As we’ve come to expect from Revolution, the episode zipped right along. We’ve already had some of our questions answered even while some other questions are now on the table. So far this season, we are splitting our action into three distinct storylines – which will, no doubt, end with the three coming together in some spectacular fashion. For now, however, we have what’s happening with Charlie (Tracey Spiridakos) somewhere in the Plains Nation; the Nevilles in Savannah; and Rachel (Elizabeth Mitchell), Aaron (Zak Orth) and Miles (Billy Burke) in Texas, though admittedly the Texas storyline is also split up.
The episode picks up with Aaron gasping for breath. He is understandably freaked out by being brought back to life. I loved the dialogue between he and Rachel though when she asks how he is: “A little dehydrated and hungry for brains.” Nice zombie reference! Rachel and Aaron agree that it must have been the nanotech that brought him back to life. Rachel, interestingly, is far less freaked out by the turn of events. Does she know something that she’s not sharing? However, given Aaron’s flashback to Ben’s death and Ben repeating fervently that “Aaron, you’re the one,” I get the feeling there has to be more going on here. Did the nanotech heal Aaron because he’s the “one”? Cynthia clearly sees Aaron as a miracle who has been resurrected. Cynthia (Jessica Collins) and Gene (Stephen Collins) tell the pastor about Aaron’s recover, and Aaron is not happy about being singled out by the pastor. He also obviously has no use for or belief in religion. Orth does a fantastic job playing Aaron. It would be easy to let him become a simple caricature or play him for comic relief, but he infuses the character with humanity and humour. I loved that the story he told to his students was the plot of Ghostbusters!
Cynthia’s beliefs provide a counter balance to Aaron. Interestingly, Aaron calls her Cyn (sin?) as a short form. She asks him not to treat her like a wack-job for her beliefs. Aaron obviously trusts her because he ultimately tells her the truth. And we get to see via flashback that the bombs dropped because the computer mysteriously crashed just as Aaron was about to stop the bombs. Right after the bombs dropped, Neville bursts in with the troops, the power goes out, and the computers explode...
Rachel manages to launch a rescue for Miles. She’s unable to muster anyone to help her, until Gene finally relents and brings two others to help her get Miles back. I’m really liking what Collins is bringing to the show. His character is pragmatic but sensible. He loves his daughter yet isn’t blinded by her shortcomings, and he knows when he’s lost the battle with her. I’m very much enjoying Collins’ portrayal so far.
I was really disappointed that we lost Adam Beach’s character within the first few minutes of the episode. However, Mason’s explanation for why he became sheriff was classic. Mason became a sheriff because his father had told him about a great Texas Ranger from Dallas/Fort Worth called Walker – which of course, is based on the Chuck Norris tv show! Miles keeps a straight face as he tells Mason that Walker’s “legend is known far and wide.” Miles almost escapes but he can’t leave another prisoner behind and gets recaptured, but not before taking out a number of Andover’s men in a great fight sequence. The scenes with Andover (Matt Ross) are incredibly creepy – even Miles finds the guy creepy! Andover was apparently about to be arrested for child pornography when the power went out. The police were on their way to the Jessop Academy for Boys where Andover was headmaster. The power going out meant that the evidence on his computer was destroyed and he wasn’t arrested. It also meant that all the boys under his “care” were stranded away from their parents. Miles describes it as Lord of the Flies – another great pop culture reference. In another reference to God, tying this storyline to Aaron’s, Andover saw the blackout itself as a message from God “to be free and to do whatever he wants.” Andover breaks Miles’ right hand to prevent him from fighting – I’m really hoping the nanotech will heal him too! Or at least that he’s ambidextrous! Miles wants to know why Andover is so far south, but he never gives us an answer to that question... Meanwhile, in the final scene, we get to see what’s behind the red door. Andover has a woman who he’s giving blood transfusions to. Mason clearly wasn’t a compatible blood donor while Miles is. Perhaps the nanotech will miraculously cure her? This final wrinkle really had me identifying Andover with the Governor on The Walking Dead – anyone else feel that vibe?
In an interesting twist, we see Garrett (Jason Douglas), one of Andover’s guards, sending an encrypted message to Allenford (Nicole Ari Parker). He uses a wax seal depicting the all-seeing or illuminated eye of Masonic lore. The eye has a long history and is also referred to as Lucifer’s eye. The symbol of the eye hovers over the Great Pyramid on US currency. It symbolizes an unfinished situation. Furthermore, Lucifer does not wish to see the pyramid completed and this symbolizes the a new reign of man and global dictatorship. Lucifer’s eye is also a reminder that people are actually responsible for the bad things that happen to them and that God is not responsible. This discussion ties nicely back to Aaron, who clearly doesn’t believe in God and Andover who does. The symbol may also provide some good hints to what is actually going on with the returning US government.
