I have no premeditated witticisms for this one. I'm too pissed-off for that, but I'll probably toss some stuff out on the fly just so I don't cry myself to sleep tonight. I can no longer sit idly by and pretend at some facsimile of political correctness or benefit of the doubt. That time has passed, and I must truly speak my mind. I make no apologies to anyone who is offended or thinks that I am too harsh.
The Republican Party is a cult, as sadistic as Charles Manson's family and as fiercely devoted as the residents of Jonestown. They deny science, dehumanize anyone who doesn't conform to their delusions, and call for the deaths of whomever they arbitrarily declare to be the enemy. As I write this all off-the-cuff, I realize that I must give this some structure or I may devolve into the same firebrand death-wishing as those I so despise, so let's do this.
Formation
First off, a cult does not need to be established around a religion; a dogma or philosophy works just as well, as Nazi Germany showed. The National Socialist party was most certainly a cult, and it rejected all religion.
The only true necessity for a cult to form is a dogma strong enough to gather like-minded followers and enough intelligence in the leader to realize that it needs to be kept silent. I cannot point to exactly when the Republican party became wholly infested by their cult, but I know that Conservative dehumanization, death-wishing and regressionist campaigning has existed ever since before the Civil War. My best guess for the firm entrenchment of this cult would be during the McCarthy era, wherein the madmen found that the public was willing to go along with the wildest accusations if driven by fear, and the Other was certainly enough to incite this fear.
The fall of the Soviet Union had to be a crushing blow to this cult, as suddenly there was no looming Other to terrify the proletariat. In the face of this, the cult dug deep and dipped into the collective fears that are nurtured by religious dogma and the willful ignorance that has always been a secondary goal of the Church since its rise to power at the fall of the Roman Empire. Lacking one major Other, they decided to instead sow the seeds of terror and division far and wide, striking at anything they could: homosexuality, women, other races, other religions, other demographics and educational levels; anything that could be painted as Different, Other, and Evil was done so. Fear is the single greatest motivator to make a person act against his or her own best interests.
Dogma
What makes one small group a religion and another group a cult? Well, there are all sorts of reasons, but the number-one thing that separates a religion from a cult is that religion is supposed to be a part of your life, while a cult is intended to BE your life. Nothing can supersede your loyalty to the cult, your subservience and dedication to your leaders. This certainly explains how so many competing Christian religions, who normally despise one another to the point of near-civil war, can work together in the Republican party while still making religion one of their primary stances. The reason, of course, is that their religion is their cult, not whatever denomination they claim. They ally with a church to gain the loyalty of the cattle, following basic talking points while keeping their true intent hidden.
This is another important point in defining a cult: they keep their behavior secret. They do not share their beliefs with others who have not yet been heavily indoctrinated, nor do they share anything about themselves, their lives, friends, activities, or anything else if they can avoid it. Todd Akin's recent verbal atrocity hints at this: we all know that the Republican base believes his words, that the vagina is some magic creature that can slay unwanted sperm, but I don't honestly believe that the cultists in power believe this. This is the dogma they spout to their constituents to get them to fall in lockstep; Akin made the mistake of sharing it with people who would protest, so the rest of the party immediately disavowed him.
In addition, cultists actively reject facts that do not gel with their fantasies. Whether these facts are that their leader is only human and not a god, or that economic deregulation has never worked in the history of modern America, they are ignored and violently shouted down. As with most cults that find their origins in heresy, Republican cultists have no problem with picking apart their holy book - the Bible - and rewriting sections to fit with their own interpretation of the world, to hold up homosexuality as a far greater sin than violating the Ten Commandments or the Two Commandments of Christ's covenant, and to somehow completely negate Jesus' lessons to support the poor and donate their wealth as the rich can never enter Heaven.
Something odd, though, is that most cults don't last very long because they have a single godly figurehead, and with that lost most can no longer cling to their madness, or at least cannot perpetuate it. In this case, scarily enough, I believe that their god-figure is the dollar. Every policy recently offered up that did not strip individuals of their rights was somehow designed to leave more Americans unemployed or stuff even more money in the pockets of the richest Republicans. In this case, the cult's leader will never die as the dollar cannot truly be killed. Instead, we are tasked with the nightmarish challenge of defeating the worshippers rather than executing their leader.
Principles
Cults always stand against human decency, acting in manners directly anathema to the survival of the species. In this case, we know the origin of their actions: fear of the Other keeps their followers quietly in check, following along in abject terror of some evil brown person leaping out to slay them, with the occasional carrot being dangled before them to make them move faster - usually something to do with religion or the stripping of human rights from women or minorities.
However, fear has been working less and less. Americans don't have as much to fear. Fewer and fewer people, though still more than is in any way acceptable, fear others for the color of their skin, their religion or orientation. So, faced with this glaring fact, the cult has changed to incite hatred.
