I think the part where I went "OK yeah this was the reference when he was coming up with the core plot and character of Paul" was when I came across the part where Lawrence comes up with his novel guerrilla war strategy: he's sick, feverish, possibly dying, in a tent in the desert, tended by a few companions. When he comes out of it, he's got his Path. It's too perfect.
[edit] Incidentally, it's not clear to me this author has a good picture of Lawrence's background. Lines like this:
> In terms of clothing, Lawrence comes to accept the Arab dress as “convenient in such a climate” and blends in with his Arab companions by wearing it instead of the British officer uniform.
make me think the author isn't aware that Lawrence had already spent a lot of time in the Middle East (especially, IIRC, modern Syria—so, near Damascus) very shortly before the war broke out, and that was a big part of why he was recruited by British intelligence for the mission(s) in Seven Pillars. It was on an earlier, pre-war trip that he'd adopted Arab dress—unlike what's suggested (if not quite stated) in the film Lawrence of Arabia, he was already quite familiar with and comfortable in it.
The scene from the movie is based on this passage from chapter 20 of Seven Pillars, which suggests that while he was familiar with Arab clothing before the war, there was a period of time when he was in British army uniform during the Arab conflict, until he was asked by Feisal to change into Arab clothes:
"Suddenly Feisal asked me if I would wear Arab clothes like his own while in the camp. I should find it better for my own part, since it was a comfortable dress in which to live Arab-fashion as we must do. Besides, the tribesmen would then understand how to take me. The only wearers of khaki in their experience had been Turkish officers, before whom they took up an instinctive defence. If I wore Meccan clothes, they would behave to me as though I were really one of the leaders; and I might slip in and out of Feisal’s tent without making a sensation which he had to explain away each time to strangers. I agreed at once, very gladly; for army uniform was abominable when camel-riding or when sitting about on the ground; and the Arab things, which I had learned to manage before the war, were cleaner and more decent in the desert."
Also, the below quote is from the introduction, which I might add is perhaps the most beautiful introduction I've ever read. I sometimes go back just to read it:
"In my case, the effort for these years to live in the dress of Arabs, and to imitate their mental foundation, quitted me of my English self, and let me look at the West and its conventions with new eyes: they destroyed it all for me, At the same time I could not sincerely take on the Arab skin: it was an affectation only. Easily was a man made an infidel, but hardly might he be converted to another faith. I had dropped one form and not taken on the other, and was become like Mohammed’s coffin in our legend, with a resultant feeling of intense loneliness in life, and a contempt, not for other men, but for all they do."
(those who don't follow: you can catch up on the Seven Pillars wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Pillars_of_Wisdom or like basically any biography of Lawrence, various forwards, et c.)
The first was for catholic indulgences.
The second was for religious propaganda during the European wars of religion.
It ushered in massive creativity! The early printshops were innovation hot-beds and quickly developed textual things that had never existed at scale before, like dictionaries, newspapers, political cartoons, encyclopaedia, technical drawings / manuals lacking copy errors, local maps, etc.
How long do you think that took? There's a wide range of possible dates for each endpoint, but I don't think it reaches a century.
The north star, was written as Al Jedi... the Jedi. It goes a step further, in that it's arabic which translates as the kid (as in a goat, but the same way Hans refers to Luke).
I'm not sure how much is coincidence, but reading about Thomas preparing to travel by starlight, it struck me as being remarkably reminiscent. I guess there are no original stories.
A tale as old as time
My view was that Herbert was trying to show how we could try to direct human progress and evolution if we would have ability to see the future. Both Paul and Leto II have such ability and they tried to do it with mediocre success. Tides of history were largely operating by forces they could not change but slightly skew.
My though was that they were both just trying to do good for the mankind, kind of succeeded, but not much - Leto was by intention so bad that when he finally fall - people scattered through galaxy with those new ships that did not need spice.
Was not this the real moral of the story? Resist stagnant empire and explore the universe? Basically the same as Foundation that is book from the same era?
> Was not this the real moral of the story? Resist stagnant empire and explore the universe?
I think this is somewhat the general idea, but more specific. His main message is that charismatic leaders, even the ones with the best of intentions as Paul certainly was (and Leto II, though in a more complex way), are extremely dangerous and should not be trusted or followed. The empire overall would have been an unquestionably better place if Paul had been killed in the desert (except that perhaps the Bene Gesserit would have led people in an even worse direction if their plans had succeeded at the time). Arrakis itself would have been in a better shape if the fremen had risen up and overthrown their oppressors, but had otherwise stopped at that.
So according to me first book was a bit dark: - Paul accomplishing his goal but failing ultimatively - per what you are saying - starting the jihad - In the second he is killed but we have his children - so again a bit dark but with hope. - In the third we have - making a new empire and change from desert to a green planet - so again hope for something better coming even if it is a but slow (god-emperor living for hundreds of years) - Then we have really two strange books but last one, at least last written by Herbert, ends with one character asking other one if the purpose of all those events is understood, and the second chacter realizes this purpose with kind of awe.
