Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:55:07 -0800
From: Michael Andre-Driussi 
Subject: Re: (urth)  "Hour of Trust"  and evolution


Hartshorn wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Andre-Driussi" 
>>
>> So the short form would be to say: "The signature phrase 'hour of trust'
>> applies equally to both the corporate and the rebel forces, not just the
>> corporate forces as one might believe after following the viewpoint
>> character."
>
>
>Exactly - as I read the story.
>
>This is Clio's act of fulfulling and affirming the trust her followers have
>placed in her.
>
>For **her** side - the winning side, evolutionarily ascendant - this is a
>triumphant affirmation of their group morality and group strength.
>
>To the other, the losing, side, it is a lethal betrayal of the deepest form
>of human trust.

No, no! The losing side fails because they are decadent, corrupt, and
bungling; they lack the creative vision, and only lead through dominance,
manipulation, and coercion, rather than leading by example.  (Then again,
if the corporate civilization is as terminal as it seems to be, then any
attempt at "leading by example" would actually be ineffective
martyrdom--that is, like those clerks with rifles dying on the ground. In
contrast to the ragtag group of slaves and boys who saved Rome from
Hannibal: at that stage, the civilization was still vigorous, even
withstanding the scorched earth campaign of a different civilization.)

The "hour of trust" for the corporate side was to be the telecast of a
clean victory as a starting point for a drumming up of support for US (the
corp, if not the United States itself).  With a "we all hang together or we
all hang alone" on the side.

The betrayal you talk about is at the more personal level.

At a level beyond Peters, the betrayal would appear to be (if I follow this
reading correctly) actually a stunning coup-de-grace.  Flaming Peters walks
into the next room, where the "distant from the war" party-goers as well as
the all-seeing telescreen can witness.  Now =this= is true "Old Man of the
Mountain" assassin style: intimidate the leaders with a spectacular example
(they don't want to kill leaders unless they prove intractable).  Suddenly
they are on notice that they have long been infiltrated--chaos and paranoia
ensue throughout the fomerly impregnable redoubt.

With this in mind, Clio was programmed to flame on this day--Peters was
chosen by Clio, not because he represents some corporation
saviour-in-the-rough (which I find hard to believe, as I mentioned before),
but he simply was the best candidate at that time and place.  And, since he
has these anti-revolution attitudes, all the better to remove him, if that
is really a factor at all.

That is: the large-scale message is not killing Peters, the message is
showing the fat cats and the viewers back home the high degree of
infiltration that exists, and thus the effective end of the conflict.

(You continue to use your "evolution for the winners" term, but I have yet
to see what you might term "change used by the side which ultimately lost
against the winners."  After all, they have not been static in any way:
they have changed in ways which, under testing, have not been successful
against their human opponants.)

=mantis=



--