This scares me more than ever, even more than when I first learned about Bush-era renditioning. Tea Party rallies cheer when someone dies from lack of medical care, they call for the deaths of their candidates' political rivals, and plot the demise of our President. All the while their cultist puppet-masters continue to drive them forward, stoking the flames of their rage.
Republicans have made more unfounded claims regarding fellow Americans than we have seen since the age of McCarthy, and now the motivation of these accusations are not fear but hate. We have seen a total of eight mass killings in one month, and the month isn't even over yet.
We need to declare this Republican cult to be the religious terrorists they are before they amass and strike against peaceful Americans. Human compassion from the Right is at an all-time law, and they believe murder to be justified in idealistic disagreements. I do not normally stand as an advocate of fear or direct negative action against fellow human beings, but I can no longer sit quietly and watch as the raving masses continue to build power and create a feedback loop of rage amongst themselves. This bubble of hatred is soon to burst, and I fear for all those who believe in self-determination and human moral responsibility. The most outspoken of them will likely be the first casualties.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
"Leave me alone!"
It's the rallying cry of all indignant, overprivileged teenagers, the assertion that they somehow know more about self-sufficiency, survival and the world at large than their parents. It's also the rallying cry of the Republican party, whose constituents all seem to have the mentality of teenagers or children younger still.
From their statements, Republican sentiment is clear: they don't want a federal government, they don't even want united states, and they certainly don't want an American people. The only thing that matters to them is what each one of them can get, and the more people they have to hurt to get it, the better that 'it' must be.
Well, from hearing all of these seditious little cretins' nonstop bitching, I've come up with an idea that might work for everyone:
Allow States to Temporarily Secede
If these Republican states believe that they can function without the federal government's protection or interference, if they want the chance to prove the superiority of their governance, let them take full responsibility for it.
Take one of the most insane states in the nation, Missouri. Offer them the chance to operate entirely as they will; however, they will be denied all federal support. No more Social Security, welfare, unemployment or aid for the ACA. All government funding for education, law enforcement, and emergency aid will likewise be cut, since according to Republicans the federal government doesn't have anything to do with that anyway. No more funding for their roads or utilities, so we can look the CEOs in the eye, point to the un-maintained roads and remind them that they DIDN'T build that, and their refusal to support those who do build those things will destroy their state.
If they accept (which is unlikely, since the politicians know the truth but like to keep their base ignorant), then broadcast the results. Show the people what happens when you let theocratic tyrants control a section of America. When the American people eventually realize what a horrible thing Conservative control actually is, perhaps they'll put the current Republicans out the way of Old Yeller and elect politicians who actually want to be cautious and conservative with our nation's resources instead of abandoning everyone to die at the feet of the ultra-rich.
From their statements, Republican sentiment is clear: they don't want a federal government, they don't even want united states, and they certainly don't want an American people. The only thing that matters to them is what each one of them can get, and the more people they have to hurt to get it, the better that 'it' must be.
Well, from hearing all of these seditious little cretins' nonstop bitching, I've come up with an idea that might work for everyone:
Allow States to Temporarily Secede
If these Republican states believe that they can function without the federal government's protection or interference, if they want the chance to prove the superiority of their governance, let them take full responsibility for it.
Take one of the most insane states in the nation, Missouri. Offer them the chance to operate entirely as they will; however, they will be denied all federal support. No more Social Security, welfare, unemployment or aid for the ACA. All government funding for education, law enforcement, and emergency aid will likewise be cut, since according to Republicans the federal government doesn't have anything to do with that anyway. No more funding for their roads or utilities, so we can look the CEOs in the eye, point to the un-maintained roads and remind them that they DIDN'T build that, and their refusal to support those who do build those things will destroy their state.
If they accept (which is unlikely, since the politicians know the truth but like to keep their base ignorant), then broadcast the results. Show the people what happens when you let theocratic tyrants control a section of America. When the American people eventually realize what a horrible thing Conservative control actually is, perhaps they'll put the current Republicans out the way of Old Yeller and elect politicians who actually want to be cautious and conservative with our nation's resources instead of abandoning everyone to die at the feet of the ultra-rich.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Reviews: Darksiders II
Anyone who talks favorite video games with me knows that the first Darksiders ranks high up on the list. The storyline was engaging, the main character a delightfully honorable and diplomatic breakaway from similar games' emo pretty-boys or angry no-necked killing machines, and the gameplay the perfect combination of brutal bloodshed, fast-and-furious strategizing, and mind-bending puzzles.
The sequel does not disappoint.