So to me in overall Dune was a positive tale. according to you it is just grim sentence: do not fall for the words of false prophet. Imho if this would be just it, would be little sad.
But maybe I should read them again maybe after so many years, the reception will be different.
But Paul is exactly the failed version of Leto II. Paul saw the option of doing what his son did, but didn't have the courage to do it. He instead chose to believe that he can become the benevolent dictator that would uplift humanity through his strong moral core, and instead brought only needless suffering to the galaxy and to all those around him.
The good future that Leto II fought for is one where every human is truly unique and free, spreading in a thousand distinct directions, impossible to predict for anyone (which also implies that they are impossible to lead as an overall group, as they will never again accept to follow someone else).
I think the "moral" of Dune shifts pretty dramatically between Messiah and Children. Dune and Messiah are essentially a warning about charismatic leaders reshaping the world in their eyes, abusing religion and faith to do so, and harming all humanity in the process whilst losing their own. Paul Atreides is not a desert mouse, but a sandworm that consumes all in his path. This isn't even subtext, it's basically stated explicitly both in the text and in later writing/talks by Herbert himself.
In the later books I think it shifts a bit to a story that one must lose their humanity in order to save it, and it's important that Leto is not Paul.
There were many actual "spice wars" fought in the region to wipe out competing crops, to build alliances, and later betray those local allies, etc.
A century or so later, laudenum.
The spice trade itself didn't shrink so much as it was subsumed by other trade, I think, particularly as shipping capacity, reliability, and safety increased.
And even sugar became much less commonly used to in Europe.
If you have data to bring to the discussion I'd be interested in seeing it.
Sugar is included in what were termed spices, FWIW:
In the medieval and early modern periods, ‘spice’ was a term liberally applied to all kinds of exotic natural products from pepper to sugar, herbs to animal secretions.
<https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1777/the-spice-trade--t...>
From the sources I'm finding (relatively few and vague, granted), my interpretation is less that total trade in spices (however construed) fell in absolute tonnage than that the per-tonne value dropped as the goods fell in price and were consumed by far greater shares of the population. It wasn't that spices were less a part of culinary culture, but that because they were so common (both senses of the word) they became less significant. Total tonnage and likely overall value were all but certainly increasing, but the importance attached to formerly exotic goods (pepper, ginger, cinnamon, etc.) fell as anybody could attain these.
Look to the history of the pineapple (of which there were once temples built in its honor in Europe) from exotic to highly mundane fruit for another example:
Only ginger and turmeric are found below soil, and even then you wouldn't usually describe farmers as "literally mining for potatoes."
Others might disagree. English is a fun language.
What cannot be disputed is the significant increase in national wealth brought home by the Dutch operations in what was known as the Dutch East Indies.
Batavia ( now Jakarta) was the capital of the VOC's lucrative spice trade for 3½ centuries.
Ships laden with tamarind, mace, cloves and nutmeg – at that time worth more, gram for gram, than gold - sailed from there to the Netherlands and often wrecked on the Western Australian coast returning with gold.
It's the value per weight part that merits comparison with Spanish aquisition of gold in the new world.
As a native english reader, writer and speaker of some six decades I grasp the tension in the use of ' literally "airquoted" ' and embrace it.
I also enjoy Riddley Walker, the first edition of Clockwork Orange (sans lexicographic annexure), and the outrageously provocative shock value of the opening sentence of Burgess's panoramic saga Earthly Powers.
Your opinion is noted and respected.
I can appreciate that and hope that I added to the tension.
My only mild disappointment is that while I opened the door by airquoting "mining" and drawing attention to an actual nation scale spice industry no one made comment on the "spice mining" in both Dune and in the Spice mines of Kessel being both the harvesting of a seasonally produced organic bloom.
In Dune the spice harvesters surface scooped fresh blooms as they appeared from active worms, on Kessel I believe (I'm no authority here) they harvested old buried organics using mineral mining techniques rather than fresh cropping from a surface source.
EDIT: It appears the Kessel spice may have been a mineral? .. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Spice_mines_of_Kessel
TBH that's a rabbit hole of detail I'm happy to skirt.
That's what renewed my passion for reading; revisiting texts with contexts in mind, history, intent, etc.
I feel the education system really fails people with these little bits
Later saw the movie and kept thinking there would be a twist. Was largely disappointed but the mother starting a holy war was a bit intriguing.
So, tribal organisation is a natural organisation of humankind. We tend to fall into it, given any chance at all, given the proper stresses, or given the proper lack of stresses.
