Elijah the Middleborne

1/ Denmark was reportedly preparing for full-scale war with the US over Greenland in January, with military support from France, Germany, and Nordic nations. Elite troops and F-35 jets with live ammunition were sent, and runways were to be blown up to prevent an invasion. ⬇️

NOW - Netanyahu: "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good."

Netanyahu: It is not enough to be moral. It is not enough to be just. "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. If you are strong enough, ruthless enough, and powerful enough, evil will overcome good."

BREAKING: France, Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan say they are ready to join efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

It's virtually impossible to keep debunking all the fake, out-of-context quotes and slop. Rubio's quote last week was picked up by a bunch of ostensibly responsible pundits. Used in headlines, etc. The same is almost surely going to happen with Netanyahu's Durant quote.

No shade to Carlos - he's not the first nor the last on the RW to echo this. Actually it seems almost everyone has. The problem is it's completely false. In this post I will dismantle the lies about Herbert's intent. I will also explain what I think the "meaning" behind Dune and Paul Atreides is. I won't go beyond the original book too far. This will be pretty long. Firstly, know that all the narrative you've seen about Paul being the villain is made up. Why? Well, Herbert cannot really be said to be a RW or Leftist figure, and so this narrative was invented by the latter to claim him. This false narrative is mainly rooted in two sources: his "Mythology of Futurism" speech and the biography of Herbert by Tim O'Reilly. The specific quote in Carlos's post comes from that biography: I had this theory that superheroes were disastrous for humans, that even if you postulated an infallible hero, the things this hero set in motion fell eventually into the hands of fallible mortals. The "beware of heroes" quote, as far as I can tell, originated as a rewriting of the following line: What better way to destroy a civilization, society or a race than to set people into the wild oscillations which follow their turning over their judgment and decision-making faculties to a superhero? You might mistake this at a glance for a mere paraphrase. It isn't. The "Mythology" speech is the source of another popular, real quote: "Charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their foreheads: 'may be dangerous to your health.'" He uses JFK as an example. This isn't the only time Herbert uses a similar turn of phrase, or talked about JFK. He used the exact same segue in the interview he did with David Lynch about the movie adaptation. In that interview he explains his logic much further instead of getting distracted by hecklers demanding to know why he depicts gays as pedophiles. Here is an interesting quote from that interview: We do nasty things to our leaders… we shoot them in the streets of Dallas, hang them on pieces of wood at Golgotha, the whole.. structural form, out of which charismatic leaders evolve – that’s the thing that I was addressing. Here's another one: You would follow Paul for all of the right reasons. He was honest, trustworthy, loyal to his people, up to the point of giving his life for them if they wanted him. I recommend reading or listening to the interview yourself, as from here I will only discuss and not quote it. I give these quotes to make something very clear: Herbert never said Paul was "the villain," because he did not consider him a villain. As he said elsewhere, he considered Paul to be the ultimate exemplar of a great hero. In that sense, the idea that "Dune is about the danger of heroes" is not exactly wrong. But "heroes are bad" is not its intended message. Dune's message on heroes is: Heroes are a facets, agents, and victims of civilization's cyclical evolution. I will note, as an aside, that Herbert does not believe in a "progressive" evolution of civilization from "bad" to "good," but rather an ever-increasing complexity. Each civilization is not necessarily "better," but is always more complex than the last. The Imperium, with its corporate-feudalism, bio/psychological caste systems, human speciation, memetic cults, and the byzantine laws of the War of Assassins represents a society 8,000 years more complex than our own. Herbert says that heroes arise because societies face serious problems. As nations stagnate, it becomes impossible to solve these problems from within the system - a stagnant system by definition is one that has evolved to punish reform and reward waste. Heroes are charismatic and intelligent individuals who want to solve those problems, and are "swept away" by the masses that come to worship them for their efforts. The Corrino Imperium is designed to be the ultimate in stagnant systems - and thus its overturn must be facilitated by the ultimate hero. The first half of Dune is devoted to establishing this. The death of Leto is the ultimate proof of the Imperium's failure. This is why Vladimir Harkonnen is an important character. The Baron is a perfect example of "more complex, not better." The Baron is very verbally intelligent. His schemes are labyrinthine. He is also fairly stupid. I don't just mean controlled by his appetites - Vlad is no evil mastermind. At the end of the day he is a stupid fat homosexual pedophile who happens to exist in a more complex ecosystem than his predecessors. At the end of Dune all of the Baron's plans come crashing down very abruptly; throughout the book we see that absolutely every action he takes is as