The second game is not a sequel as much as a "simulquel," occurring during the same time period as the first game but following an entirely different storyline. On Earth, the noble War works to end the fighting, free the earth from demonic tyranny, and clear his name by exposing the originators of the apocalypse. In other dimensions, however, the more cunning and acid-tongued Death fights to restore humanity and end the threat of Corruption, a sort of spiritual virus loosed into the realms that has been infesting everything.
First off, the game looks excellent. The characters are wonderfully stylized by masterful artists and give the entire universe its own feel. The architecture is amazing, much of it looking as though it could be from snapshots of ancient ruins, and the environments feel rich and inviting. Much like in the previous Darksiders, there is more to see than to explore, but that's forgivable. In a dungeon-crawling action series like this, a bit of linearity is expected. However, the first two worlds are vast and offer many opportunities for exploration to discover their secrets.
Second, the sound is amazing. From sound effects such as metal on stone to the ultra-realistic sounds of Death's horse Despair galloping through forests, all are top-notch. The music ranges from "fuck yeah!" awesome to heartbreakingly beautiful. To stand above a waterfall and listen to the music intermingle with the rush of the water, or to crest a cliff and stare into the misty abyss with the haunting score in the background, is a breathtaking experience.
Third, the gameplay remains top-notch. When the first Darksiders came out, I happily proclaimed it to be better than the God of War series, and the sequel has maintained that lofty standard of a carnage-based series. One of the things that struck me as brilliant in the first game was the seamless merging of God of War's rampant slaughter with Devil May Cry's flow-based gameplay. War could move like water through legions of enemies, cutting them down with an ease that would make Kratos blush and a fury that would turn Dante green with envy.
Darksiders II has Death, faster than War but also weaker, who fights with more acrobatics. He doesn't have as much reach as his big brother, but he can close distance more easily. If War moved like water, then Death moves like a dancer.
The second game has adopted a more RPG-style bent than its predecessor, adding in item merchants, potions, equipment management, fast travel and a hub area. The shift was risky but pays off for the most part, though it does lead to a couple of downgrades.
First off, it makes the game more about item management than I believe it needed to be, particularly in regards to health potions. You can recover Wrath, the power for your special attacks, by utilizing your scythes instead of secondary weapons, but you either need special weapons to recover health bit by bit or you need to keep a full stock of health potions. It just feels a bit like a crutch added in to boss battles as well as a detriment to make fights with normal enemies a bit more threatening. Artificial difficulty adjustment, is what I'm getting at.
Second, making the game more RPG-based seems to have sacrificed some of the amazingly creative set ideas that the developers implemented in the first game. One could argue that it's simply because the special abilities aren't as blatantly exploited as in the first game, but that exploitation was still fun. I miss the spider queen's boxlike chambers where you could see through the floors and ceilings to peep at other nasty critters you'd eventually have to fight. The portal puzzles in the Destroyer's massive spire are some of my favorite memories, even though they could be hair-pullingly frustrating.
That's the final downgrade: the puzzles aren't as difficult as they were in the first game. Now, I understand the reason for toning down the insanity. Puzzles of the caliber of Portal, especially in an action game, can lead to a full-stop in the gameplay and that's bad. I experienced that myself in the first Darksiders with many of the portal puzzles.
Despite its deviating from the original game and taking many risks, a few of which failed in my opinion, I would never call Darksiders II a disappointment. It held me engaged every step of the way and, as a continuity nut, I was on the edge of my seat to see how the vast conspiracy would further unfold. I was not disappointed. Darksiders fans, don't skip the credit roll at the end of the game. It includes a stinger that furthers the plot and confirms my suspicions from the end of the first installment.
So, with plenty that's good and nothing that's truly bad, Darksiders II comes with my seal of approval!
The sequel does not disappoint.
The second game is not a sequel as much as a "simulquel," occurring during the same time period as the first game but following an entirely different storyline. On Earth, the noble War works to end the fighting, free the earth from demonic tyranny, and clear his name by exposing the originators of the apocalypse. In other dimensions, however, the more cunning and acid-tongued Death fights to restore humanity and end the threat of Corruption, a sort of spiritual virus loosed into the realms that has been infesting everything.
First off, the game looks excellent. The characters are wonderfully stylized by masterful artists and give the entire universe its own feel. The architecture is amazing, much of it looking as though it could be from snapshots of ancient ruins, and the environments feel rich and inviting. Much like in the previous Darksiders, there is more to see than to explore, but that's forgivable. In a dungeon-crawling action series like this, a bit of linearity is expected. However, the first two worlds are vast and offer many opportunities for exploration to discover their secrets.
Second, the sound is amazing. From sound effects such as metal on stone to the ultra-realistic sounds of Death's horse Despair galloping through forests, all are top-notch. The music ranges from "fuck yeah!" awesome to heartbreakingly beautiful. To stand above a waterfall and listen to the music intermingle with the rush of the water, or to crest a cliff and stare into the misty abyss with the haunting score in the background, is a breathtaking experience.