Tom, of course, provides some excellent insights as a political strategist himself. Esposito’s very first appearance in the episode was fantastic. Kudos to Sgriccia for being patient and capturing that entire long-ish sequence as Tom goes from being a friendly drunk to being the sharp strategist – his face and indeed his entire posture change during the transformation. Last week, I thought we had seen the last of our duplicitous villain, as he told us what he was about to do. But this week it’s harder to say who was more surprised, Jason (JD Pardo), Jason’s friend, Allenford, or me when Tom shot Jason’s friend instead of Allenford! Tom, of course, is on to them. He finds out that before the blackout, Allenford worked for the DOD, and he’s sure she knew Randall (Colm Feore). Tom’s convinced that they were in on dropping the bombs. As he tells Jason, “Create a problem; provide the solution.” And that’s exactly what Tom proceeds to do – he creates a security problem and then provides the solution. Allenford, to her credit, doesn’t immediately trust “Edgar” when he tells her he used to be an American and he’d like to be one again. Allenford responds that she’ll have to keep an eye on him.
Meanwhile, we see how far the US threads have infiltrated the continent already when Charlie is captured as she is about to shoot the captive Monroe (David Lyons). Adam (Patrick Heusinger) tells her he’s bringing Monroe in alive to collect the bounty on him put up by the US government. I’m already liking Adam because of his smart mouth and its ready supply of “Kripke-sims” like “asshat” and “cram it douche.” In addition, he’s got great fighting skills and the fight with Adam, Monroe, and Charlie was great. Lyons, of course, delivers his usual solid performance and I’m really looking forward to seeing where they take his character this season. His scene with Charlie is terrific when he is so clearly torn up with remorse over the bombs having been dropped. Realistically, he was powerless to have stopped them – one way or another Randall was going to find a way to launch those bombs – but Monroe has internalized that guilt. I’m very much going to enjoy his redemption arc.
So much to love about this episode – and the reason for this somewhat lengthy review! Any thoughts on what is killing the rats? And wasn’t that a creepy scene? Especially the sound effects of them crunching over their bones – EW! Did you like this second episode? What do you think Andover is up to? Is Neville fooling Allenford? Is it the nanotech or God or a combination responsible for Aaron? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Very, very important question. Can someone tell me from which episode the two pictures in this article that show Miles and Charlie in a field, were taken from? 'Cause I've watched both new episodes and I honestly have seen no such scene! There are other pictures that show a catatonic Rachel with Miles and Aaron next to her, as well as another one that shows Charlie waking in the field with Papa Neville a few meters back coming to as well. Has this scene not been shown yet? And if yes, why is that pictures of it are feautered in every review of this episode(that I have read) and are also stated to be screenshots of this episode in IMDB? Please someone help.
ReplyDeleteThose are Promotional Photos, not necessarily ones that you would actually see in a scene. They appear to be photos taken during the scene where they wake up after coming from the Tower when they did not realise how they got there.
ReplyDeleteThey were from a scene that was cut from the episode. It may turn up in the next episode. And as +DarkUFO stated the scene is when they wake up after the scene in which the computers explode.
ReplyDeleteThank you! :)
ReplyDeleteThanks! :D
ReplyDeleteVery welcome! I thought it was really odd/funny that all the promo shots were from a cut/moved scene!
ReplyDeleteGreat review. Thank-you for the detail and insight. I also enjoyed the episode for the most part.
ReplyDeletePros:
1) Aaron taking on miracle man status with Cynthia and the pastor will be very interesting to follow.
2) Gene is an excellent balance of calm and pragmatism. He's a really good addition to the narrative.
3) Matt Ross is amazingly creeptastic as Andover. His inevitable demise will be very satisfying.
4) The interwoven conspiracy with the Patriots that seems to be touching all of the other story narratives looks interesting and will hopefully be very satisfying.
Cons:
1) Just when it looked like Aaron was finally growing a pair by jumping to Cynthia's defense last episode without hesitation and literally dying as a result... he goes back to being a total wuss when talking to Rachel: "whats happening to me (boo hoo)"
2) I liked the dry humor with the Walker Texas Ranger gag as much as the next guy. Or at least what they were attempting. But Adam Beach is 40 years old and looks it. If the blackout happened roughly 16 years ago he would have been old enough to know who Walker Texas Ranger was.
