The Meereenese Blot

[SeanF]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Theme-wise, the essays certainly focused on a part of ADwD many other readers - and many of them even on this board - never got or ignored. Namely, Dany's real struggle to create a lasting peace and be the just queen of both (former) slavers and slaves, and how that involves compromises and mistakes. But the actual analysis and prognosis of future plots is severe lacking.

Crushing the slaver culture completely is not bad. Fire and blood is no bad approach there, it is the only thing facilitating lasting change. In ASoS she started as the Conqueror, turned herself into Aenys in ADwD, barely avoiding the poison ... and to finish this thing she needs one or two pages out of Maegor's book. If the plot had her settle in Slaver's Bay for good she would have to become Jaehaerys eventually ... but that isn't the plot.

The masters need to be asset-stripped, Yunkai razed to the ground and ploughed with salt, and the revolution exported to Volantis (making it impossible for places like Mantarys and Tolos to continue as slave cities).

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

The masters need to be asset-stripped, Yunkai razed to the ground and ploughed with salt, and the revolution exported to Volantis (making it impossible for places like Mantarys and Tolos to continue as slave cities).

The bigger local problem would be New Ghis, actually, not Mantarys and Tolos, but yeah.

Volantis will see a revolution now, thanks to the Old Blood insisting on a war against Daenerys ... but exporting her revolution from Meereen would have been hard.

[SeanF]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:22 AM, Lord Varys said:

 

The only time when the Meereenese elite were still cautious was while the dragons were still a real factor and Dany had not yet shown her willingness to compromise everything in exchange for the promise of peace. Then they smelled weakness and blood in the water and decided to destroy her one cut a time.

The Meereenese elite are evil and depraved, but unlike the rulers of Astapor and Meereen, they’re clever.

[astarkchoice]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Meereenese elite are evil and depraved, but unlike the rulers of Astapor and Meereen, they’re clever.

To be fair non are that much cleverer than the other

The yunkai lords have made fools of themselves as they think the war vs dany is a sure thing thud their they have turned part of their army into a parade of sorts lile idiots, astopors masters were wrong fotted but to be fair danys sudden change of direction and tone  was very very out if the blue.

 

Not that it matters they are all doomed. New ghis legions are infected and they and the yunkai forced will collapse around mereen ! They are about to be suprosed flabked from all sides (2nd sons ,windbown and ironborn)  so the masters will die and and whats left of them  will flee bringing the pale mare home!! The rest of slavery is done for....the slaves largely are fire worshippers and they see dany as theit messiah , the huge win outside mereen will set the free cities alight in a holy war vs slavery where the masters will get the punishment  they deserved for some time!

[House Cambodia]

It seems to me, most of the discussion in this thread is attempting to solve the unsolvable. It's telling to me that GRRM entangled himself in a Meereenese KNOT. The problem is analogous with real-life modern 'history' of a sort GRRM is conscious of, particularly concerning US foreign policy. The regimes of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi were atrocious, yet blundering in with no exit plan or strategy to 'fix' societies once the heads had been lopped off resulted in Americans committing atrocities themselves, leaving societies in an even worse state than they had been before intervening, and stuck in 'forever wars' that were supposed to last only a few weeks.

Would it have been prudent never to have intervened? Should we ignore the plight of Gazans? Should we have left Ukraine to Putin's invasion? I'm not suggesting answers - my point is Dany has found herself in a complex situation with no easy answers, and GRRM himself has got himself stuck in a 'mire' that may well take as long to extricate himself from as US troops from Iraq. And anyone who supposes they can solve Dany's problem in a post, a thread or even a blog is unlikely to convince me.

Finally, it shouldn't need stating, but to one poster it needs stressing that you cannot suppose that quotes from an unreliable, highly fallible point-of-view fictitious narrator with a very limited perspective somehow reflects what the author truly believes!

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, House Cambodia said:

It seems to me, most of the discussion in this thread is attempting to solve the unsolvable. It's telling to me that GRRM entangled himself in a Meereenese KNOT. The problem is analogous with real-life modern 'history' of a sort GRRM is conscious of, particularly concerning US foreign policy. The regimes of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi were atrocious, yet blundering in with no exit plan or strategy to 'fix' societies once the heads had been lopped off resulted in Americans committing atrocities themselves, leaving societies in an even worse state than they had been before intervening, and stuck in 'forever wars' that were supposed to last only a few weeks.