Third, the gameplay remains top-notch. When the first Darksiders came out, I happily proclaimed it to be better than the God of War series, and the sequel has maintained that lofty standard of a carnage-based series. One of the things that struck me as brilliant in the first game was the seamless merging of God of War's rampant slaughter with Devil May Cry's flow-based gameplay. War could move like water through legions of enemies, cutting them down with an ease that would make Kratos blush and a fury that would turn Dante green with envy.
Darksiders II has Death, faster than War but also weaker, who fights with more acrobatics. He doesn't have as much reach as his big brother, but he can close distance more easily. If War moved like water, then Death moves like a dancer.
The second game has adopted a more RPG-style bent than its predecessor, adding in item merchants, potions, equipment management, fast travel and a hub area. The shift was risky but pays off for the most part, though it does lead to a couple of downgrades.
First off, it makes the game more about item management than I believe it needed to be, particularly in regards to health potions. You can recover Wrath, the power for your special attacks, by utilizing your scythes instead of secondary weapons, but you either need special weapons to recover health bit by bit or you need to keep a full stock of health potions. It just feels a bit like a crutch added in to boss battles as well as a detriment to make fights with normal enemies a bit more threatening. Artificial difficulty adjustment, is what I'm getting at.
Second, making the game more RPG-based seems to have sacrificed some of the amazingly creative set ideas that the developers implemented in the first game. One could argue that it's simply because the special abilities aren't as blatantly exploited as in the first game, but that exploitation was still fun. I miss the spider queen's boxlike chambers where you could see through the floors and ceilings to peep at other nasty critters you'd eventually have to fight. The portal puzzles in the Destroyer's massive spire are some of my favorite memories, even though they could be hair-pullingly frustrating.
That's the final downgrade: the puzzles aren't as difficult as they were in the first game. Now, I understand the reason for toning down the insanity. Puzzles of the caliber of Portal, especially in an action game, can lead to a full-stop in the gameplay and that's bad. I experienced that myself in the first Darksiders with many of the portal puzzles.
Despite its deviating from the original game and taking many risks, a few of which failed in my opinion, I would never call Darksiders II a disappointment. It held me engaged every step of the way and, as a continuity nut, I was on the edge of my seat to see how the vast conspiracy would further unfold. I was not disappointed. Darksiders fans, don't skip the credit roll at the end of the game. It includes a stinger that furthers the plot and confirms my suspicions from the end of the first installment.
So, with plenty that's good and nothing that's truly bad, Darksiders II comes with my seal of approval!
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Retrospective: Dead Space -or- EA can't fuck up ALL the time
Electronic Arts is the serial killer of the gaming world. They butcher companies, buying them out and gutting them, and turn the corpses into meat puppets. One has only to look at the necrophilic orgy that is Origin Systems or the slaughter of Westwood and subsequent closure of the Nevada studios to see this statement clearly evident, sensationalist though it may be.
However, they have still managed to put out some decent games. Back when EA let its companies work as they would, we had Westwood Studios blazing the trail for Real-Time Strategy, beginning with the Dune games and graduating up to their grand achievement, Command & Conquer. The first two C&C games, and their Red Alert spinoffs, were fantastic to say the least.
Then EA happened, stripping Westwood apart and implementing all new rules and restrictions that stifled the creative minds of the Nevada team. Frank Klepacki, brilliant games composer who singlehandedly helmed the scores of Command & Conquer, C&C Tiberian Sun, Red Alert AND Red Alert 2, was chased off because he wouldn't sign a new, much more limiting contract. Dozens more developers who helped put EA on the map in the 90s, who made EA at the time a symbol of quality gaming, were ousted and forced to seek employment elsewhere.
Electronic Arts murdered the Ultima series, imposing a stranglehold on the already of-questionable-mentality Richard Garriott, aka Lord British and outright obliterating the eighth and ninth games.
I already did a post about how EA gutted BioWare's creative integrity and the fetid abortion that was Mass Effect 3, so I won't even go into that again.
However, just as rotting corpses can produce new life, so too can EA make something good on that rare occasion - appropriately, with rotting corpses.
Enter Dead Space, the hands-down scariest game I have ever played, and a true joy to experience.
Now, before the horror-game diehards grab their torches and pitchforks, let me explain my above statement. I have experienced the greats of horror, from Silent Hill 2 to Amnesia. None of those scared me. I could speculate on all number of reasons that they didn't, but my best guess is that my own mind is far scarier than any dissonant pseudo-world that those games can create, and the inner demons I've faced during my deepest throes of depression are a thousand times scarier than any lumbering humanoid in those games.