3) How useless is Jason? Because he's not doing anything now and his Romeo and Juliet story line from last season wasn't compelling either.
4) Allenford and the Patriots landing....BORRRRINGGG....and unfortunately by extension Neville's storyline.
5) Charlie and Munroe... sorry... could care less.
Again great work on the review!
Thanks! I have to admit, I thought the same thing about Beach! But then, I don't think we were supposed to get the impression that he was the sharpest knife in the drawer, either. Yeah. I keep thinking that Jason should grow a pair - but he has zero storyline - I wonder if he's the next of our intrepid heroes to die? He's not even in the poster art this season - I think I'd be worried if I were him...
ReplyDeleteFantastic episode,this season is way much better then the first one!Just hope there will be season 3!
ReplyDeleteGood review. I really like the links you draw between different elements of the episode--notably the religious overtones. This show is, so far, better than it was last season; let's hope that continues!
ReplyDeletei think thye will be shown in next episode
ReplyDeleteGrace was in the Tower with Rachel etc. In Supernatural, the brothers literally and explicitly go to Heaven and Hell and the theme of destiny vs free will is a huge theme in season five. I'm quite sure that the nanotech has been super-charged in some way by either the power surge at the Tower or by the nuclear blasts...
ReplyDeleteOh! I have not seen the deleted scenes! Thanks :)
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that I think Abrams and Kripke are philosophically deep thinkers. My point with the SS was that a historical rubric exists that could be useful in guiding them to interesting comparisons between the neo-fundamentalist Christian Movements and their links to political power in the United States. Our culture is moving towards the same sort of issues that faced the German Weimar Republic in the late 1920's and early 1930's. That to me would be an interesting issue to tackle.
ReplyDeleteMy primary point was that the reviewer of this episode seemed only quote conspiracy theories about Freemasonry. I not a Freemason, but I think it is important to always have your facts straight. And that if the reviewer knew more about history she could have linked the Patriots to more interesting historical allusions like the SS under Himler. Or even the Oprichnik of Ivan IV's creation in the later part of 1560's early 1570's. The Oprichnik were an organization similar to the SS are they had some seriously radical ways of dealing with traitors. Some have put forth the idea that they were borderline Warrior-Monks like the Templars but that doesn't seem to be case. They merely used Monastic Grab to inspire fear and terror in their enemies. Symbolism is a power psychological tool in the right hands.
You see I disagree. You would have to be historically and/or philosophically inclined in order to use it to guide you. There for even if the subject matter isn't specifically explored, it's still explored in a subtle way with other ideas, which adds layers and challenge various principals and/or beliefs, which you address with your final sentence
ReplyDelete"They merely used Monastic Grab to inspire fear and terror in their enemies. Symbolism is a power psychological tool in the right hands."
I'm worried for Jason too, unless we see him break from Tom at some point. I know it's meant to be a slow burn, but if Adam would be Monroe's son, they definitely have an interesting dynamic between Charlie and both of them, which could set Jason apart depending on how the season ends with Adam and Monroe and either how alike they turn out to be or what vendetta they could have for each other. I do recall JD Prado commenting that this is the season for his character to grow and figure out whom he really is (for whatever that's worth!)
ReplyDeleteThe reviewer does this part time for a number of shows. I have only so much time to review each show that I write about. There is plenty of support out there for the material that I choose to include according to what the majority of my readers may find interesting. You have your opinion and I thank you for sharing it. I always welcome insights into other ways of looking at things. That doesn't mean those other insights are necessarily more accurate. History has a funny way of polarizing people to believe one thing or another. I have a number of facets of a show that I have to talk about in a very limited space and a very limited time window. In future, I will always welcome additional insights, but I would ask you to refrain from calling me "foolish" etc.
ReplyDeleteI've been avoiding spoilers (silly, I know on this site! LOL!)... do we know for sure that Adam is Monroe's son? That would be a little on the nose for him to be the bounty hunter sent after him.... but very interesting! And fingers crossed for Pardo - his survival may depend on the popularity of Heusinger...
ReplyDeleteNo. They did not make any reveal as to whom it is, just that we will meet him and that it will be a slow burn. There is one other character that I know of coming up that we haven't met (and I don't think he has been publicly cast yet, that could be another possibility)
ReplyDeleteBut with Adam they could easily turn around and kill him, as he could easily be a red hearing...
I'm talking about a logical argument. Such as the claim x is such and such because of proof y. That is what I'm talking about. And you clearly are putting forwards claims and proofs for an inductive argument. Also you have put forth simple testable factual claims. Some are simple identity arguments of the sort that x is equal to y. Those are easy to dispute if x doesn't actually equal y. Now, we can get into all sorts of ontological or epistemological issues about what is really identity. However, for our purposes I feel that we can agree that a simple test is all that is needed-- do persons using x equate it with y in normal everyday language.