Would it have been prudent never to have intervened? Should we ignore the plight of Gazans? Should we have left Ukraine to Putin's invasion? I'm not suggesting answers - my point is Dany has found herself in a complex situation with no easy answers, and GRRM himself has got himself stuck in a 'mire' that may well take as long to extricate himself from as US troops from Iraq. And anyone who supposes they can solve Dany's problem in a post, a thread or even a blog is unlikely to convince me.

Finally, it shouldn't need stating, but to one poster it needs stressing that you cannot suppose that quotes from an unreliable, highly fallible point-of-view fictitious narrator with a very limited perspective somehow reflects what the author truly believes!

As we know, life doesn’t suddenly become great for ex-slaves in places where the institution has been abolished, in real life.  They still face discrimination and economic disadvantage, after abolition.

But, it’s still better that the institution be abolished than retained.

[House Cambodia]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As we know, life doesn’t suddenly become great for ex-slaves in places where the institution has been abolished, in real life.  They still face discrimination and economic disadvantage, after abolition.

But, it’s still better that the institution be abolished than retained.

Exactly; it's very much a "Yes, but..." and the "but" bit is taking GRRM 12 years and counting to resolve. It's why I have every (albeit impatient) sympathy with him taking so damn long over it.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 3/1/2024 at 5:11 PM, Aldarion said:

Yeah, I agree with your criticism... but here is a thing: just because one side is evil does not mean the other side is good. I could name you multiple antifascist movements that were just as evil as the fascists they fought against.

And he is correct that Daenaerys did literally everything wrong... just not in what she did wrong.

Nah. You can’t. You want to and you want to indoctrinate others to think like you, but you actually can’t. Fascists by their very nature seek war, control, and an othering of some people (which they use as an enemy to unite against). No the anti fascists were not as bad as the fascists and they never will be, as fascism is the single most destructive/evil political ideology probably in world history. But keep peddling your propoganda. I’ll be here to give a counterargument to it. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

3 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

It seems to me, most of the discussion in this thread is attempting to solve the unsolvable. It's telling to me that GRRM entangled himself in a Meereenese KNOT. The problem is analogous with real-life modern 'history' of a sort GRRM is conscious of, particularly concerning US foreign policy. The regimes of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi were atrocious, yet blundering in with no exit plan or strategy to 'fix' societies once the heads had been lopped off resulted in Americans committing atrocities themselves, leaving societies in an even worse state than they had been before intervening, and stuck in 'forever wars' that were supposed to last only a few weeks.

Would it have been prudent never to have intervened? Should we ignore the plight of Gazans? Should we have left Ukraine to Putin's invasion? I'm not suggesting answers - my point is Dany has found herself in a complex situation with no easy answers, and GRRM himself has got himself stuck in a 'mire' that may well take as long to extricate himself from as US troops from Iraq. And anyone who supposes they can solve Dany's problem in a post, a thread or even a blog is unlikely to convince me.

Finally, it shouldn't need stating, but to one poster it needs stressing that you cannot suppose that quotes from an unreliable, highly fallible point-of-view fictitious narrator with a very limited perspective somehow reflects what the author truly believes!

“We” - I assume some Russians are on this forum and aome Israelis. “We” doesn’t really work on an online forum with lots of people from different places. Maybe I am being pedantic, but I think using we here is not a great idea for specific world issues effecting certain countries. 

Also the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan MULTIPLE tmes. You are ignoring that the US is fairly directly responsible for the rise of the Taliban for example or for Saddam Hussain being in powerin the first place. This is probably not your fault, as Amwricna public education has a lot of pro-America propoganda which includes skipping the parts where the US was clearly the party in tbe wrong. You said in some cases clearly one side is in the wrong, cough Vietnam cough (it’s the US which was in the wrong and it was clear and GRRM would almost certainly agree with me as he was a left wing anti-Vietnam war dude well before I was born). 

Also the biggest example in modern history is WWII and one case where America was clearly on the right side. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were CLEARLY committing all kinds war crimes and crimes against humanity and they probably wouldn’t have stopped if others hadn’t intervened. Both were expansionist empires which didn’t appear to have plans to STOP expanding. And again, the death toll of civilians killed by both the Nazis and Imperial Japan are STAGGERING. 

[House Cambodia]

A quick glance at my location should tell you many of your assumptions about me are WAYYYY off.

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

“We” - I assume some Russians are on this forum and aome Israelis. “We” doesn’t really work on an online forum with lots of people from different places. Maybe I am being pedantic, but I think using we here is not a great idea for specific world issues effecting certain countries. 