What works in Dead Space, especially for me, is the feeling of direct malevolence. These aren't creatures that just drift around, attacking you only if you get too close. These beasts are out for your blood, and they're built explicitly for that purpose. The monsters are faster and more mobile than you are, so running is out of the question. It's kill or be killed, prey against predator, and that alone is eminently terrifying.
Humanity has spent so long at the top of the food chain that we forget what it's like to be hunted. This is why movies like the original Halloween produced such visceral terror: we get to experience, often for the first time, the feeling of being prey.
In Amnesia you are being hunted as well, but it's a rather "false" hunt, a disingenuous kind of fear. You have no capacity to fight back, so over time the effect changes from, "Holy god I'm gonna die" to, "Ah shit, gotta reload my game."
Giving the player a means by which to fight and even defeat the predators, Dead Space creates a truly animal setting: kill, or be killed. This is different from fighting other humans, because in shooting games like Call of Duty you've done something to incite combat. Against the monsters of Dead Space, your only crime is being food.
Many critics complained that it was too easy to mow down legions of enemies, that it should have been more like Silent Hill. That's fine for survival-horror games, but Dead Space is action-horror, a different breed. In addition, the reason why the monsters are so scary is precisely because of how many you kill. The ease with which these monsters will kill you shows how dangerous they are, and when you realize how many there are... When I first saw the legions of necromorphs in Dead Space 2 I was reminded of the army ants. Indeed, necromorphs take the most horrible parts of the Amnesia monster and the army ant and fuse them together: they're designed explicitly for killing, and there are so many of them that they overwhelm damn-near anything.
The religion that rises around these creatures - a real religion, not just some blood-drinking cult - is also a part of the terror. Unitology, the Marker, "Make Us Whole"... As the story of the two games unfolds, you realize just how little anyone knows of the true inner workings of Unitology, how little anyone understands the necromorphs' hive mind.
I think that slasher movies have since desensitized most people to the predator-prey concept, so games like Dead Space are dismissed as just jump-scare fests without real scares. However, I believe that if one allows oneself to be immersed in the world of the hunted, to actually experience the isolation and tension of being alone against an endless legion of predators that the game presents so masterfully, one can truly find one of the most rewarding - and chilling - experiences in modern gaming. Likewise, for every jump-scare there are two, three or more subtle occurrences that can be missed if one's eyes aren't open. To me, that's much scarier than an endless barrage of cutscenes that outright order the player to be disturbed. Finding yourself in a living world, one that goes on with or without you, and is falling apart regardless, is to me far more terrifying than being trapped in a world made up of inner demons that would piss themselves at the dark thoughts running through my head when I'm off my meds.
However, they have still managed to put out some decent games. Back when EA let its companies work as they would, we had Westwood Studios blazing the trail for Real-Time Strategy, beginning with the Dune games and graduating up to their grand achievement, Command & Conquer. The first two C&C games, and their Red Alert spinoffs, were fantastic to say the least.
Then EA happened, stripping Westwood apart and implementing all new rules and restrictions that stifled the creative minds of the Nevada team. Frank Klepacki, brilliant games composer who singlehandedly helmed the scores of Command & Conquer, C&C Tiberian Sun, Red Alert AND Red Alert 2, was chased off because he wouldn't sign a new, much more limiting contract. Dozens more developers who helped put EA on the map in the 90s, who made EA at the time a symbol of quality gaming, were ousted and forced to seek employment elsewhere.
Electronic Arts murdered the Ultima series, imposing a stranglehold on the already of-questionable-mentality Richard Garriott, aka Lord British and outright obliterating the eighth and ninth games.
I already did a post about how EA gutted BioWare's creative integrity and the fetid abortion that was Mass Effect 3, so I won't even go into that again.
However, just as rotting corpses can produce new life, so too can EA make something good on that rare occasion - appropriately, with rotting corpses.
Enter Dead Space, the hands-down scariest game I have ever played, and a true joy to experience.
Now, before the horror-game diehards grab their torches and pitchforks, let me explain my above statement. I have experienced the greats of horror, from Silent Hill 2 to Amnesia. None of those scared me. I could speculate on all number of reasons that they didn't, but my best guess is that my own mind is far scarier than any dissonant pseudo-world that those games can create, and the inner demons I've faced during my deepest throes of depression are a thousand times scarier than any lumbering humanoid in those games.
What works in Dead Space, especially for me, is the feeling of direct malevolence. These aren't creatures that just drift around, attacking you only if you get too close. These beasts are out for your blood, and they're built explicitly for that purpose. The monsters are faster and more mobile than you are, so running is out of the question. It's kill or be killed, prey against predator, and that alone is eminently terrifying.
Humanity has spent so long at the top of the food chain that we forget what it's like to be hunted. This is why movies like the original Halloween produced such visceral terror: we get to experience, often for the first time, the feeling of being prey.