The part relevant to the OP:
FH: Well, one of the threads in the story is to trace a possible way a messiah is created in our society, and I hope I was successful in making it believable. Here we have the entire process, or at least the large and some of the subtle elements of the construction of this, both from the individual standpoint, and from the way society demands this of you. It’s the references in there, you know, that the man must recognize the myth he is living in, because the creation of an avatar is a mythmaking process. We’ve done it in our…in recent times. Look at what’s happening to John F. Kennedy.
WM: O, sure.
FH: Who was a very earthy, real, and not totally holy man…so here we have a likeable person, now, you see…
WM: Yes.
FH: But real in the flesh and blood sense who by the process of emulation becomes something larger than life, far larger than life, and I’ve just explored all of as many permutations as I could recognize in the process.
WM: Oh, I-I caught overtones of Lawrence of Arabia in the thing, for example.
FH: He could very well become an avatar for the…for the Arabs.
WM: Right.
FH: If Lawrence of Arabia had died at the crucial moment of the British…
WM: Say, when Allenby walked into Jerusalem.
FH: Yes. If he had died…if, for example, he had gone up and killed the people who were destroying his breed, walked into that conference and said, Gentlemen, I have here under my javala a surprise, Bang! Bang! Bang! and he had been killed…
WM: He’d have been deified.
FH: He would have been deified. And it would have been the most terrifying thing the British had ever encountered, because the Arabs would have swept that entire peninsula with that sort of force, because one of the things we’ve done in our society is exploited this power…Western man has exploited this avatar power.
(Game of Thrones spoilers below)
Look at the character arc of Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones. You will find some similarities there too both with Dune and with Lawrence of Arabia. But with a female character rather than a male.
Starks = Atreides, Ned = Leto, Catelyn / Sansa = Lady Jessica, Paul = Jon/Robb, Duncan Idaho = Benjen, Gurney = Aemon Targaryen / Jorah Mormont, Chani = Ygritte / Arya, Jamis = Tormund, Dr. Yueh = Littlefinger
Lannisters = Harkonnens, Tywin = Baron Vladimir, Joffrey / Jaime = Feyd / Rabban (to some degree, traits are mixed between these characters)
it is actually mentioned in the article. you misread here, with the point being that knowing how to do something is not the same as accepting it for a normal activity.
He not only shrouded the spice in ritual and religion (which isn't THAT suprising considering many human societies used visionary substsances, and Herbert was a child of the 1960s psychedelic culture too) but also give it a central place in the economy and functioning of the empire.
What if a visionary substance was the real deal that gave you insight and precognition? What a rebel leader took full advantage of such a substance? What if that was combined with religious fervour?
Dune is basically space war + outsider Messiah + Islam + psychedelics
On the topic of the Butlerian Jihad, and its echo of the historic Islamic taboo on art representing living things - looking around the current world and bearing in mind how twisted out of shape our social conversation has arguably become so quickly given that iPhones only landed in 2007... you have to wonder whether it is such an outlandish idea. Looking at the news over the last few weeks and months makes me realise that it is incredibly hard to see outside your historical moment, until things just happen! There are many possibilities and reality can get weird...
Every other fantasy-type movie in a modern setting I cannot take seriously...Avengers, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.
Like, just use a gun. Whatever you were going to attack with, put that in a gun, and attack at 45rpm, 3000 ft/s.
> Like, just use a gun. Whatever you were going to attack with, put that in a gun, and attack at 45rpm, 3000 ft/s.
This is one of the many reasons why I like the Dresden Files universe. Wizards wield incredible power, but a wizard can still be brought down by a sniper.
Yes, although the shields were fudged somewhat to allow knife fights. It would also seem that mankind lost the ancient secrets of body armour.
> Like, just use a gun. Whatever you were going to attack with, put that in a gun, and attack at 45rpm, 3000 ft/s.
There was even one Dr Who episode where the Daleks replaced their beam weapons with machine guns [0]. Although only because there was some sort of 'unknown force' that disrupted the guns without affecting the other Dalek systems.
[0] https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Death_to_the_Daleks_(TV_story...
Right. Shields can protect against high velocity things, e.g. bullets or shrapnel. But not slow moving things, e.g. air and hands.
This contrivance means ancient weapons still have a purpose.
This effect is similar to non-Newtonian fluids. (In fact, there has been research into using non-Newtonian fluids for body armor [1].)
---
> It would also seem that mankind lost the ancient secrets of body armour.
There are a few instances of armor in the movies (Harkonnens, Leo Atreides and Gurney Halleck, one of Paul Atreides' visions), but the books make virtually no mention of it.
The in-universe explanation is that the fighting style was much closer to ninjas than knights. Which means light-to-no armor was preferred.
https://acoup.blog/2024/11/29/collections-the-problem-with-s...
If I recall correctly, they are banned from use on people because that's how the machines tried to annihilate mankind (it's been a while..)
They have them ("atomics"). If bored into the planet, they are powerful enough to split it.
The Great Convention (akin the Geneva convention) prohibited the use of atomics. A convention that...well, no spoilers.
They have them.