Also the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan MULTIPLE tmes. You are ignoring that the US is fairly directly responsible for the rise of the Taliban for example or for Saddam Hussain being in powerin the first place. This is probably not your fault, as Amwricna public education has a lot of pro-America propoganda which includes skipping the parts where the US was clearly the party in tbe wrong. You said in some cases clearly one side is in the wrong, cough Vietnam cough (it’s the US which was in the wrong and it was clear and GRRM would almost certainly agree with me as he was a left wing anti-Vietnam war dude well before I was born). 

Also the biggest example in modern history is WWII and one case where America was clearly on the right side. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were CLEARLY committing all kinds war crimes and crimes against humanity and they probably wouldn’t have stopped if others hadn’t intervened. Both were expansionist empires which didn’t appear to have plans to STOP expanding. And again, the death toll of civilians killed by both the Nazis and Imperial Japan are STAGGERING. 

Side track why do people keep repeating that the u.s gave rise to the taliban? The rambo version of history where the  soviets had a chance of winning is not reality , the nature of the ussr war machine and the type.of war they were always gonna lose.

The saudi gov  people forget matched the us dollar for dollar in spending and both were outmatchd by private donations..even then outside support wasnt a necessary component for victory ! 

If you wanna blame.anyome for the taliban its saudi arabia funding the  huge well funded hardline madrassas that took in the refugee children of the war, 3 meals and warm beds and 'teaching'... many parents sent their kids to them only for the fanatical seeds to grow into a movement.

Or pakistan who backed the taliban and kashmir islamists as they feel those hardline grouos give them whst they call 'strategic depth' vs india ie if needed they can ramp up suport and encourage them.to attack india forcing the indians to pull more troops away from defensive positions vs pakistan!

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Nah. You can’t. You want to and you want to indoctrinate others to think like you, but you actually can’t. Fascists by their very nature seek war, control, and an othering of some people (which they use as an enemy to unite against). No the anti fascists were not as bad as the fascists and they never will be, as fascism is the single most destructive/evil political ideology probably in world history. But keep peddling your propoganda. I’ll be here to give a counterargument to it. 

Antifascism was a name created by Communists to move attention away from their own crimes. Anybody not a Communist will be an antitotalitarian, not an antifascist. Communism however is as evil as Fascism, and is in fact far more destructive political ideology than either Fascism or Nazism... especially considering it is responsible for their appearance. It too seeks war, control and othering of other people by its nature. The only difference between the Communism, Nazism and Fascism is in the way they define the "other".

You have been brainwashed by propaganda and you don't even see it. And you are not "countering" anything, because you have no clue what you are talking about.

Edited March 6 by Aldarion

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

48 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Side track why do people keep repeating that the u.s gave rise to the taliban? The rambo version of history where the  soviets had a chance of winning is not reality , the nature of the ussr war machine and the type.of war they were always gonna lose.

The saudi gov  people forget matched the us dollar for dollar in spending and both were outmatchd by private donations..even then outside support wasnt a necessary component for victory ! 

If you wanna blame.anyome for the taliban its saudi arabia funding the  huge well funded hardline madrassas that took in the refugee children of the war, 3 meals and warm beds and 'teaching'... many parents sent their kids to them only for the fanatical seeds to grow into a movement.

Or pakistan who backed the taliban and kashmir islamists as they feel those hardline grouos give them whst they call 'strategic depth' vs india ie if needed they can ramp up suport and encourage them.to attack india forcing the indians to pull more troops away from defensive positions vs pakistan!

Because the US and the Soviet Union used Afghanistan as a proxy war during the Cold War. And yes, the US funded the Taliban's rise. Directly. We gave them many of the weapons' they used. Saying that other countries were involved....somehow takes away from the fact taht the US was giving money, guns, and bombs to extremists....Look up Operation Cyclone. I found it on google in like 5 seconds. It says it was one of the most expensive and longest covert CIA operations in US history. The US funded the rise of the Taliban. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Nah. You can’t. You want to and you want to indoctrinate others to think like you, but you actually can’t. Fascists by their very nature seek war, control, and an othering of some people (which they use as an enemy to unite against). No the anti fascists were not as bad as the fascists and they never will be, as fascism is the single most destructive/evil political ideology probably in world history. But keep peddling your propoganda. I’ll be here to give a counterargument to it. 