In Amnesia you are being hunted as well, but it's a rather "false" hunt, a disingenuous kind of fear. You have no capacity to fight back, so over time the effect changes from, "Holy god I'm gonna die" to, "Ah shit, gotta reload my game."
Giving the player a means by which to fight and even defeat the predators, Dead Space creates a truly animal setting: kill, or be killed. This is different from fighting other humans, because in shooting games like Call of Duty you've done something to incite combat. Against the monsters of Dead Space, your only crime is being food.
Many critics complained that it was too easy to mow down legions of enemies, that it should have been more like Silent Hill. That's fine for survival-horror games, but Dead Space is action-horror, a different breed. In addition, the reason why the monsters are so scary is precisely because of how many you kill. The ease with which these monsters will kill you shows how dangerous they are, and when you realize how many there are... When I first saw the legions of necromorphs in Dead Space 2 I was reminded of the army ants. Indeed, necromorphs take the most horrible parts of the Amnesia monster and the army ant and fuse them together: they're designed explicitly for killing, and there are so many of them that they overwhelm damn-near anything.
The religion that rises around these creatures - a real religion, not just some blood-drinking cult - is also a part of the terror. Unitology, the Marker, "Make Us Whole"... As the story of the two games unfolds, you realize just how little anyone knows of the true inner workings of Unitology, how little anyone understands the necromorphs' hive mind.
I think that slasher movies have since desensitized most people to the predator-prey concept, so games like Dead Space are dismissed as just jump-scare fests without real scares. However, I believe that if one allows oneself to be immersed in the world of the hunted, to actually experience the isolation and tension of being alone against an endless legion of predators that the game presents so masterfully, one can truly find one of the most rewarding - and chilling - experiences in modern gaming. Likewise, for every jump-scare there are two, three or more subtle occurrences that can be missed if one's eyes aren't open. To me, that's much scarier than an endless barrage of cutscenes that outright order the player to be disturbed. Finding yourself in a living world, one that goes on with or without you, and is falling apart regardless, is to me far more terrifying than being trapped in a world made up of inner demons that would piss themselves at the dark thoughts running through my head when I'm off my meds.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Skyrim: A Political Fairy Tale
Allow me to first disclaim this: not only do I not own Skyrim or anything else produced by Bethesda Softworks, I do not claim the thoughts expressed in this post to be the thoughts of the programmers and writers. I am using this to make a point, nothing more.
BTW, SPOILERS
Now, with that out of the way...
The underlying conflict of Skyrim, beneath the dragons, is that the empire is on the brink of death. It faces a foe more powerful, patient and charismatic than itself, and is teetering on the precipice of annihilation. While this is going on, there is simultaneously a civil war occurring in Skyrim between the Nords and the rest of the empire. The Nords believe that they have the obligation to overthrow the Empire of Tamriel, rebuilding it in Skyrim, because the empire was not powerful enough to defeat the Aldmeri Dominion. The Nords - specifically, the Stormcloak rebels - believe that the entire empire deserved death in their defeat and that every day alive is a day of shame.
The civil war's impetus was the Dominion's primary agents, the Thalmor, being permitted to rendition away worshipers of Talos when the Dominion had outlawed the god's worship. Of course, while the empire had agreed to the outlawing, they simply moved all temples indoors and continued worshiping in quiet protest while they built up strength to overthrow the Dominion.
Then, Ulfric Stormcloak happened. Ulfric attacked the city of Markarth, which was at the time being run by the Reachmen instead of the Nords. He slaughtered every Reachman he could find and then began publicly executing every Nord man, woman and child who did not immediately take up arms against the Reachmen when Ulfric sacked the city. Ulfric then publicly demanded that the empire permit worship of Talos once again or he would kill every one of his captives. The empire relented, planning to arrest Ulfric as soon as he released his captives. Unfortunately, the Dominion found out and ordered the empire to allow Thalmor police into Skyrim to seek out sedition or the war would begin anew. The empire, unable to sustain another war without annihilation, relented.
This was the impetus for Ulfric's rebellion: a crisis that he caused, which he then says he can fix. Beyond that, he murdered Skyrim's High King even though the King, Torygg, would have gladly stood beside Ulfric and worked toward change. Ulfric's first goal in the civil war is to obliterate the neutral city of Whiterun, because as he frequently says, "If you're not with us, you're against us."
I genuinely doubt that the good folks at Bethesda intended to make a statement on the American political climate; rather, the theme seems to be to look beyond the surface. At first blush, the empire seems like the bad guys, since your character gets swept up in an Imperial ambush and captured with Ulfric, set to be executed without trial. So you go to meet Ulfric and then learn all this stuff and realize that he's the real bad guy in this civil war.