ReplyDeleteI'm not being discourtesy to you. I'm just telling you the facts of where I come from and how I write. I think a free and open debate is the last thing you really want.
I never said I had a specific knowledge of circumstances/history of which you speak, but the idea to "inspire fear and terror" is not exclusive to German History or Philosophy, nor is the idea of occult movements. Psychology is what drives us, as in LOST it was used in an unique way in terms of John Locke expressing the need to "properly motivate" which was contrasted by the smoke monster astral projecting "memory" and often terrorizing the characters, which considering Eastern Philosophy was also highlighted, might suggest smoke monster was not evil, but rather a drive and part of the Island that would in theory motivate others and force them to confront their fears as apart of their spiritual progressions...
ReplyDeleteTime has everything to do with it. This is a review, not a collage essay. If she happens to mention something, which in her defense has been referenced and associated to the same claims via other TV shows, despite that it may be a false representation or definition, one can not expect a reviewer to have expert knowledge on every possible relatable subject. -If one does not have the time to go deeper, then one can not know possible mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThe Eye of Providence does have an association with Allegiances to Lucifer and/or The All Seeing Eye of God. Both cases argue great conspiracy theories in relation to how societies are build and the belief in divine power.
The problem with this basic argument you're putting forth is two fold: one, you're appealing to the composition fallacy and secondly the appeal to ignorance. While it is true that conspiracy theorists might in fact claim x to be related to event y-- the causal relationship will be false, thereby making the entire argument false. So, a perfect example is the History Channel's Pseudo-Historical show "Ancient Aliens". They take some true element of history like the building of the Pyramids in Gaza and then spin around that fact a entirely false argument for some wiz-bang theory they've created. Now, if you accept that the entire theory by Ancient Aliens experts is true because one or two small parts of it rely on a true premises , but ultimately they add enough false premises to end up a false conclusion. One then must deem the entire inductive argument false. So, right here you are correct plenty of Television series, Movies, Books, Films and even Pseudo Documentaries have been created displaying all sorts of theories. Some of these theories have partial truths in them which are then corrupted by false premises and false conclusions. Like this website here: http://watchman33.com/2009/05/08/the-lucifer-project-raising-antichrist-part-vi/
ReplyDeleteAs for the appeal to ignorance. Well you basically claim that a person cannot be held responsible for making false claims. That seems a bit odd to me. It is like saying if I said in a review "that Americans went into WWII to save the Jews in Europe from being exterminated by the Nazis" everyone should know I'm mistaken in my factual claim of our reasons to go to war with German in WWII. And I would hope people would not sit by idly and say "oh well this poor author of the review just didn't have the time to do proper research into the subject matter at hand". I myself should not put forth any factual claims I'm 100% positive of their sources and two people should me the author out on any of my claims of a dubious nature. It is the only we can an intellectually honest conversation going on. This is not a matter of the subject matter being a college easy or blog-- it has to do with integrity of information that needs to be maintained especially now that internet has so completely permeated our everyday life.
My point is simply that you can use some element of a theory or practice without having any major ties to the ontological or even epistemological claims of the theory. For example you don't have to believe in the theory of relativity's major claim that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared to see that when some mass goes through a fission or fusion reaction it releases energy. So, the fact that you don't believe in the entire theory of relativity or some parts of doesn't mean you cannot use theory like an instrument or tool to make predictions and calculations until something better comes along. The same is true for any belief system you can exploit features of it without ever having to make any commitment to it greater than what is needed to exploit the features you want to.
ReplyDeleteAh, but we're all doomed to ignorance since humanity is most certainly flawed and does not have all the answers. What is fact today can easily become a partial truth tomorrow or in a hundred years.
ReplyDeleteAnd again she never made an a real argument only offered speculation based on a reference to the best of her knowlege, as again this isn't an argumentation paper, this is a review where she kindly suggested her thoughts and ideas.
Even though I can respect your ideals towards information integrity, to launch these campaigns on opinion articles about things that pertain to a fictionalized universe seems a bit of an overkill and/or a little fruitless. It's not that you shouldn't add your two cents to the article or the subject matter, but you are going about it in a rather insulting way by not just simply sharing the information you would like to add, but instead make it a personal attack on her.