But there's a moral taboo and a practical MAD one.
Was he really a child of this culture? He was in his 40s by the time Dune came out in 1965, with large parts of it written in the early 60s, when psychadelics seemed more of a fringe thing used in beatnik circles, academic labs and prisons.
OTOH, the concept of invaders seizing territory for spice or other unique natural materials (Dutch and Portuguese in the Moluccas, Japan annexing Taiwan) drugs shifting empires (Opium) and special substances and techniques needed for long-distance navigation (citrus, astrolabe) had been around for centuries.
I don't have a source handy, but can share what Paul Stamets recounted a personal conversation with Frank in his Mycelium Running book as reported on the Dune wikipedia page:
"Frank went on to tell me that much of the premise of Dune—the magic spice (spores) that allowed the bending of space (tripping), the giant sand worms (maggots digesting mushrooms), the eyes of the Freman (the cerulean blue of Psilocybe mushrooms), the mysticism of the female spiritual warriors, the Bene Gesserits (influenced by the tales of Maria Sabina and the sacred mushroom cults of Mexico)—came from his perception of the fungal life cycle, and his imagination was stimulated through his experiences with the use of magic mushrooms."
Totally agree with you on the invaders part. I think this is why Dune is so great, it blends A LOT of things together into a coherent narrative.
DUNE is (one of?) my favorite fiction reads and I have to resist turning all "fanboy" over it sometimes.
I love the sensation in DUNE that I'm inside a fully fleshed-out universe where the vision is so large I can't even see the edges, but here's one thread you might find interesting.
...that said...
I never really "got" the rest of the series. Never felt like Paul and his actions were acceptably justified beyond "yeah we would've all died out, trust me".
Separately, the whole, uh, female superpower thing came off as eye-rolling simp-nerd fantasy that wasn't up to the standard of the first book. It wasn't even spice-induced, it was just /muscles/ taking over mens' minds.
I actually like what Hurbert did with paul. He made someone that was a god amongst man and then completely destroyed his legacy. Paul both was and wasn't a hero depending on the perspective of the person in the story. Herbert did a good job of showing the dangers of worshiping an authoritarian leader.
> non-fiction
I have some bad news for you...
With that being said, Frank Herbert certainly (IMO) is a genius of pure vision and worldbuilding but he is a serviceable writer at best.
By the aforementioned fourth book, he no longer has anything to add to his consideration of prescience/fate and is increasingly focused on sexuality. And his writing on sexuality is about as un-sensual as I can imagine.
There's plenty in there still about prescience.
And we basically just have to take Leto II's word at face value that he was preventing humanity's extinction, but...
By the time of Heretics, Herbert was basically coming right out and saying that prescience in fact alters the timeline rather than "just" predicts it. Which is kind of crazy if you think of two things:
1) Every Guild Navigator using the spice induced prescience to plan and fold space is altering reality
2) Spice comes from an alien being. The only aliens in the Dune universe.
(disclaimer: I don't count Brian Herbert's books & and whatever might be in there... what I read of those made me not want to read more)
Worse, a lot of people mistake euphoria moments for being right.
I note that the film is now available for rent in 4k. I'm gonna take a flutter and watch it on Vision Pro.
Last year, I dragged friends of mine to see it in the theater. They, too, were amazed. Now, we've been reading up on those times.
The reading list, so far:
'Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East', Soctt Anderson
'Seven Pillars of Wisdom', T.E. Lawrence
'A Peace to End All Peace', David Fromkin
Lawrence of Arabia was one of those movies she had to watch to later discuss with other members... So we watched it together, had great discussion about it. Later when she went to meet with the other party members, they discussed the cult of personality surrounding the character and the use of guerrilla tactics.
(Another movie they all watched like this was 7 years in Tibet)
Towards the end of the first book of Dune he has become an almost mythical figure, a Moses using his divine insight to lead his people to freedom, or a Mohammed throwing them into a global war of conquest.
That ambiguity is perhaps the book's greatest achievement: Paul's actions are only justifiable if the reader believes in him completely (he has really seen all possible futures and picked the best one) or not at all (he just wanted revenge and could not have foreseen the consequences).
They didn’t want revenge/power, they had no choice but take it or die. It’s even said explicitly in numerous places in the movie.
The presently discussed article ‘Paul Lawrence of Dune’ sound as if written for political goals, rather than actual understanding of the origins of Dune.
Originality is overrated though, so I don't mind. One of my favorite science fiction novels, The Stars my Destination by Alfred Bester, is transparently based on The Count of Monte Cristo.
That book is well worth reading by anybody who wants to better understand Frank Herbert, and is available for free at https://www.oreilly.com/tim/herbert/.
I really think this is the wrong interpretation of the end of that movie.
