‘That, of course, is the great secret of the successful fool – that he is no fool at all.’
Isaac Asimov, Guide to Shakespeare.[4]
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxoqhza0jR7AQ_7GVoS5hcVDvCl4OsR__x
Holy shitpic.twitter.com/UWRwTlHfXd
— Liberty Lockdown w/ Clint Russell (@LibertyLockPod) March 31, 2022
WGS Award Ceremony beyond parody, check out Burokrat from estonia as a Dystopian piss take you couldn’t write this better.
The cuckold and the cuckold-maker are at
it. Now, bull! Now, dog! Loo, Paris, loo! Now, my
double-horned Spartan! Loo, Paris, loo! The bull
has the game. Ware horns, ho!
Paris and Menelaus exit, fighting.
Enter Bastard.
THERSITES The cuckold and the cuckold-maker are atit. Now, bull! Now, dog! Loo, Paris, loo! Now, mydouble-horned Spartan! Loo, Paris, loo! The bullhas the game. Ware horns, ho!Paris and Menelaus exit, fighting.Enter Bastard.
Along with many of the major figures of the Trojan War, Thersites was a character in Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida (1602) in which he is described as “a deformed and scurrilous Grecian” and portrayed as a comic servant, in the tradition of the Shakespearean fool, but unusually given to abusive remarks to all he encounters. He begins as Ajax’s slave, telling Ajax, “I would thou didst itch from head to foot and I had the scratching of thee; I would make thee the loathsomest scab in Greece.” Thersites soon leaves Ajax and puts himself into the service of Achilles (portrayed by Shakespeare as a kind of bohemian figure), who appreciates his bitter, caustic humor.
“I would thou didst itch from head to foot and I had the scratching of thee; I would make thee the loathsomest scab in Greece.”
is Western literature’s original creepy uncle. He acts as a go-between for Troilus and Cressida and is always reducing their relationship to nothing more than a steamy hook-up.
Did you notice how he kills all the romance between our lovebirds when he rushes them off to the bedroom? When Troilus and Cressida try to get all Romeo and Juliet on us (read: gush about how much they love each other), Pandarus asks “What? Blushing still? Have you not done talking yet?” (3.2.100-101). In other words, Pandarus thinks there should be less talk and more action, which is why he shoos them into a room that’s furnished, quite simply, with a “bed” (3.2.211). (We talk more about this in “Themes: Love.”)
At one point, Cressida even calls her uncle a “bawd” (a.k.a. a pimp), and by the end of the play, even Pandarus acknowledges that he’s been acting like a “trader in the flesh” (5.10.45). FYI—Pandarus’ character is responsible for the fact that, today, the word “panderer” is another name for a person who arranges sexual hook-ups. (He’s also the reason politicians who play to our lowest instincts are said to “pander,” so thanks, Pandarus. )Of course, things don’t exactly work out for Troilus and Cressida, so naturally, Pandarus is blamed for everything. In the final act, Troilus slaps him and says that he should scram because he’s nothing better than a pimp or a servant: “Hence, broker, lackey!” (5.10.33).
But here’s our question: why is Pandarus doing all this? Is he just trying to get his vicarious jollies, or does he have some deeper political scheme that just doesn’t quite work out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortunes_of_War_(novel_series)
Colonialism and imperialism
A major theme of Manning’s works is the British empire in decline.[167] Her fiction contrasts deterministic, imperialistic views of history with one that accepts the possibility of change for those displaced by colonialism.[167] Manning’s works take a strong stance against British imperialism,[166] and are harshly critical of racism, anti-Semitism and oppression at the end of the British colonial era.[197][198] “British imperialism is shown to be a corrupt and self-serving system, which not only deserves to be dismantled but which is actually on the verge of being dismantled”, writes Steinberg.[199] The British characters in Manning’s novels almost all assume the legitimacy of British superiority and imperialism and struggle with their position as oppressors who are unwelcome in countries they have been brought up to believe welcome their colonising influence.[174][200] In this view, Harriet’s character, marginalised as an exile and a woman, is both oppressor and oppressed,[201] while characters such as Guy, Prince Yakimov and Sophie seek to exert various forms of power and authority over others, reflecting in microcosm the national conflicts and imperialism of the British Empire.[40][202][203] Phyllis Lassner, who has written extensively on Manning’s writing from a colonial and post-colonial perspective, notes how even sympathetic characters are not excused their complicity as colonisers; the responses of the Pringles assert “the vexed relationship between their own status as colonial exiles and that of the colonised” and native Egyptians, though given very little direct voice in The Levant Trilogy, nevertheless assert subjectivity for their country.[204]
In The Artist Among the Missing (1949), Manning illustrates the racial tensions that are created when imperialism and multiculturalism mix, and, as in her other war novels, evaluates the political bind in which the British seek to defeat racist Nazism while upholding British colonial exploitation.[205] The School for Love (1951) is the tale of an orphaned boy’s journey of disillusionment in a city that is home to Arabs, Jews and a repressive, colonial presence represented in the novel by the cold, self-righteous, and anti-Semitic character of Miss Bohun.[206]
Manning explores these themes not only in her major novels set in Europe and the Middle East, but also in her Irish fiction, The Wind Changes (1937) and eight short stories which were mostly written early in her career.[167] In these works, colonialist attitudes are reproduced by Manning’s stereotyping of Catholic southerners as wild, primitive and undisciplined, while northerners live lives of well-ordered efficiency. Displaced principal characters struggle to find their place in social groups whose values they no longer accept.[167] Manning has also been noted for her direct and early focus on the impact of the end of colonial rule. The Rain Forest (1974) presents a later, highly pessimistic view, satirising British expatriate values on a fictional island. It also critiques those involved in the independence movement, expressing a disillusioned view of the island’s future post-independence prospects.[166]
On this April fools day perhaps the Depressed fool is the best Village idiot to consult regarding Potemkin Narratives .
1 thought on “April Fools. A Fools Errand by the Potemkin village idiot. This is where the houses used to be , before the Idiocracy and Uncle Joe to go Pander.”