These statements in this paragraph are factual claims and can all be tested:
ReplyDelete"In an interesting twist, we see Garrett (Jason Douglas), one of
Andover’s guards, sending an encrypted message to Allenford (Nicole Ari
Parker). He uses a wax seal depicting the all-seeing or illuminated eye
of Masonic lore. The eye has a long history and is also referred to as
Lucifer’s eye. The symbol of the eye hovers over the Great Pyramid on US
currency. It symbolizes an unfinished situation. Furthermore, Lucifer
does not wish to see the pyramid completed and this symbolizes the a new
reign of man and global dictatorship. Lucifer’s eye is also a reminder
that people are actually responsible for the bad things that happen to
them and that God is not responsible. [This discussion ties nicely back
to Aaron, who clearly doesn’t believe in God and Andover who does. The
symbol may also provide some good hints to what is actually going on
with the returning US government.omitting this last statement.]"
See we test these statements simply by finding the proper resources. That is all it takes. That was my point that if you put in truth claims such as these into your review about some thing even a fictionalized universe you have to have the proper facts. Or, if you want to use fringe theories to support a certain type of reading of the material on hand that is okay too. The best way to do it is to simply state that these theories are consider: fringe, controversial, or conspiracy based theories. Otherwise you run the risk of trying to make such theories seem more legitimate then they really are. As I've stated before I'm fine with. However, you need to note that these readings of the material while pertaining to the fictional universe of "Revolution" are not in fact the standard accepted views by most credible sources. That allows the audience to know that these perspectives are valid for the reading the author of the review is giving, but are not to be read as clear cut facts about the source material itself.
When, I was doing my graduate work and teaching an intermediate course in symbolic logic to mostly Sophomores and Juniors-- they would use Dan Brown's Novels as support of the logical arguments we would diagram in class. And I have to thank Dan Brown some day because he made diagramming a logical argument fun for a lot of students. But, his pseudo-historical fiction was all to often taken as being real factual history on the topics he wrote about. So, conversely speaking for me to teach the class I had to actually research the real meanings and accepted concepts by academics on Freemasonry and the like so I could show the fact from the fiction.
I'm not personally attacking anyone. I'm attacking the argument. I urged the reviewer to not make a foolish mistake and take Dan Brown, Alex Jones or any other such person as being a credible source of information on these topics. I also cautioned against the use of controversial theories as fact because they put you into area of being in the fringe. And then I refuted elements of the argument given. That is all. And I lamented the fact that the author didn't see the clear cut indications that the New US Government were probably pushing hard into the "SS" model of Secret Society Occult following belief systems. See, this why I don't usually do this but, sickness and boredom will get the best of you every time.
Yes and if you type in The all seeing Eye into your google search engine, you will find evidence to support her claims. If you dis value her insights, then perhaps you shouldn't read them.
ReplyDeleteAnd about your claims: The show's aesthetic offers and array of clothes and military weapons that spans from various vintage military to more ancient/colonial military and even a touch of Medieval Forest People . WII is only featured in Neville's coat and maybe some guns, So to say that this is specifically based on German history is actually less probable than the general idea the Eye of Providence has with various conspiracy theories through out the history of the world.
Actually SPOILER AHEAD
Truman is the name of the Patriot's President, which plays to a twist on former President Truman, which know doubt will promote a new, "new deal". If the character is cast to appear German, then your claims will have more substance, but until then, you're just theorizing just like the rest of us.
Your first point: "...you find evidence to support her claims", This is true. I can find evidence to support lots of claims on the internet. I can find a claim and supporting evidence that would support my belief that UFO crash landed in Roswell in 1947. I can find tons of supporting evidence for that. Now, here is the big question are these supposed items or claims that supposedly count as either indirect or direct evidence of Roswell in fact true? No. As of today we have never had any direct or indirect evidence of a crash landing in Roswell in 1947. That is a fact. Now, whatever you wish to make up about the ever changing story of the US Military's changing story is a different story altogether. That is where the conspiracy theorist lives in the shadows of real evidence indirectly or directly proving one's point. That's the problem with internet. It has no censor or ability to be censored so any information on it can be made to appear as factual and accurate. That is my point about the author's statements. I have no problem with the actual statements that the writer has made. I have only had problems with the implied truthfulness of her claims as facts.
ReplyDeleteYou've created a strawman argument here: "The show's aesthetic offers and array of clothes and military weapons
that spans from various vintage military to more ancient/colonial
military and even a touch of Medieval Forest People ." This is not a fair assessment of my actual claims. My actual claims have always been that if the show wants to go into the "highly occult and murderous regime of a semi-secret nature" then the best model to follow would be the Schultzstaffel or SS of Nazis Germany. I understand the reasons why the writers have used the Freemasons' and their symbols in the story, they are in fact the most common in the US and thanks to popular media they already have an already built in audience understanding that SS might not have in modern US culture. I never made any aesthetic claims or philosophical claims-- I merely stated that best exemplar of this society they wish to show would be in fact the one that Himmler was suggesting the Germans would become under Nazism. That is all. It was a rough outline of how to proceed. Not a prediction or claim of what they were doing in any way at all.
