# Charting the rise of Evil/The Rebels.



## Stormcat (Feb 8, 2016)

So, I'm writing about an evil theocracy... and the rebels who oppose this theocracy. Problem is, these guys didn't just show up and take over, they infiltrated the government from within. Similarly, the rebels had to have been organized at some point, maybe they are a splinter of a larger, less effective group.

Basically, I'm asking for help writing two concurrent timelines. One for the Theocracy (Which has a thirty-some year length) and the rebels (which changes shape over those same thirty-some years) I have some specific events on my notes at home, which I'll bring up later once I can get to them.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 8, 2016)

Hello Stormy

Spend a little time researching The Anarchy, the civil war in England and Normandy between 1135 and 1154. This should give you loads of ideas about groups, some overlapping, competing for supremacy over a long time.

You might also check out the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses for the sort of intrigue you're thinking about for your story.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Stormcat (Feb 8, 2016)

Riis Marshall said:


> Hello Stormy
> 
> Spend a little time researching The Anarchy, the civil war in England and Normandy between 1135 and 1154. This should give you loads of ideas about groups, some overlapping, competing for supremacy over a long time.
> 
> ...




Got anything more recent? I was going to use the Iranian revolution as inspiration, but it seems not many westerners know much about it. My only reference (Marjane in "Persopolis") was a little girl at the time and didn't really understand what was going on. But surely the Ayatollah had help and support to "conquer" Iran.

I also have this mental block that makes it really hard for me to process historical events that occurred more than 200-ish years ago. I can barely process anything before the year 1800. I know there were important things back then, but they just kinda all mash togeather in my head.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 8, 2016)

If you are even slightly scholastically inclined I recommend Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution. The pattern is clear. There is a crisis in the old regime which raises popular opposition and comes to a head in some revolutionary action: election (Germany, Trump's USA), deposition (France, Russia, Iran), secession (American colonies). There is a collaboration of factions to form a provisional administration.  One faction rises to dominance, very often through the use of thuggery and eventually overt coercion. This has happened over and over. As far as I can remember, no established administration has been actually 'subverted from within.' There is always an external, dissatisfied source of power; frequently the popular will, sometimes the military.


----------



## Stormcat (Feb 8, 2016)

ppsage said:


> If you are even slightly scholastically inclined I recommend Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution. The pattern is clear. There is a crisis in the old regime which raises popular opposition and comes to a head in some revolutionary action: election (Germany, Trump's USA), deposition (France, Russia, Iran), secession (American colonies). There is a collaboration of factions to form a provisional administration.  One faction rises to dominance, very often through the use of thuggery and eventually overt coercion. This has happened over and over. As far as I can remember, no established administration has been actually 'subverted from within.' There is always an external, dissatisfied source of power; frequently the popular will, sometimes the military.



Not even a coup?


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 9, 2016)

Hello Stormy

My suggestion is you forget about the time of the specific revolutions we're proposing and just think about the interactions of the various groups involved.

Ditto PP's reference to revolutions. For example following almost every revolution there is a counter revolution. Even in America, Jefferson's 'nation of small farmers' was replaced - clearly with absolutely no violence - with Hamilton's concept of a much stronger central government.

So start with any revolution you choose, particularly one for which you can find substantial documentation, then, using this as a template, turn it into your own story. The documentation is important because it will provide you with information on all the different groups competing for ultimate power and how they interacted.

Another example is the assassination of Emiliano Zapata by González and Guajardo during the Mexican Revolution. According to my reading they lured him into a trap with a mock battle in which fifty-seven soldiers were killed - the soldiers died, presumably, to convince Zapata the battle was real. Here is a real-life situation in which two thoroughly ruthless revolutionaries were prepared to sacrifice fifty-seven of their own men to deal with another revolutionary whom they saw as a threat to their own drive for power.

History, whether recent or from long ago, is full of these kinds of double-dealing, back-stabbing incidents you might be able to adapt to your own work.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Stormcat (Feb 9, 2016)

Maybe a "revolution" is the wrong word here. This is more like... the rise of the religious right.