There have been organisations though, like the Khmer Rouge, the Shining Path, or the Red Brigades, which claim to be fighting fascism, but which are utterly vile.

If you wished to nominate someone for the title of most evil man in history, Pol Pot and Ta Mok would be near the top.  Over the course of three years, they killed 25-33% of the population, as an experiment.

Edited March 6 by SeanF

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

21 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Antifascism was a name created by Communists to move attention away from their own crimes. Anybody not a Communist will be an antitotalitarian, not an antifascist. Communism however is as evil as Fascism, and is in fact far more destructive and evil political ideology than either Fascism or Nazism... especially considering it is responsible for their appearance. It too seeks war, control and othering of other people by its nature. The only difference between the Communism, Nazism and Fascism is in the way they define the "other".

You have been brainwashed by propaganda and you don't even see it. And you are not "countering" anything, because you have no clue what you are talking about.

Again. I do. We did this before. What's your bachelor's in Aldarion. Do we have to do this? Everytime. I studied these kind of topics for my Bachelor's thesis (authoritarianism was a direct focus of my thesis). So yes, I do know things. 

Now, let's move on from your tired discrediting bullshit, let's talk Communism. Communism seeks control, I do not disagree with you there at all. However, unlike Fascism, war and othering ARE NOT necessary for communism's existence. I'm not saying that states in practice did not other or go to war, only that it isn't necessary to its existence. It's not directly in the f***ing doctrine, while it is in Fascism. 

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Basic definitions for both idealogies. I bolded the big and central difference between them. Now, I will state again : Authoritarianims is basically bad. It will always lead to individuals losing basic freedoms. It's not good, and that includes Communism. However, we can still look at Fascism and Communism and see that in one case, hate is a base part of their doctrine. Fascists use hate as a tool no matter what. It is part of the base ideology.  A communist regime may end up using hate, but it isn't base to the doctrine. And yes that makes a difference in how either ideology will work in practice. There are communist regimes existing today....which aren't at war. There is no fascist regime that has ever existed without being at war. Ever. North Korea might be a horrible place to live, but there is no holocaust happening in North Korea right now. They aren't systematically murdering their own people. Do you get it? 

[SeanF]

26 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

North Korea might be a horrible place to live, but there is no holocaust happening in North Korea right now. They aren't systematically murdering their own people. Do you get it? 

No holocaust, but there was no holocaust under Franco or Salazar.  The North Korean government is utterly without mercy towards its own people.

Stalin and his executioners mostly seem to have had the mentality of mob bosses "sorry man, but it is what is" - bullet through the head.  The Nazis liked to mock, degrade, torment their victims, while telling each other how exciting it all was.  So, there is that difference between the two.  But, in Mao's China, mocking and degrading the victims was common enough.

[astarkchoice]

46 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Because the US and the Soviet Union used Afghanistan as a proxy war during the Cold War. And yes, the US funded the Taliban's rise. Directly. We gave them many of the weapons' they used. Saying that other countries were involved....somehow takes away from the fact taht the US was giving money, guns, and bombs to extremists....Look up Operation Cyclone. I found it on google in like 5 seconds. It says it was one of the most expensive and longest covert CIA operations in US history. The US funded the rise of the Taliban. 

Right my post pointed out i was aware of the us , saudis and private sources funding to aid the  forces fighting the ussr. None of that relates to the rise of the taliban though, the men who beat the ussr were old.men when the taliban arose.

If the us stayed out the ussr still would have lost and more importantly the taliban would have arisen. Its not the weapons  that created them its the fanantical madrassas teaching kids  all day the koran and a warped extremist view of how to interpret it! The masses of orphan or poor refugee  children brainwashed there are what truely made the taliban

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Again. I do. We did this before. What's your bachelor's in Aldarion. Do we have to do this? Everytime. I studied these kind of topics for my Bachelor's thesis (authoritarianism was a direct focus of my thesis). So yes, I do know things. 

 

Do you? Or you just think you do? Seems like your bachelor's did you no good.

By the way, my Bachelor's is in media and propaganda, and my Master's is in international relations. I think it is safe to say that I understand these things better than you do.

You should study propaganda, by the way. Might do you good in understanding how Communism ensnares people and what makes it so damn dangerous.

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Now, let's move on from your tired discrediting bullshit, let's talk Communism. Communism seeks control, I do not disagree with you there at all. However, unlike Fascism, war and othering ARE NOT necessary for communism's existence. I'm not saying that states in practice did not other or go to war, only that it isn't necessary to its existence. It's not directly in the f***ing doctrine, while it is in Fascism. 