In the movie, Lawrence tries to resolve his apparent split loyalties by bringing the Arab and British interests into alignment and has a couple of initial exhilarating successes, but he ultimately fails, badly. Neither the Arabs nor the British live up to his idealistic expectations. The British use him in ways contrary to his intentions. He also discovers that his own idealism is compromised by his egotism and sadism.
The beautiful, dramatic desert landscape, the danger of Lawrence's mission, the high political stakes for the Arab tribes, and the historical context of war all help create an illusion of the possibility of heroic transcendence that is deeply inspiring, but in the end, it is all human and mundane: human vices at the small scale and human politics at the large scale. There is no transcendence.
I can see how some people walking out of the theater might have only remembered the feelings stirred up by the beautiful cinematography and the epic score, and forgotten absolutely everything else, but I think it's a better movie for sweeping the viewer up into that feeling before dropping them down into the political squabbling, betrayal, disappointment, and tragedy.
Not to mention the scene where he tries to pass as an actual Arab, the results of which aren't those of a stereotypical "white savior" story.
I can't really say it's not a "white savior" story but it's a subversive enough take on it that I'd recommend it to people who are turned off by white savior stories. The movie has much more depth than that.
I don't know why it is considered politically incorrect nowadays to say that the world as we know it was shaped by white people. Deng Xiaoping himself constantly told his own comrades how fucking pathetic China had become. And nobody could argue with him.
Its only Lawrence himself who romanticizes his own journy and hopes preserve some form of democratic nationalism. Only to be then synically stabed in the back literally everybody, the tribal leaders, the english politicans and of course the arab rules.
My favoirte part of the movie is when the english leader and the arab rules both agree that its good that he is finally gone. This is the origin of the modern battle inside of the middle east between islamic populism (muslim brotherhood) and ruling dynasties (Saud).
The movie made this very clear and expicite, and Lawrence himself knew that this was his role, even when he tried to do the best he can for the people he liked within these constraints.
Prescience allows for the complete domination of humanity, but to some degree we already working on pre-prescience. Privatized intelligence companies have grown as part of our corporate surveillance state. These companies, like palantir, act as “truthsayers,” divining the state of reality from incredible amounts of information for those with the money to buy it. America has companies that rival countries in terms of power, and these intelligence companies that service them can act as king maker and influence, subtly or directly, with some very giant levers.
The US government is closer to the Landsraad, each house is a corporation, each CEO a duke or baron.
Peter Thiel is likely the reverend mother architect of a recent messianic rise to power.
I am not 100% sure exactly what the Bene Gesserit were supposed to represent, but on a deep level I think they represent intelligence agencies like the CIA.
Social Media has a lot of overlap with “the voice.” With A/B testing various groups with divisive messages, to see what divides most effectively, it creates a means of control. Nobody was commanded to show up on jan 6, but the “command” to do so was heard. This is very in line with frank Herbert’s idea of what the voice was. A/B testing messages on humans at scale is like learning the voice.
We now have Cameras, RF Receivers (blue tooth/driver's license detection), phone backups, website logs, and a host of other surveillance all centralized, maybe not directly, into the hands of private intelligence. With all these sources of information we are getting closer and closer and closer to prescience. We are still limited by computing power to make sense of all the data, but the god emperor of dune was not. With the rise of AI, we now have the potential for a thinking/processing agent with no sense of morality to be assigned to every single individual, in order to carry out the absolute crushing of any nascent dissent before it can become cohesive enough to threaten those in power.
We are dangerously close to uncheckable totalitarian rule. When our rulers do something we don't like, they will laugh and say "what are you going to do about it?" Every potential weapon purchased will be fed into their "prescient" machine, so will every communication with another individual, and every use of transportation. When your personal AI agent determines you are at risk of "doing something about it," an example will be made of you.
I'm not sure we need to look to the future for that. North Korea has really shown that modern weapons and 80s era intelligence and propaganda methods, applied brutally enough, are enough to keep ~20 million people under extreme poverty and deep obedience for 80+ years now, with no signs of stopping (at least not from internal pressures) any time soon.
Its very rare that people overthrwo the government, and even then, its mostly because most of the ruling classes don't try to stop it.
That's the difference between Soviet and the Peoples Republic. In one, the army came out and stopped people, in the others it didn't.
The other alternative is replacement by of forign actor of some kind. Either military, or by influencing the local elites.
It leads to a country that is essentially a slave society. The owner is the Kim family. The other top people are overseers. The population are slaves. Propaganda and censorship of the outside world maintain the system.
This was true of the other Communist countries also but I think the hereditary nature keeps it going. It’s the only thing that distinguishes North Korea from the other Communist states.
Anyway juche, the current ideology of NK, does not even claim anymore to be communist.
I was saying North Korea is akin to a slave society. In terms of the organization. The other Communist regimes were like this too.