There was a point in time where the nation wasn't overtly religious. Now it seems you can't get a republican sponsor _UNLESS_ every other word you say is "God" or "Jesus", even windbag Trump has had to play this up, even though he can't tell the bible from any other book. Now, I'd like to know, what started the shift towards "god-coddling" and why does it seem only to effect republicans?


----------



## Sam (Feb 9, 2016)

Do people have an aversion to doing their own research these days or something?


----------



## Stormcat (Feb 9, 2016)

Sam said:


> Do people have an aversion to doing their own research these days or something?



Still bitter from ironpony's post?

Anyways, I'm at least willing to do the research, I just have no idea where to look. Wikipedia's not cutting it these days.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 9, 2016)

Hello Stormy

First, use Wikipedia with care. It's useful for generating quick references and for minor details but you almost always need to follow it up with more detailed research elsewhere. If you read several overlapping references in Wikipedia it's not unusual to come across contradictions.

Second, I think your description of what's happening in America today as the 'rise of the religious right,' 'God-coddling' and 'there was a point in time when the nation wasn't overtly religious' is rather simplistic. A thoughtful reading of American history will suggest overt religion, in a number of different visages, has always been part of the nation.

So the question is: is your group of revolutionaries bent on domination purely for the sake of power and they're using religion, in one form or another, as their very visible rationale for their takeover or are they, in fact, true believers who are convinced their beliefs justify their drive for domination? Based on my reading of history, there will be significant differences in their behaviour according to whether they are the former or the latter.

Here I'm trying to be very careful to keep this thread clear of any discussion of the nature of any particular religion and those who practise it. If you're interested in my personal views in this matter, and how nations and organized religions interact, please PM me and we can discuss it.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Stormcat (Feb 9, 2016)

Riis Marshall said:


> Hello Stormy
> 
> First, use Wikipedia with care. It's useful for generating quick references and for minor details but you almost always need to follow it up with more detailed research elsewhere. If you read several overlapping references in Wikipedia it's not unusual to come across contradictions.
> 
> ...



You need not worry, Riis. I'm making up a religion to poke apart. The main message I'm trying to get across in this work is that critical thinking is better than blind faith. Besides, Everyone knows every group has it's assholes, and my story is about what happens when you let the assholes speak on your behalf.

Also, sure there was a time in America when everybody and their brother went to church on Sundays. But what I'm talking about is religion in Politics. Look through some speeches by pre-McCarthy era politicians, they make no mention of God. The US Constitution does not mention God directly, but it does mention "A creator". "Under God" wasn't even added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. Once the "godless commies" showed up, suddenly religiosity became synonymous with patriotism. Every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan and yes, Athiest, gets left behind on election day, just because most of America is some denomination of Christianity (whether or not they actually attend church and read the bible is another matter entirely)

And finally, I want sources better than Wikipedia for the exact reason you mentioned. It's being constantly edited, and very often it contradicts itself. Still, It's a fine resource and I'd gladly use it over any print encyclopedia.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 10, 2016)

Hello Stormy

It sounds as though you're already well on your way to telling your story.

Here are some references to works I've found useful in trying to understand how 'religion' has evolved to become an important part of our makeup as people of the Western World (I don't have anything in the way of understanding of what we usually refer to as 'Eastern' religion or philosophy):

_The Golden Bough_, Sir James G. Frazer (the single volume work, not the entire fourteen volume original)
_Themis_, Jane Harrison
_The Hero With a Thousand Faces_, Joseph Campbell
_From Ritual to Romance_, Jessie L. Weston
_History of Western Philosophy_, Bertrand Russell
_A Distant Mirror_, Barbara W. Tuchman

I could give you a couple dozen more but this should be enough to get you started.

My understanding of the reason God is not mentioned directly in the Constitution is most of those we refer to as the 'Founding Fathers' were not Christians but Deists - although they never told us this when we were in school.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------