Now, for your spoiler. I hate to have to correct you, but, Harry S. Truman was not part of the New Deal Roosevelt Era political machine. Roosevelt only spoke to Truman twice in their 82 day long period as President and Vice-President. They also only spoke of immaterial matters: i.e. Truman had no clue about The Manhattan Project or the possibilities of what exactly the US was facing during the rest of WWII. He was basically frozen out of all major political concerns. This was due to the fact that Truman was only selected to be VP because Roosevelt was already dying and he needed a more conservative running mate who wouldn't scare conservative Southern Democratic Voters. No one thought that Roosevelt could win with then VP Wallace if people knew how likely it was that Roosevelt would die. This was because Wallace was far left of even the New Deal and that was considered a deal breaker in the Deep South.
Yeah, it's clear how much you hate to correct people.
ReplyDeleteI really don't.
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Nothing could be more obvious. You must hate it or you wouldn't pound out something like ten times the verbiage than was used in one paragraph of passing commentary on a single element of the show in your reluctant corrections. (Maybe it's not ten times the verbiage. Maybe it's only eight--or fifteen. But no doubt, hateful as you will find doing so, you will be sure to correct me if I am wrong. It is an easy fact to check, after all, and it is most terribly remiss of me simply to spitball it.)
ReplyDeleteI only use the amount of verbiage, I feel necessary to cogently express my argument. It that imeans a three world sentence or a four paragraph response that is the response I give. What I cannot figure out is why does the format change so much when one cuts and pastes.
ReplyDeleteUh hunh. Well, I'm afraid that I must say that your protestations do not seem to me to pass the plausibility test. If you hate to correct people and merely wish to correct factual errors, there are far more efficient and far more friendly ways to do so. Who writes a long and involved response--rivalling the length of an entire review--to correct errors that occur in one paragraph in that review? A reluctant corrector of errors, or an arrogant blowhard? Who engages in rhetoric like "The only people that make this statement, 'is also referred to as Lucifer’s eye', as you have, are people who see conspiracies everywhere" or "I don’t know where the author of this review got this idea about the so-called 'new world order' connection unless she is a devotee of Alex Jones or actually foolish enough to believe that Dan Brown is a credible historian" or "You might want to do some research on the Freemasons before you start spouting off some really nutty stuff like this—or maybe you want to turn your reviews into an episode of History’s Decoded???" (I especially like the three question marks), a reluctant corrector of errors, or an arrogant blowhard ? These are ad hominem attacks and suggest that you have inferred motivations based on very little evidence. LOTS of pople who aren't conspiracy thoerists might well say these things, simply by virtue of being misinformed, rather than because they are consipiracy theorists, but you conclude that "the only people" who do--"as you [the reviewer] have" are conspiracy theorists. This is not a correction of a factual error but an assignment of motive and indeed a rather odious criticism of someone prodcing a popular-oriented review within hours of a program's broadcast, for a fan site, not someone producing a dissertation on Freemasonry. How many. Indeed, the implications of the three passages I've cited above are at best condescending and probably more akin to rudeness.
ReplyDeleteNow, how might a reluctant factualist, eager for accuracy but a hater of correcting people (as opposed to, oh, let's say, an arrogant blowhard), approach a situation like this? By accusing the writer of being a foolish (indeed, nutty) conspiracy theorist? Or perhaps, just perhaps, by saying something like, "Though I appreciate seeing you comment on the symbolic associations of the 'Eye of Providence' in your review, I wanted to point out that you have relied on some faulty information in making your points. The Eye of Providence, as it is called, rather than 'The Iluminated Eye,' is etc etc."
but, hey, if all you did was THAT, you'd simply be politely correcting factual errors, not tearing down somebody else in order to show off your superior knowledge--sort of like an arrogant blowhard might do.
Thank God. A diversion. And no sooner could it have come-- pain killers are wearing off.