So it is with our two-party system. Beware the men who ride in on white horses who claim that they can fix all your problems. It's true that Democrats, like the Imperials, are not always right, but they're trying to keep everyone safe despite their failures. The Republicans, like the Stormcloaks, are crusading to end a problem that they created, but blame everyone else for that problem. Just as Conservatives lobbied for America's businesses to collapse, so too did the Stormcloaks wish for their entire populace to be slaughtered and enslaved rather than a surrender reached.
The Stormcloaks argued for religion when religion was never truly threatened, yet they created the very crisis against which they now campaign. Likewise, somehow the Republicans have turned this into a war on religion when no one is trying to take away religion. Conservatives have constructed their own Thalmor in their mind, some sort of secret thought police to prevent Christianity from being practiced. All the while, of course, they act to harm and outright destroy those of our populace who hold differing ideals.
Speaking of differing ideals, the Stormcloaks embody and frequently state that, "You're with us or you're against us." There is no chance for peace, no opportunity for diplomacy or reconciliation of ideals. Either you fall into lockstep or you are the embodiment of all evil and need to be purged from the earth. Does that sound familiar? The Republican-dominated Congress has been completely obstructionist, doing nothing to help the American people unless we cater entirely to their demands, at which point they MIGHT be convinced to throw us a bone of a job-creation bill or some other protection, but more than likely we won't get anything because we're not "true Americans" and thus are undeserving of any care or aid, just as the Stormcloaks refuse to aid anyone who isn't a "true son or daughter of Skyrim."
The Stormcloaks fight to chase all the other races out of Skyrim. From their own descendants - Breton, Redguard and Imperial - to the elves who have never done anything to harm Skyrim. Ulfric's father opened the gates of his city to the dark elves, since thousands of Dunmer were left homeless and destitute after natural disasters in their province. Ulfric's father was a font of charity and goodness. Ulfric segregated his city of Windhelm the moment he inherited the throne, turning the Dunmer into second-class citizens. Anyone who is not a Nord is presumed to be a seditious traitor until proven otherwise; non-Nords are often beaten, murdered, or kidnapped and tortured.
Do I even need to continue to draw parallels to the Republican party? George Romney was a man of integrity who lost his party's presidential primary because he would not stoop to the seditious and evil demands of the radical Right. Now his son stands for everything that George did not. Willard Romney upholds the principles of separation, inequality and privilege for only the few.
What I find truly amazing is that I still don't believe that Bethesda was out to convey a political message. I think they were just trying to envision the most deceitful, semi-believable militant bigots possible and put them into the game as the objective "bad" side, yet not defined as such by everyone. I'm certain that the writers for the Elder Scrolls series were just as surprised as I am that the Republican party has come to embody every evil of the Stormcloak party, from their leader to their principles.
However, just as in the game, striking down Ulfric and breaking apart his treasonous slaughter of fellow citizens is not the end of the troubles, and neither will a defeat of the Republican party in November be a full-stop win for America. However, without people trying to kill their fellow Americans, denying medical care and employment to people for not having been born into some arbitrary group, we can perhaps start to rebuild what we have lost.
Our own real-world Thalmor and Alduin the World-Eater may hover above us in the form of global economic damage and political upheaval, but if we can stand as one people we have a far better chance of surviving the onslaught than if we remain in conflict or slaughter/disenfranchise anyone outside of the Republicans' narrow definition of a True American.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Soapbox
Civil rights issues are like a bad pimple. They fill up with more and more pus and vitriol until finally it rises to a head and bursts. The Greensboro Four were one example, taking a stand against unspoken civil injustice. In that case, Woolworth's was the first battleground in that war for equality.
Now we face a new war for equality, and again it is an eating establishment that is at the forefront. However, this controversy has exposed more than simply a battle for equal rights based on sexuality; it has exposed an ongoing battle against rational thought and equal protection under law for all citizens of this nation.
Time and again I have heard Republicans insult gays and Liberals, calling them hypocrites for exercising their own right to freedom of speech. They parade the mayors of Chicago and Boston up and down, ignoring the many civil cases in the South where people are fired based on their political leanings.
Emmanuel Kant codified his categorical imperative after the Christian "golden rule": do unto others as you would have done unto you. In Kant's case, the entirety of his primary philosophical conceit was that morality is universal. If you wouldn't want someone else cheating on a test, or stealing from you, or murdering you, you shouldn't steal or cheat or murder. Other people's leanings were irrelevant. For example, the categorical imperative did not say that you were allowed to stop other people from eating foods they liked just because you don't like them, because you wouldn't want somebody stopping you from eating the food you like, right?
This applies not only to marriage equality but to this nation as a whole. Conservatives think that the law should apply only to them. When the government tries to create jobs it's a handout, yet when a business receives hefty governmental aid it's capitalism at its finest.
