I say that is wrong. I say that is one of the most fundamentally wrong aspects of our undead society.

I think all of us have encountered an individual who rests his respect on the idea of a title. There is no cause for concern to them so long as there is no dissent towards their policy. That is why we exist, Carthian brothers and sisters. We exist to dissent. We exist to dissent because we must dissent, and because our society must be dissented against.

There is no cause for concern if one man speaks against a line in the sand. He is easily labeled as simply a malcontent: a brash individual which cannot accept that which everyone else has, to be ignored and chastised as you would an unruly child throwing a temper tantrum. But what if there are two people? Three? It becomes less of a singular voice and more of a chorus. Collectivism is often considered to be some sort of a necessity in all things, but the only thing that it is truly a necessity in is speech against those who would abuse the idea of a title.

There is no good reason that I can think of to never continuously press those who have become our leaders, because they are supposed to be just that. Everyone knows that not everyone is suited for certain tasks, the idea that the collective can become an autonomous entity, able to swap out one Kindred for the next in title and function and still perform such a task excellently is frankly, inherently flawed. Kindred cannot be a faceless mob with whom others would consider the ultimate form of collectivism. It won't work. It's an Utopian idea with absolutely no ability to be implemented in actuality. Brothers and sisters, let's get the fuck over it.

Instead, let us work towards something new: the creation of a new mindset, where titles are not something desired in order to become powerful and strong and viewed as something which can be taken for a covenant and held through collective ideas. It does not work. I repeat: it does not work. Instead, let us focus on understanding the mindset of those who do rely on titles to give them power. Let us challenge them at every step. Let us ask questions. Why? How come? Is there some desired end which you're seeking to achieve? Who? What? Where? When?

NJ: What are you talking about? Seriously. You're saying all this and I'm not sure any of us actually know what you're talking about.

SP: It's simple. I'll slow it down for you: arming ourselves is going to do two things, both of which we don't want.

NJ: It's not that simple since you still haven't told us what these magical things are.

SP: ...If you'd let me finish.

NJ: By all means! Please continue!

NJ: So, your answer to open hostility is... to...

SP: Nothing. Do nothing. This isn't even an interesting press forward of influence. None of us have any vested interest in the sector, so I'm not sure why it's even a topic of discussion. Let them have the damn sector, it hurts us none to do so, and defending it would potentially cause problems where there doesn't need to be any.

NJ: And when they press into the other sectors because there was no resistance to this one?

SP: Then we open up diplomatic talks with them.

NJ: Seriously? We've been doing that for years and they have absolutely no interest in working with us or even being neutral. At what point are you going to say enough is enough? Last I checked, you wanted us to owe them in prestation because we had - Oh No! - an argument in Elysium in front of other people. At what point are we going to put our foot down and say "Hey! Get out of our territory and influence!" and end it with "Or Else"? You say you don't want us armed as a sect, but what happens when they arm themselves and we are unarmed? Will we bargain with them with our pens and tongues? Diplomacy is important, I admit this and I am fully committed to the idea and actions of diplomacy for our covenant. However... they have showed that they think very little of our organized resistance to pressing forward into a sector when we told them to steer clear of it. Why, then, don't we draw our line in the sand and say "enough"?

SP: So you're advocating that we arm ourselves and then press the issue?

NJ: I'm advocating that we arm ourselves as is necessary for our protection and make the sector difficult to advance in. Then, we inquire diplomatically.

VT: Oh dear, I interrupted the Carthian's dissertation. Tell me, Mister Jordan, what qualities should [Princes] be taught? What are three qualities necessary for ultimate success?

NJ: Education, desire, fearlessness.

VT: What sort of education?

NJ: If I were being honest, I'd say continuous education, never stopping.

VT: What are your qualities Madam Cat?

VT: Your three qualities for ultimate success is "everything"?

NJ: I guess that's an interesting way to answer three qualities.

CF: Oh! You meant... I thought we were talking about me now. Well, I'd say ambition, fearlessness, and social acumen.

VT: Fearlessness is an interesting quality. I'd argue that a certain amount of fear is healthy. How do you quantify fearlessness?

L: I agree, fearlessness if taken literally may not be good. People that are too risk adverse end up dead.

NJ: Fearlessness and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.

VT: Not all those who are fearless are fearsome.

CF: It goes hand in hand with social acumen. You have to know the right time to strike the fear into the hearts of your opponents. Otherwise, it's just stupidity.

NJ: No, you have to be educated. Social acumen means nothing if you have nothing substantial to back it up.

Categories: Las Vegas 2011 | Daeva | Carthian Movement | Inactive