ReplyDeleteI am as reluctant of correcting people as Nietzsche was in his work " Beyond Good and Evil". The statements you take to be ad hominem attacks are not in fact ad hominem at all. For example you take this sentence: " 'is also referred to as Lucifer’s eye', as you have, are people who see conspiracies everywhere"; that is in fact correct would be as if I said the only people who exhibit this belief x are in fact members of some specific belief system y. That is perfectly acceptable to make that claim. Now, if a person does not believe in the veracity of belief-claim x then they should make it clear they are only reporting that such and such a belief exists in the world. This author did not do that. Take a closer look at this section of her factual claims about the "The All-Seeing Eye":
"The symbol of the eye hovers over the Great Pyramid on US currency. It
symbolizes an unfinished situation. Furthermore, Lucifer does not wish
to see the pyramid completed and this symbolizes the a new reign of man
and global dictatorship. Lucifer’s eye is also a reminder that people
are actually responsible for the bad things that happen to them and that
God is not responsible."
See, this is a series of factual claims. It is not clear that author herself of the review doesn't believe in them. I merely made it clear that if you believe in these statements you usually fall into two categories: one a conspiracy theorist of some sort or merely not educated enough to know the difference between Dan Brown's history killing fiction. Hence, my question " I don’t know where the author of this review got this idea about the so-called“new world order” connection unless she is a devotee of Alex Jones or actually
foolish enough to believe that Dan Brown is a credible historian?" Notice how I use two standard features of a question posit the position that I myself do not know where some belief comes from and then I posit a possible range of belief systems to account for it. However, I have no way of knowing exactly what the cause of this issues without further knowledge of the reviewer. So, I figured I would leave it as an open ended question.
So, while I can see why you might want to believe these are ad hominem in nature they are not. I merely posit potential reasons for why some one could have such misguided beliefs about the some subject. That is not an ad hominem attack at all. Can it be considered condescending? Yes. Was this far less abrasive than what I had originally written? Yes. So, I would call it pretty much the middle of the road for me.
I see that your response is far from terse? So, I have to ask do you suffer from a case of "Arrogant Blowhardism" as well? I hear they have self-help groups for this social deficiency-- I myself see no reason to change-- but, perhaps you are more progressive than I?
Well, first of if you were born in the Netherlands and you spoke Dutch as my parents and I do... Then you would realize that Koos is my first name. So how anonymous is that? I was actually named after a famous General in the Second Boer War... But, that is not important.
ReplyDeleteActually, again I didn't exactly say what you said. I said if x demonstrates belief system y then it is a member of group z. That is a perfectly valid. It is called a Turing Test. And that is exactly what basically have in this review with these factual claims. Then it is fair to say that person x demonstrating belief system y is a member of group z. A perfect example would be if I saw a person saluting a Nazis Blood Flag, it would be safe to say that he or she is a member of the Nazis Party. (That is if we exist in a time and place where to do cannot be attributed to direct or indirect external pressure. The example would be if you saw this person in downtown NYC in the year 2013. Now, in Berlin 1933-1945 the mere outward appearance of actions does not mean one is in fact a true Nazis.)
I was sort of hoping you would pick the real chink in the argument. Sadly, you didn't.
If we want to be accurate, the sin against logic I committed, was in fact the sin of "false dichotomy". When, I sarcastically gave the author only two choices: a devotee of Alex Jones or foolish enough to believe in the credibility of Dan Brown's Historical Accounts-- that was a false dichotomy. A simple third option exists- one could be reporting a fact. However, it isn't really even clear from the author's statements that this section is mere reportage. It is clear that these facts are written as supporting evidence for some larger concept she has about the show. So, it is still possible that she could believe in them. As to how far she believes in them I cannot make a statement. I was actually putting in the false dichotomy on purpose to see if the anyone would say something about it. I was sort of hoping the author would attempt to defend her claims more. I thought would be interesting to see what I could suss out of her. No, such luck.
I like how you shift the goal post in your argument. It seems that you have no problem with people with anonymous names just so long as they are positive about the show. People like Darthlocke4 or Historical Materialist to name a few don't seem to get any comments about their choice of screen names? So, why should I be held to any higher standard than they are? Is it because I have negative comments? Why would this be the case? What exactly would knowing my full name do if I say "reviewer x is a simpleton" or "review z was dumb" and so on and so fourth. That doesn't make my argument or statements more or less valuable.
As, for being here... first ever I'm on vacation in Florida with the family and I've tripped and broke my ankle at Disney World! That was last Tuesday. Now, I go home tomorrow, and afterwards I will not need to write anything here because I will be able to do my real work. I do have to say that it has helped to distract me when the pain-killers wear off.
Let me quote: "The only people that make this statement, “is also referred to as Lucifer’s eye”, as you have, are people who see conspiracies everywhere."
ReplyDeleteAgain, in case you missed it: "The only people that make this statement, “is also referred to as Lucifer’s eye”, as you have, are people who see conspiracies everywhere."
