The Spirit of Trullion: A Religious Dialogue within the Alastor Cluster

Paul Rhoads - Vocabuary didn't work out, nor Cadwal. What about Trullion?

What a beautifully ironic and Spenglerian creation is this story! Or, one could say, anti-spengerian, in the sense that Jack [Vance], though a fervent admirer of Spengler, toyed with ways of out-foxing spenglerian cultural decay.

So here we have a society, so amusingly modeled on the Califonian hippy ideal of the 60s (you callow yoots may know something about this via golden-oldy rock-n-roll, but some of us were there.... whatever : -). What happens? Two brothers come allong: one attuned to this society, the other dissatisfied. This is greatly amusing beacause Jack mixes everything up! The hippys were (in an extreemly mushy manner) revolutionarys against - let us say - a sober social order (no drugs and easy sex, plus hard work). In Trullion the revolutionary is Glay, the sober Fancher who disaproved of his slovenly society and dreamed of order, dicipline and self-improvement.

In the story the "consevative" Glinnes manages to defend his hippy-dippy slovenly "social order" against the revolutionary attempt of Glay to over-throw that order in favor of self-dicipline and so on.

Now, why take interest in this marvellous anatomy of social disequilibrum, this perhaps idealistic or even wistful recipie contre Spengler, at this moment?

The reason is in the _here_ and _now_ (or yesterday)!

See Muhammad Rasheed - and S. Brain in another way - as Glay: his ideals are opposed to the society in which he lives; like Glay he would over-turn all its values, and to this end - like Glay - he is ready to take radical and even "violent" (at least retorically) steps (such as gratuitus accusations of nescience and so on, or in the Brain mode more tricky and snarky tactics). Now the society in question is not the Fens, but American and western society, out of which Vance comes and of which - other things being equal - he defends. Here John Justin Green and - (Magnus Ridolph patted his chin with a hankerchif) - myself, represent Glinnes, driven to all sorts of desperate measures to preserve the world we love.

Then there are those who, like Acady the Mentor, set themslves up as arbitors, as mediator, while in fact, and dispite themselves, aiding and abetting the wrong side - which is beacuse they lack moral vssio and courage.
I commend a re-reading of Trullion; there are lessons for all!

Muhammad Rasheed - (i don't think it actually HAS values.  :P  )

Paul Rhoads - Exacty. This is the meaning of "totally oppose".
And yet, even in your rébellion, your effort to unmake and remake western society, you depend on and use that society: it's openess, it's forms of discourse. Your fundamental arguments are all of western origen. No such things as your anti-colonial, anti-rarcist, anti-establishment and religiously "tollerant" attitudes ever arose or have ever been effective in non-western society (muslim "tollerance" based on dhimmini is not "tollarence" in the western manner of actual and effective non-discrimination).

You have not examined yourself. You are a proud rebel, but it is the pride more than the rebellion which counts, for what do you really want - l mean appart from "winning"? 
It's so empty to accuse others of ignorance and hate and so on, people, who for all you know, may be better than you. 
What do you truly hope to accomplish? 
Perhaps you wish to legalise poligamy?

Muhammad Rasheed - Your opinions regarding the non-western world reflect the intense, and actually evil, lens of your idol Churchill that you see them through. With every line you typed you grew further and further away from any kind of pretend objectivity as you belittle and offend. This both from the effort to hold up fake Western world "values," as well as your verbal kicking of the non-western society, downed while it still flops around in the damage caused from colonialist conqueror abuses.

Does your foolishness ever come to an end? I ask only as an interested scholar collecting such data for science.

John Justin Green - Nonsense

John Justin Green - But clearly that is how you have decided to see it.

John Justin Green - The way you use the term science is as a cape of spendor. A status building symbol. Science would hold no admiration as a term if that was how it came about. Argument based on authority are anti scientific.

Paul Rhoads - l get it! western civilization and it's defenders are wrong and evil in all aspects and phases! No need to further beat that dead horse.

Now, Glay, what does your Fancherade look like, the good you will build on the ashes of the evil you heroicly destroy? 
ls poligamy on the menu?

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, the primary item needed is a serious and hearty reform, in which currently only weak band-aid efforts are placed to give the illusion that a system of balanced fairness is being achieved. This has been ineffective since the balance of power remains not only tilted in the hands of the descendants of the original offenders, but they are also falsely under the impression that nothing is wrong at all, and the disenfranchised victims whine over fictional wrongs. The New Deal of the 20th century deliberately excluded Blacks while it enabled Whites to get ahead and build the Middle Class; this "affirmative action" policy has continued in many other ways ever since, when institutionalized efforts to prevent Blacks from an equal playing field. I resent being artificially held down -- as a group -- while another is artificially propped up to coddle a fake superiority complex that does NO ONE any good.

The bottom line is that I want only artificial barriers and artificial boosts removed for true fairness to reign. This is the nature of the Western society's evil in practice.

Muhammad Rasheed - As an aside, I do not long for polygamy. The Qur'an permits this during special circumstances, but it acknowledges it is not the best relationship, and advises against it, turning us towards a single spouse as marital best practice.

John Justin Green - Is that in both original mecca version and later redacted medina version? Membership sored after he fixed it up.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Paul Rhoads... My "fundamental arguments" come from my understanding of the Qur'an as sacred scripture; God wants only the best for mankind. You are unaware of this because of your limited "the gist" level of study into it.