When Conservatives boycott stores or campaign to strip citizens of their rights, that's supposed to be protected under law. When Liberals boycott stores and campaign to ensure equal rights for all, somehow that's unconstitutional.
This, I believe, is the greatest issue facing Americans today: the idea that one way of thinking is the only true way, that only one group of people are allowed to get away with amoral and blatantly evil actions while the rest of us are supposed to abide by law.
It can be seen in other arenas besides the civil rights debate: Harry Reid has recently called out Mitt Romney, citing a currently anonymous source within Bain Capital that Romney has paid no federal taxes for at least a decade. Romney fired back at Reid to "put up or shut up," saying that he has paid taxes and that America should trust him.
Trust him, really? When Romney campaigned for Massachusetts he not only demanded that his opponent show her tax returns - which she did - but also her husband's tax returns, on the grounds that there could be fraud. Meanwhile neither Willard nor Ann Romney released any of their tax returns.
Conservatives panic whenever a church is discredited, riot if a church's rights are threatened, and decry any pedophiles or other criminals within the Church as not representative of the entirety of the Church. Yet when a Jew or Muslim steps anywhere out of line it is somehow evidence that their entire religion is corrupt and evil.
A wise pastor once said that we cannot categorically define good and evil, that God and Satan are abstract ideals and we cannot simply look at a person's actions to know their heart. While I agree, I do believe that right and wrong - on a moralistic level - are nowhere near so abstract. Certainly one can do the right things for the wrong reasons and vice versa, but determining the merit of an action is much easier than determining the morals of a person.
In this case, with blatant hypocrisy and the insistence that they don't have to abide by their own laws, principles and talking points, Conservatives are certainly proving that, while we might not be able to judge their souls, their actions are certainly heavily slanted toward the Dark Side.
Now we face a new war for equality, and again it is an eating establishment that is at the forefront. However, this controversy has exposed more than simply a battle for equal rights based on sexuality; it has exposed an ongoing battle against rational thought and equal protection under law for all citizens of this nation.
Time and again I have heard Republicans insult gays and Liberals, calling them hypocrites for exercising their own right to freedom of speech. They parade the mayors of Chicago and Boston up and down, ignoring the many civil cases in the South where people are fired based on their political leanings.
Emmanuel Kant codified his categorical imperative after the Christian "golden rule": do unto others as you would have done unto you. In Kant's case, the entirety of his primary philosophical conceit was that morality is universal. If you wouldn't want someone else cheating on a test, or stealing from you, or murdering you, you shouldn't steal or cheat or murder. Other people's leanings were irrelevant. For example, the categorical imperative did not say that you were allowed to stop other people from eating foods they liked just because you don't like them, because you wouldn't want somebody stopping you from eating the food you like, right?
This applies not only to marriage equality but to this nation as a whole. Conservatives think that the law should apply only to them. When the government tries to create jobs it's a handout, yet when a business receives hefty governmental aid it's capitalism at its finest.
When Conservatives boycott stores or campaign to strip citizens of their rights, that's supposed to be protected under law. When Liberals boycott stores and campaign to ensure equal rights for all, somehow that's unconstitutional.
This, I believe, is the greatest issue facing Americans today: the idea that one way of thinking is the only true way, that only one group of people are allowed to get away with amoral and blatantly evil actions while the rest of us are supposed to abide by law.
It can be seen in other arenas besides the civil rights debate: Harry Reid has recently called out Mitt Romney, citing a currently anonymous source within Bain Capital that Romney has paid no federal taxes for at least a decade. Romney fired back at Reid to "put up or shut up," saying that he has paid taxes and that America should trust him.
Trust him, really? When Romney campaigned for Massachusetts he not only demanded that his opponent show her tax returns - which she did - but also her husband's tax returns, on the grounds that there could be fraud. Meanwhile neither Willard nor Ann Romney released any of their tax returns.
Conservatives panic whenever a church is discredited, riot if a church's rights are threatened, and decry any pedophiles or other criminals within the Church as not representative of the entirety of the Church. Yet when a Jew or Muslim steps anywhere out of line it is somehow evidence that their entire religion is corrupt and evil.
A wise pastor once said that we cannot categorically define good and evil, that God and Satan are abstract ideals and we cannot simply look at a person's actions to know their heart. While I agree, I do believe that right and wrong - on a moralistic level - are nowhere near so abstract. Certainly one can do the right things for the wrong reasons and vice versa, but determining the merit of an action is much easier than determining the morals of a person.
In this case, with blatant hypocrisy and the insistence that they don't have to abide by their own laws, principles and talking points, Conservatives are certainly proving that, while we might not be able to judge their souls, their actions are certainly heavily slanted toward the Dark Side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)