And it all failed not because 'slaves', it failed because (1) it was planned, and when it was clear the plan is failing, the plans were not shelved but doubled upon, 5-year-plan after 5-year-plan. And (2) it was planned from Soviet Union, centrally, with high preference on weapons, not on normal economy. So the economy was failing on very basic levels and it was not fixable from within, because again the incentives were all wrong. (3) the people had some ways to see that lives are way better in the West and they wanted that. (4) so the system tried to give them some of that but the economy got even worse, and it was either hardliners will take over and make the whole Soviet bloc like NK or (5) Gorbachov said he will not stop anyone leaving the Soviet bloc and that was the end.
And I'm not contesting the fact that NK society is organised as a slave one. But it's not true about the other communist countries.
Thew way you are using this word is wrong. It might be cosmetic communism, but it's clearly a totalitarian state. You called the population slaves, which is very much not workers owning the means of production.
Communism is an end state, but no government gets there because once a force is strong enough to forcibly redistribute resources to people not powerful enough to take those resources themselves, the redistributors choose to redistribute the resources to themselves because they have unchecked power. Communism collapses into totalitarianism in almost the same way democracy collapses into oligarchy.
Communism is a description of a power relationship. It is supposed to be a re-distribution of power, but in societies that claim to have tried communism, resources get distributed for a time, but power does not. So you get distributed resources (cosmetic communism), but not distributed power (structural communism).
This then leads to the deeper problem. Communism becomes a scare word that means authoritarianism which taints marxist ideas, which taints socialism.
There is a balancing act. Too much re-distributive power -> power centralizes to those capable of redistribution -> unchecked power -> authoritarianism. Too little re-distributive power -> power centralizes in those who continue to consolidate their power -> unchecked power -> authoritarianism.
By using the word communism to describe authoritarianism, you damage the ideas necessary to prevent democracy from the same fate.
And yet we have democracies that are 100s of years old and are still far more democracies then oligarchies.
While no communist state ever came even remotly close and essentially were never not totalitarian.
> Communism becomes a scare word that means authoritarianism which taints marxist ideas
Because Marxist idea are bad. That communism and all ways to get their lead to mass slaughter SHOULD taint his ideas.
He even privately admited that millions of people will die for his vision but he was sure that somehow once on the other side you would defently live in a utopia. Of coure he himself never bothered to explain how this happened beyond some vauge (and completely historically inaccruate) mussings about history.
> By using the word communism to describe authoritarianism, you damage the ideas necessary to prevent democracy from the same fate.
No it doesn't. The idea of democracy does not depend on any way on the ideas of communism and socialism.
I think the issue with Marx is he was an excellent analyst of the status quo. Then he got carried away by that into thinking he could also solve all the issues. He couldn't (also he wrote the manifesto while young and later regretted it), but that does not mean his analysis is all bad (it's not) and all solutions inspired by his ideas are wrong (they aren't).
> He even privately admited that millions of people will die for his vision
source?
> The idea of democracy does not depend on any way on the ideas of communism and socialism
I'm afraid it does. Or maybe at least the execution, if not the idea: There is currently no democracy on earth that is not at least a little bit socialist. And the same is true for nationalism.
He really isn't. His analysis of Capitalism was terrible. Pretty much all empirical prediction were either provably wrong or are so nebulous and uncertain that they can never be proven or unproven.
While initially economists were very interested in his writing and read it with great detail, after his complete inalienably to follow up the first Capital, and tons of people point out issues, all issues that he had no credible answer for, only then did economist stop listening. And he was from then on almost exclusively used to inspire social theories.
His best friend had to organize contest with prices in order to crowd source ideas about his ideas could be fixed, and that didn't work.
Even many Marxist inspired economist do not use most of he frameworks, or have modified them so much that they can barley be called the same.
His success was far more that people felt like he said something that was right, because that's what people wanted to hear. His function was that of a public intellectual that gave voice to a movement, that is valuable in his own right, but arguably he massively influenced that movement in the wrong direction massively hurting the actual goals of most people in the movement.
His historical method is absolutely dreadful, its arguably even worse then pure great man theory. When he lived there were already many far better historians with better methods.
His actual history, therefore was also completely nonsensical. Completely over focus on a narrow slice of western history only to then endlessly backpedal when literally everybody all over the world told him how wrong he was. But he never actually came up with a something better.
> source?
Its in his private letters to Engles, I don't remember witch one. These were not published initially for obvious reasons. But should be findable.
> I'm afraid it does. Or maybe at least the execution, if not the idea: There is currently no democracy on earth that is not at least a little bit socialist. And the same is true for nationalism.
No it doesn't, all the ideas for democracy, and modern social democracy can and were arrived at independent of marxist communism.
Nothing that you call 'a little bit socialist' is actually socialist. State intervention in the economy is something every empire had done threw its whole history. The same to a lesser extent for social program.
Of course these ideas were influenced by the history of socialism as well. But so is everything by everything else.
If you actually look at the world that most socialist thinkers before and including Marx, its not that much like Denmark.
I think Frank Herbert would have a field day with our modern era of algorithms.
