolutionary groups, as the February revolution was headed by the workers.
Hasegawa’s argument differs from William’s, as he argues that the revolutionary groups had a significant impact on the abdication of the Tsar, whereas William’s states it was the worker’s unrest who forced Nicholas out of power, but the revolutionary groups still played a part in stirring the masses. Both arguments are valid, however due to the nature of the revolution, and the fact that it was ‘leaderless’ means William has a stronger argument.

I am thinking if the Fourth Turning historiography can be applied to architecture. Architecture is a somewhat late cultural expression - buildings are slow to build and ideas seem to evolve on a slower timeline than in other disciplines.
Modernism in architecture "starts" intellectually in 1893 at the Chicago World's Fair, but it doesn't solidify into the zeitgeist until after WW1 and the establishment of the Bauhaus in 1919. So there's 26 years for the first turn. Then it's said to have ended intellectually with the atomic bomb and the Holocaust in 1945 (loss of optimism in science and rationality etc.). 26 years. The uprisings of 1968 is another intellectual break, but the demolition of Pruitt-Igoe housing complex in 1972 has been claimed (by Charles Jencks) to be the definitive end of modernism. Another 27 years. So there's a 79 year cycle.
If you go back another 80ish years, you get the dawn of Classicism with the advent of archeology and colonial expeditions in the early 1800s. Napoleon's savants producing dooks of drawings of historical architecture from his conquests, for example. Notably the École de Beaux Arts, which the Modern Movement was reacting against 80-100 years later, was refounded in 1819. I don't know enough about the time period between to say how it divides into turnings, if it does.
And moving forward, you'd have the first turning of Postmodernism defined by the Memphis Group, the New York 5, and Minimalism from the 1970s to circa 2000s. From 2000 to today has been defined by Parametricism and what I'll call the Dutch guys (Koolhaas, MVRDV, et al). This places us in a 3rd turning in postmodern architecture, at the point when it starts losing it's credibility as an expression of the zeitgeist.
I don't think this fits perfectly and it doesn't seem to map onto the political discussion very well. Let me know what you think.

I’m listening to a podcast about the israeli-palestinian conflict and it starts from the russians pogroms during the ‘800s. At some point it talks about the nazis and how they spawned from the ww1 defeat etc. It says that one of the reasons the german army felt betrayed was because when the soldiers were retreating they found warehouses full of food, while their meals at the front were very poor.
A couple years ago I read a book about the italian defeat at caporetto/kobarid. It said that, while retreating, the soldiers found warehouses full of food and got angry because their rations were poor and there it was tons of food unused. At the time I thought this was the stereotypical disorganization of the italian bureaucracy, but apparently the germans had the same problem.
Was this common during that war? Did the french or the russians or other nations had the same situation? And why? Is it just because nobody knew how long the war was going to be so they were rationing?