the pawn of a cleverer, more farsighted character. To the Bene Gesserit and the Emperor, he's a bug. His sole victory is against the Atreides, seemingly because he is clever enough to manipulate the Emperor against them - but we learn it is the opposite. Shaddam used the Baron to dispose of Leto. So how does the Baron thrive, being an appetitic and insignificant moron? Because the Imperium has become terminally stagnant. Vlad is no threat to the Imperium. However, Leto Atreides is an enormous threat. Leto threatens the stability of the Corrino regime merely by existing. The system is implacable, decadent, corrupt, and cruel. Leto is reasonable, austere, honest, and kind. Leto never breaks the rules, even when they're rigged against him. But his intelligence and charisma mean that his influence constantly grows despite his poverty. We are told that Leto is the most popular man in the Landsraad, that every nobleman simultaneously respects and admires Leto... and fears him. The Emperor is no exception: we are explicitly told that Shaddam loves Leto. But Shaddam is the head of the ultimate stagnant system. There is no greater threat to the system than reform, and Leto is the kind of person who could effect it. As long as he exists, a comparison can be made between him and his peers. It does not favor them. Just by being alive Leto exposes the insufficiency of the aristocracy. He is an ideal of what their ancestors were. He deserves his position. He makes it obvious that they don't. Thus, while Leto would never betray the Emperor, and the Emperor knows it, he must be done away with. Shaddam cannot believe in the existence of a man who would never betray him. Even the part of him that does believe it only fears it even more. All this to say: the Imperium has become a system that must prop up the worst and eliminate the best. Vlad is not only evil, but far less competent than Leto in every possible way. But he will be rewarded for aiding in Leto's destruction, because Vlad is stagnant. Obesity (excessive and weak), homosexuality (sterile and effeminate), and pedophilia (cruel and perverse) are embodied in him, and he embodies the Imperium itself, flailing ham-handedly to preserve its gluttony. The Imperium is Vladimir Harkonnen. The Padishah is the figurehead presiding over this abortion, searching for any threat to its continued existence. This is what Herbert refers to as a "problem." It is also what he is talking about when he says that "every decision Paul made was necessary." Leto cannot end the stagnation. He cannot overturn the system, because he is exactly what the system is designed to destroy. He is far from "lawful stupid." He plays the game as cleverly as it can be played, while sticking to his morals. But he plays the game - a solution like "break the rules and slaughter billions" is beyond him. It is also the only solution. If you already love Dune and understand its themes, don't think I am just getting into the weeds here. What I am showing is that Herbert's comments on the book align perfectly with its content. In the Lynch interview Herbert goes into detail about how Paul arrived at a place that was prepared for him. The Fremen were ripe to be made into the perfect warrior race, and they had been propagandized centuries prior to accept the leadership of an offworlder Messiah. Paul goes to the Fremen to survive, not to bring about a genocide. He comes to sympathize with their plight, and wants to carry on Liet-Kynes's vision of a better future for them. But Liet-Kynes is a foreshadowing of Paul, the John to his Jesus: the Imperial Ecologist will be killed by the planet he loves. Herbert and his wife discuss this foreshadowing in their 1969 interview with Willis McNelly, an excellent read. In this interview, Herbert talks about Lawrence of Arabia and the inspirations behind Dune. He says that a crucial theme is what he views as the essential failing of Western man: the belief that knowledge of a thing subdues it. Liet-Kynes knows more about Arrakis than anyone, even its inhabitants. In his final scene, he comprehends perfectly the mechanism by which the desert will kill him. He knows the thoughts of every animal around him. He knows that the Fremen are near, coming to save him. And he can do nothing as the sand swallows him up. If this parallel to Paul was lost on you in the book, not to worry - Herbert draws it explicitly in said interview. Paul is the ultimate Western man. As we seek to subdue the Earth by understanding it, Paul seeks to subdue the Future itself. This is the twist of Dune: Messiah. Herbert discusses John Campbell's rejection of Dune: Messiah - Campbell loved Paul, and was angry that Herbert had "made him into an anti-hero." Herbert denies this in a sense - he says that the difference between a hero and an anti-hero is "where you stop the story." This is important - more later. Herbert believes that what he did that really offended Campbell is "killed one of his gods." Some of their personal letters (which you can find in the O'Reilly biography) back this up. Campbell was upset by an aspect of Messiah's story: he had believed that Paul's prescience would make him impossible for anyone to oppose. Herbert argued that prescience did not actually make a person unstoppable, due to the overwhelming vastness and complexity of the future. Dune: Messiah and Children of Dune dwell on this concept a great deal. If you've read the book, you know that Paul is one of the more in-his-head protagonists in fantasy, perhaps as introspective-per-page as Rand al'Thor (though his thoughts are infinitely more relevant to the plot). The Villeneuve adaptation makes the gigantic mistake (if it was an unintentional mistake) of externalizing the criticism of Paul's actions. But in the book, nothing Paul does is ever criticized. Even his enemies don't really criticize him, because they are amoral and it doesn't occur to them. Only one person consistently questions Paul's motivations and criticizes his actions: Paul. Paul's strong sense of morality is something else Herbert discusses, particularly with regards to his sparing of Stilgar's life. Paul justifies this to the Fremen as an evolution in practicality. But Herbert himself confirms to McNelly that this was a moral decision - Paul would not kill Stilgar because doing so violated his morals. Stilgar was not a crucial strategic asset. He was Paul's friend. This is why Paul is heartbroken when he realizes with Stilgar - as also with Gurney and possibly even his own mother - that his friend has become his worshiper. There is a passage in Chapterhouse: Dune that explains this eloquently. Miles Teg muses that his "self" is lost as his persona evolves: I heard an aide announce me. 'The Bashar is here.' I damned near stumbled, caught by the abstraction... I knew the title removed me from something I did not dare lose. Bashar? I was more than that! I was Miles Teg, the name given me by my parents... I realized my name stood at a distance from something more primal. Miles Teg? No, I was more basic than that. I could hear my mother saying, 'Oh, what a beautiful baby.' So there I was with another name... Name leads to name leads to name leads to nameless. When I walked into that important room, I was nameless. Miles is one of several later "great heroes" who the Bene Gesserit will try to replace Paul with. In case you haven't read the later books: ultimately Paul's impact on the world will be so great that even the Bene Gesserit, who created him to be their slave, will come to worship him and search desperately for a "new Paul" to lead them. This is because Paul saved the universe. Herbert is very conscious of Paul's goodness and his accomplishments. In Children of Dune and God Emperor of Dune, he will reveal that Paul's decried "mass murders" didn't go far enough - his son will have to finish the job, and because Paul shied away from it it will be even worse. This is what he means when he says the difference between a hero and an anti-hero is where the story stops. Centuries after the events of Dune, Paul will be remembered and beloved as a Messianic figure, while his son Leto - who, equally, saved the universe - becomes a mythologized devil. When George Martin demands to know what Aragorn's tax policy is, this is what he's groping at. The truth is Aragorn is going to have to do a lot of bloody and unpleasant things to guarantee Gondor's future. He is going to march into the mountains and slaughter the orcs, the she-orcs, and the baby orcs in their cradles. He will punish the Easterlings and the Southrons for their aggression and reclaim the territories they conquered. Many innocents will die - that is war. But Aragorn won't be the ones killing them. That will be done by others, against his will. We do nasty things to our leaders. Herbert in the Lynch interview is specifically talking about killing them, but he goes on to elaborate that he also means that others pervert the intentions of heroes. Heroes are embodiments of power - "power is the whole game," he said once when asked why the Bene Gesserit would try to create a superbeing. The witches fail to control their Kwisatz Haderach... but he ends up enslaved all the same. Paul is first enslaved to the anger and will of the Fremen. Then, when he begins to try to construct a new order, he attracts corrupt and self-serving hangers-on who are drawn to him solely because of his power. Robbed of his friends and surrounded by sycophants, the revolutionary Hero is all-but powerless in the creation of the new System. His archetypal role is to bring down the old one. If he dies in the process (Herbert speculates how things might have been different if Lawrence of Arabia was martyred), his heroic memory lives forever. But if he survives to help usher in the new order, he will be forever criticized for his mistakes, and even more unfairly for the mistakes and intentional evil of those who latch onto him. Herbert is not warning you not to trust the Hero - he is telling you that you will. And as he said in the Lynch interview, regardless of whether the Hero wants it, a power structure will accumulate around him, "like filings on a magnet." And one day the Hero will die - and the structure will remain. Dune is descriptive, not prescriptive, and its description is accurate. There is one thing that sets Paul apart from other great heroes: his prescience. Paul, in the history of his alternate universe, is the first Great Man of History to see with perfect clarity all the consequences of his actions. Every other great leader and revolutionary confronted the stagnation of his day in the bliss of relative ignorance. Paul KNOWS that billions will die as a result of his actions... but time and time again, no matter how he tries to flee, the necessity of those actions catches up to him. Paul is not the villain or architect of Fate, but Fate's ultimate victim. Even as every other living being in the universe - his friends, his family, his lover, his people - eagerly demand the future he has the power to bring about, he alone fears it, because he is the most moral, the most kind, and the most wise. But all the same it is inescapable. The Wheel of Time turns, and ages come and pass. With every turn innocents are crushed beneath the wheel. All the same it must keep turning. Let the Dragon ride again.