*as some variant of Paul archetype rises and returns the branch to a coherent timeline.
Rather odd both the question and the specificity.. Would this not be the same as asking; "Are you 14 years old?"
Not to mention I almost clicked "Yes" thinking it was asking the more common "Are you at least this many years or older?"
"between x and y" normally includes the endpoints.
For example, if someone asks you to pick a number between 1 and 10, everyone would pretty much agree that 1 and 10 are acceptable choices.
My mother has a story about how I would ask about future events as "the day after the day after the day after the day after the day after today", which in my mind was much clearer than "in X days" why it wasn't clear how rounding occurred.
Clearly, this set me up for a career involving off-by-one errors.
Our daughter used to say "yesterday's yesterday" when she was 4ish and I really liked it.
Economic Foundation
- Nabataeans controlled lucrative frankincense and myrrh trade routes
- Fremen controlled the essential spice melange on Arrakis
- Both commodities were incredibly valuable and strategic resources
- Trade of these rare substances provided economic and political leverage
Desert Survival
- Both expertly adapted to harsh desert environments
- Developed advanced water conservation techniques
- Created hidden settlements (Fremen seeches/Nabataean rock-carved cities like Petra)
Social Structure
- Egalitarian approach to gender roles
- Women in significant leadership positions
- Tribal hierarchies based on skill and contribution
- Strong communal survival ethos
Trade and Resistance
- Controlled strategic resources in challenging terrain
- Maintained independence through economic and military strength
- Used desert environment as defensive advantage
- Resisted external imperial powers
Technological Adaptation
- Innovative survival technologies
- Deep understanding of ecological context
- Specialized equipment for desert survival
- Advanced navigational and trading skills
IME, what you refer to by a Greek letter is either "just there" as part of one's perceptual and cognitive functioning, or "just isn't" - the latter obviously being the predominant case, being more adaptive for survival in a newly Enclosed world. One even has some degree of control as to enabling or disabling it. Without guidance as to avoiding its many pitfalls, though, it's still very easy to end up in a psychotic state, or some other uncomfortable frame and shape. Subsequently, the manifestation of cosmic love commonly called "natural selection" does what it's known to do...
(My pet theory is that Abrahamic faiths, the promotion of Christianity to state-religion, and the consequent Dark Ages, were all parts of a sort of mass political reaction to people overdoing that sort of thing. Took a bunch more centuries than expected to even force it underground, though. And, as these things go, it reemerged nearly simultaneously in the form of the indigenous knowledges of colonized folk, who were subjected to more of the same violence, and then some.)
What was being tested last century is whether the so-called "they" can switch it on or off for you, remotely; authors of fantastic literature, even if not directly informed from "on high", happen to be in a good position to sense these workings and conduct discourses on them. Makes for good business, too, since it is only natural for humans to want some enchantment in their lives. However, the background psychological pressures of living in perpetual encirclement naturally (well, mimetically) drive people to compartmentalization, such as the confining of these experiential coagulates into the sphere of "fictions" (if not outright "delusions", the distinction being, for the most part, simply of medium of conveyance.)
Thankfully, as we all know, fiction is something that doesn't exist, and it doesn't take much to realize how this statement cuts both ways.
Regarding the difficulties, yeah that's why proper training is required, which social suppression hampers. Now with new age everything, psi's basically mainstream. Future is bright. In terms of evolution, I think it bifurcates, but that just pushes for the selection of people who can handle it. Ultimately we win. There's sufficient material for people to find their own way rn, tho still not easy.
Regarding the sociological history you propose: interesting theory, consider the black cross placed on the 3rd-eye on Ash Wednesday - ritual suppression? But I don't think any political force has shaped globally this aspect of humanity. I think what people have gone through with this is more the natural consequence of that ability engaging with the world during a time of ignorance. Evolution can involve struggle, aspects of this might include just another struggle, one of humanity's many. Which doesn't mean it all has to be struggle, and everyone's experience is different. But it's understandable that people might face struggle sometimes. I don't think it has to be that way. I think a lot of it is ignorance, and a lack of a proper framework. In a sense I think religions may be more attempts to provide frameworks for these things than suppressions of them. Tho it probably cuts both ways.
Regarding mimetic control of psi in the population: I highly doubt a few fictional portrayals was testing turning this on and off for people. There's been narrative (non-fiction or not) portrayals of these abilities across cultures...for ever?
Don't be misled by seeing ghosts in shadows - ie, by misinterpreting the unseen parts of some covert programs to convince yourself such whatever have more power than they do, i.e. don't fill in the blanks with your fears. Just like in Dune: fear is the mind killer man. Fear is your reality killer. So true. In a sense, Jesus provides a fairly good approach - the highest commandment - love. To create a heaven on Earth around you. Or stay in fear and create your own hell. More so if you're activated, because you're gonna warp reality more. Gotta stay high vibe, very important!