 

Yes, they are. Othering and hostility are inherent in Communism, Nazism and Fascism alike. Difference between Communism and Fascism is not in their base nature but in specifics. To be precise, Fascism specifies the "Other" primarily in national and/or ethnic/racial terms, while Communism specifies the Other in class terms; Nazism does both. Therefore, Fascist terror is primarily outwards-directed while Communist terror is primarily inwards-directed. But "primarily" does not mean "exclusively". Fascism also had a lot of inwards-dirrected terror and Communism had a lot of outwards-directed terror.

Or to sum it up: Fascism is a pig. Nazism is a pig with Jason Vorhees mask, and Communism is a pig with lipstick. All three are pigs, yet because of lipstick, some people want to snoggle Communism.

And the only reason why Communism never started the world war like Nazism did is because there was no obvious opportunity to do so, and Communists didn't have ideas of racial superiority clouding their minds. But had they had the opportunity, they will have happily invaded the rest of the world. They tried to do precisely that in fact, through a combination of Soviet-sponsored Communist uprisings and outright military invasions during the 1919 - 1923 period. Both the constant revolutions abroad and Soviet military invasions stopped only in 1924 when Stalin came to power and decided to focus on his idea of "socialism in one country". But had Red Army been more competent, Second World War may have been started by the Soviet Union in 1919, not by Nazi Germany in 1939.

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

 

Yes. And it is also a revolutionary socialist ideology, but I guess they don't teach you in school. In fact, fact that Fascism is a socialist ideology is pointed out in the very definition you had quoted:

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

The only lie there is that it is a "far-right" ideology. It isn't. It is an extremist ideology of the center, being a compromise and an union of far-left positions (socialism, revolutionary ideals, belief in progress) and far-right positions (ultranationalism, militarism, belief in hierarchy).

But you can't see the truth even when it is staring you in the face.

2 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

 

And they never tell you what, exactly, creation of said society entails?

Here is a tip: humans are different. This means different abilities, inclinations, everything. And that means that the only way to achieve

Quote

the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).

is through authoritarian regime employing extreme levels of oppression - a.k.a., totalitarianism. And genocide.

2 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Basic definitions for both idealogies. I bolded the big and central difference between them. Now, I will state again : Authoritarianims is basically bad. It will always lead to individuals losing basic freedoms. It's not good, and that includes Communism. However, we can still look at Fascism and Communism and see that in one case, hate is a base part of their doctrine. Fascists use hate as a tool no matter what. It is part of the base ideology.  A communist regime may end up using hate, but it isn't base to the doctrine. And yes that makes a difference in how either ideology will work in practice. There are communist regimes existing today....which aren't at war. There is no fascist regime that has ever existed without being at war. Ever. North Korea might be a horrible place to live, but there is no holocaust happening in North Korea right now. They aren't systematically murdering their own people. Do you get it? 

And can you quote where I said that they are same? Of course they are different, they are different ideologies - just as Fascism and Nazism are not the same, neither are Fascism and Communism or Nazism and Communism.

But nothing that you have written actually refutes my statement that

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It too seeks war, control and othering of other people by its nature. The only difference between the Communism, Nazism and Fascism is in the way they define the "other".

Hate is a base part of Communist doctrine as well. But where Fascist hate is defined in national and Nazi hate in racial terms, Communist hate is defined in class terms. Communists too use hate as a tool and as part of base ideology.

As I have said: Communism defines the "other" primarily in class terms. Nazism and Fascism do it in racial and national terms, respectively. This is what allows Communism to "cool down" and avoid war when it is not advantageous to do so. But you are a fool if you think that Communists are not thinking, day and night, how to export their "glorious revolution" and murder everybody who does not agree with them. The only reason why North Korea isn't invading anybody is because it cannot do so, not because it does not want to. Because it does want to. All Communist regimes want to. They are wiser than Nazis and Fascists - but that does not make them less evil, and only makes them more dangerous, not less.

[Ran]

This thread had gone very far from discussing the books, folks.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

This thread had gone very far from discussing the books, folks.

Discussions about Dany so often do veer into real-world politics, I've noticed.

Dynasties striving for mastery, in a medieval world, is now so far removed from peoples' experience that it's not really a contentious subject, even if the Richard III Society passionately defend his innocence.

Debates over how far violence is justified, or productive in fighting tyranny, have a much more contemporary relevance.