Once more, for clarity: "The only people that make this statement, “is also referred to as Lucifer’s eye”, as you have, are people who see conspiracies everywhere."
There are your direct words. No if. No qualifiers. No turing test. direct accusation.
I have problems with anonymous TROLLS, not with anonymous people in general. You are a troll. Trolls are cowards. If you were calling reviewers or commentators simpletons or dumb, I would be calling you an arrogant blowhard (or worse) regardless of how you sign yourself, but the fact that you choose to engage in insulting and boorish behaviour from under cover merely underscores your trollishness.
I note you avoid answering the specific question about how many different names you have written under on this site. Rudolph was one. Rommel was another--just a week or so ago, though those posts are merely signed "guest" now. You have used at least one other name. Consequently, I see no reason to believe you are being honest about your name now--nor do I much car wha tit really is, as the point is aqbout your cowardly anonymous trolling, not about who you really are. (Your "logical" explanation for how, were I of Dutch ancestry, I would know that Koos is in fact your first name is of a piece with your usual level of specious bullshit.) So much for your devotion to facts, and for your entirely specious claim in your first post here about how "Normally" you don't feel the need to respond to posts on fan sites. So, you are no only a troll but also a liar--one with an inexplicable animus directed against Lisa, since you have attacked her under at least three of your names.
Unfortunately, the site comments policies prohibit me from being absolutely frank in my opinion of you, though words like "despicable" do come to mind.
I'm not sure what sort of argument you are putting up here? I'm not sure what amount of time you have to write an article in has to do with presenting facts? It would seem to me that if you want to say that something is a fringe belief then you simply write a controversially reading of such and such symbolic representations are the following. As for finding material that supports your view? Well, thanks to the internet you can find any supporting material for any number of fringe belief systems you desire. If you want to find a theory about the validity of "The Hollow Earth Theory" you can do so. This information might be of interest to your specific audience, but it is clearly not an accurate representation of modern scientific or validated theories about the construction of our planet. So, any insights gleamed from a "Hollow Earth Theory" about the world would be in fact in accurate and unable to describe conditions we see in the real world. Now, they might fit the analysis of a specific piece of fictional material in question. However, they should not be presented as being facts about the Earth's construction. They might just be interesting insights into the fictional piece.
ReplyDeleteHistory doesn't polarize people, people polarize History for their own needs. A perfect example would be how Thucydides used his fictional monologues of specific Generals to present to his audience specific views about the war in his work. It is not history in our modern sense of merely cataloging dates, people, speeches, and other resources from a first hand account. It instead uses Historical elements to create specific readings of events for a goal that is outside of the realm of normal history as we see it now. However, that doesn't meant that History polarized the audience. It is fact the author who has used history to polarize his audience to specific point of view about the events.
Hitler and his Nazis Regime were brilliant at using already present historical events, mythology , political, economic and sociological elements and transforming them into a new narrative that legitimatized hatred and distrust of all non-German non Aryan Race persons. But make no mistake in WWI Paul Von Hindenberg already laid the seeds for mass annihilation of inferior races as he called Russians on the Eastern Front-- and was noted for his maltreatment of Imperial Russian Soldiers he captured. So, all Hitler and his regime needed to do was harness these already present narratives and tie them up into one neat little package and sell it to the people. That's how history works.
I also find it amusing how you like to declare that things that are facts are now opinion. The fact is that you misrepresented the masonic symbols and what they mean. That isn't an opinion. An opinion would be if you stated that you feel the Masonic system is detrimental to economic growth or social development (ect. and so on). Those are opinion statements. What you made are clearly factual claims: x represents y, or x means this under these circumstances, and finally x is also known as z. Those are easily verifiable claims about certain things. We can go out in the world and research them and say okay what do the believers of Masonic teachings actually say x is about? If they say x is about y then you're right and if they say no it is about j then you are wrong. I merely used the facts that are easily confirmed by the Masons' themselves. Now, you don't have to believe that the Mason's are telling you the truth. But you better have better evidence then the Masons' do for their own beliefs if that is the argument you want to make.
All I can say is this in Academia when we see something foolish we call it the way we see it.
Hitler himself wasn't a devotee of the Occult like Himmler was but he understood the power of symbolic systems in human culture. So, I'm not sure you have any deep philosophical stance on an issue to be an exploiter of those concepts.
ReplyDeleteI'm not putting up an argument - or lording my own degrees over your head. I am simply requesting that you are respectful in your comments and understand the real world constraints involved in writing a review. I am requesting common courtesy.
ReplyDelete