I do think that "Life on Earth" in general pushes this kind of ability to wake up. It's human nature - whether by suppression or support, any kind of engagement with someone's psi ability is going to push this to wake up in people. Pressing down, will push back. It just create another reaction. Keep in mind, it's not "not there" (you said it's either there or not), it's a bell curve, it's not binary. Some people are not aware of many things, psi included. With training in subtle awareness they'd become aware of many things, and psi would be included in that. It's like learning to play a sport: there's talent and there's training. But most people can grasp it given the opportunity.
If you want to attribute manipulation in the psi realm, consider people are embedded in a larger reality which largely is unseen - manipulations mostly come from these unseen realms, not from any human scheming. How to handle? Take care of yourself, realize there's nothing to fear and stay aligned with what's good. It's okay if this is not something you see, but hopefully this helps.
"You need help," I said helpfully. Mercifully, even!
I was making a bit of a heartless pun of sorts on Stevie Smith's poem: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46479/not-waving-but-...
That seems a bit strong given all the wild stuff believe in a religious context.
It is absolutely the truth that a liar will automatically have a difficult time knowing when another person is being truthful. They will both automatically tend to believe the person is lying and not know how to recognize the signs that a person is being completely truthful.
It's the opposite of an honest person being more easily conned. It's not in their expectations, because of their own lack of devious ways.
That's part of the reason that dictators rise to power on the backs of the gullible -- most people are just not that utterly ruthless, dishonest, or mean-spirited. All these GOP folks being fired and deported by Trump are just incapable of comprehending either how vile the man is or how stupid they are (which is why he targeted them with his cons).
And America would be in a better situation right now if more Americans had their heads out of their asses enough to know that that is a bad, bad dude, who cares about one and only one person: himself and those that serve him.
All that said, the first step to recognizing liars is to be brutally truthful, especially with yourself. The worst lies we tell are the ones we tell ourselves.
[ETA: ps: I love you, my friend. Keep shining your light!]
That which you do to the least of my brothers, you have done unto me.
No, but I'll teach you how to not be a loveless, narcissistic destroyer of happiness, like that purblind fool.
That doesn't mean I don't love you, but I am commanded to love you less than the people whose oppression you countenance.
Hitler was both self-aware and a hateful fuckhead. Self-awareness is worthless without a compassionate heart.
https://niche-canada.org/2020/04/24/frank-herberts-ecology-a...
And you can tell people you've been to the dunes that inspired "Dune" :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Dunes_National_Recrea...
I think this must be a common thing that good scifi authors do. I saw a talk by William Gibson many years ago where he mentioned something very similar, he called it "part of his science fiction toolkit".
Paul is based on Shamyl 3rd Imam of Dagestan from that book
> Tim O'Reilly suggests that Herbert also wrote Dune as a counterpoint to Isaac Asimov's Foundation series
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)#Asimov's_Foundati...
One of my favourite books on the topic
First episode:
Except the negotiation scene with Auda. He always seemed a touch too sarcastic in his delivery there, and it makes Auda seem foolish, which makes the scene worse. Like that one awkward cut in the middle of Jaws, this bugs me every time I watch it. Made even worse because the scene’s also wonderful, but that flaw… frustrating.
But god, the rest? It makes him otherworldly, magnetic. In a movie full of larger than life characters (omg, the real life bio of Auda!) you can see how so many mark him early as someone to be wary of, and others underestimate him (he’s clownish!) and others follow him.
Actually, this has made me put "Pillars of Wisdom", which I never read before, on my Kindle to-read list.
Some of it's acting styles, too. You can see it in lots of the characters, a bit of what reads as over-acting today. More stage influence. Having watched a lot of older movies, I get the sense both that film acting styles developed (not necessarily improved, but, maybe) over time, and that for a long while more styles were within the range of "normal" that an audience might not be surprised or put-off by, while today the range of normal styles is much narrower and you rarely see other approaches outside of really niche films or some foreign film markets (Indian cinema!)
Pillars is great, highly recommended. It's extremely different from the film, too—where the film presents a practically mythic figure (and his fall) and is bent entirely toward that purpose, the book is (perhaps contrary to what one might expect) relatively humble, even self-deprecating, and grounded. And Lawrence's writing is outstanding, clear and full of beautiful sentences, phrases, and passages—his fancy education really paid off in that department.
He also penned a translation of the Odyssey (but not the Iliad) which happens to be a personal favorite. I stumbled on and read it well before I realized it was him, since he published that one under the pen name "TE Shaw", which I didn't recognize. Not a tightly-faithful translation, not a verse translation either, but reads very modern in the telling, without feeling anachronistic or losing the sense that you're reading an ancient epic, if that makes sense, and also not far enough away from the original text to be a retelling rather than a translation.
Warfare, spycraft, and statecraft are, on some level, immensely stupid affairs; that's exactly why one of them even gets termed intelligence.