John Justin Green - At one time you had a gist level as well. Did you have any concerns about anything at that point as I do or were you sll in even then?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Paul Rhoads... You're also trying to give the impression that only our society had the openness that enables our technological achievements, but this is far from the truth. The Islamic golden ages that made Spain and old Baghdad Meccas of learning and achievement for scholars around the globe held that same level of openness.

John Justin Green - Dhimi Zoastrian mathmaticians etc. It is amazing we saved as much as we did with all the burning.

Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “and - (Magnus Ridolph patted his chin with a hankerchif) – myself”
Psh! You WISH! lol

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: "Argument based on authority are anti scientific."

Do you then think that arguments based on wishes & feelings should take their place instead? Because they make poor tools to anchor science upon.  Be reasonable!



Paul Rhoads - ...thus?

M. Rasheed - Precisely so!

Paul Rhoads - ok...

so far here is what l have learned (continue to correct me), with further questions.

Poligamy will be allowed, subjet to financial criteria:

- How much (apoximately) for 4 wives?
- how much for 3 and 2?
- Will there be a financial criteria for 1 wife? Could indigents marry?
- Homo marriage?
- 3 homos?
- 2 heteros and 1 homo?
-Who will council married men, how often, and what powers will they have in case of abuse?
You will have - I presume - a universal minimum wage?
- How will the rulers of this universal social wellfare system be prevented from discrimination?

M. Rasheed - Paul, I was only answering your questions regarding polygamy in Islam, and the Qur'an's restrictions as a best practice. By no means would I care to force the religious law upon a secular government proud of its "separation of church & state." I'm not trying to instigate a civil war.

Paul Rhoads - Fine, but l am not asking about sharia (beacuse l already know). What interests me is your flavor of Fancherade!

You believe western society is integrally evil. You work to replace it with your conception of the good. This is what interests me.

Now, poligamy is utterly incompatable with western society. You, however, regard this as bad and would destroy this incompatibility. So, you impose poligamy. Good. What l want to know is how your new society - call it Fancher society - would be ordered.

So, in Fancherade, how would poligamy work?

Apparently you have a multiculturalist vission in which each group has a say. This does not seem take into account the profound incompatibilities of these groups, but we'll get into that - if you are willing. To start: how would poligamy work in Fancharade?

Financial limits?

M. Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “You believe western society is integrally evil. You work to replace it with your conception of the good. This is what interests me.”

One of the functioning components of Western society is White Supremacy that was there from the beginning. Efforts to soften it have been of the smoke & mirrors, “These are not the droids you are looking for” variety, leaving the exploited-conquered class embittered and resentful. The reason why slavery in America was abolished was because it caused a socio-political conflict with the paradoxical  “Land of the Free” doctrine this nation’s government was crafted around, and over time it erupted in a bitter war that threatened to destroy the great experiment for good. The laws and structure are now strong enough… because of those ‘freedom/fairness’ wordings in the source documents... that make it possible to excise the cancerous White Supremacy from American society with a great and focused effort, nullifying the need to replace the whole kit-n-kaboodle with another society altogether. I believe America is worth salvaging. All they have to do is be fair, provide consistent justice for all equally, and actively do the hard work to achieve it. The signatories of the Racial Contract naturally hate and fear this simple but difficult solution, as they lust for the “power over all non-whites” perk of their position above all else, and have sabotaged those efforts on every level (they blocked Lani Guinier from the appointed position President Clinton nominated her for because of her keenly-developed sense of fairness). In other words, my “Fancharade” would be remarkably similar to an ideal state America… with that ideal coming from the perspective of a fair-minded non-white who actually loves his country, as opposed to the 50 state, exclusivist Whitopia my ideological enemy prefers.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Now, poligamy is utterly incompatable with western society.”

It’s incompatible with any society, that’s why the omniscient One God advised against it except under unusual circumstances. But of course, predictably, those who are led by their lusts interpret the verses differently. lol

Paul Rhoads wrote: “You, however, regard this as bad and would destroy this incompatibility.”

Not so, unless you are actually just weaving a role playing scenario that you want me to be a sport and take part in. Is this the nature of your postings here? If so, then state it loudly with nerve and zeal! Otherwise you come across as if you are only half fluent in an obscure English dialect (which I already suspected).

Paul Rhoads wrote: “So, you impose poligamy. Good. What l want to know is how your new society - call it Fancher society - would be ordered. So, in Fancherade, how would poligamy work? To start: how would poligamy work in Fancharade? Financial limits?”

At this point, your fascination with the subject is revealing your own secret lusts for all the world to witness. It’s actually starting to make me uncomfortable. hahaha I DON'T own an escort/dating service, Rhoads, if that's what you're really probing into. All Black men aren't pimps. lol

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Apparently you have a multiculturalist vission in which each group has a say. This does not seem take into account the profound incompatibilities of these groups…”

I think each distinctive group having a representative present in the leadership role so that every voice is fairly heard for the final judgments/rulings to pull from is vital; there can be no ideal fairness-based system without knowing what everyone’s needs are. A single viewpoint to lead all others – particularly a viewpoint that believes it is inherently superior to everyone else and worships only its own lust for power – has already proven to be an irresponsible failure of a system.

See Also:
Churchill's Anti-Islam Drivel Revisited

WARNING! This Discussion Forum is Guarded by the Thought Police! NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED!

A Tribute to Jack Vance (August 28, 1916 – May 26, 2013)