Protocol [March 31, 2011]

At approximately 11:18am, Ben hurried in the door expressing apologizes for being slightly late. He proceeded to make announcements about American Assassin, Vince Flynn’s most recent book, which Ben described as being “too expensive for you to buy”, and also Extreme Measures which comes right after Pursuit of Honor. Ben passed the two books around the circle, and requested that we take a look at the first page which described Mitch Rapp in a sexual rendezvous.

Then Ben proceeded to write on the board:

PROGRAM

1. Housekeeping- assignments/ slapping you on the wrist

2. Contemporary states of exception- mini-case studies

3. Back to Rapp vs. Adams, w/ Hong Fa, Tam, Shukri

4. Building a metacommentary on Flynn

Ben brought up the protests occurring on campus, and there was much confusion amongst the historical truth. This sparked a discussion amongst the class in which details were shared from those in class who witnessed the protestors or knew anything about what was going on. Ben encouraged that we continue discussing these descriptions while he took attendance. He then asked what knowledge has been produced in the room. Paige answered, “We have no idea what is going on.” Jordan said, “They look homeless.” Rachel answered, “They have one little sign, and they’re just sitting there.” Marika retorted, “They have no passion.” Mandi replied with, “They have some sort of passion if they’re sitting out there.” Rachel continued by saying, “If they think it’s really important, and really believe it, other people might.” Paige questioned, “What exactly are they protesting?” Kate thought that it was about the $170 million budget cuts. Ben said that had something to do with it, and asked how we found out about what was going on. Jordan said she found out via facebook, and I read about it in the daily. Ahmed finds it ironic that the US is willing to spend their money overseas but cut their budgets over here. Ben encouraged that Ahmed hold onto that thought because we would return to it in a bit. Ben asked why these protestors didn’t appear more convincing or didn’t seem “passionate”. Marika said if they each had a sign, it would look better. Kat didn’t think there were enough people to truly make a statement. Rachel said if they have different signs, it would be better because all of the signs just said UNFAIR with little writing underneath it. They were difficult to comprehend, and she didn’t think that anyone would take the time to read the fine print and figure out what was going on from a tiny group of disoriented homeless-looking people. Ben invited us to question the following: All of the things about it being ineffective- put this in terms of our work. How would the things we’ve been reading lead us to believe this/ relate to this?

The class proceeded to discuss that if they don’t have enough people along with a lack of passion, they don’t have the charismatic truth necessary to convince people. One way of convincing people with charismatic truth is that the world spirit is on your side or is with you. If you see some homeless-looking people, there is little convincing that history is being made. When people to get press or do seem to be making history, they are possessed by something larger than themselves. Ben explained that, “If there’s massive amounts of people with huge media coverage- my God something is happening here; this is where Hegel and Weber meet.” At 11:30am, Shukri walked in, and Ben said sarcastically, “Welcome! Thank you for joining us!”, marked her attendance, and returned back to the discussion. Many people don’t understand the cause or the aim. Essentially what is happening is that the people are occupying the building and will not leave. Ben said that this building-occupying protesting all began with Vietnam- people occupied buildings in protests of the war. Ben wrote the word “nostalgia” on the board and defined it as “when you make up a fake past that may or may not have existed”. “There is a tremendous amount of nostalgia here”, he said. Ben explained how Hallie, being very lively in her anarchist actions, offered to have Ben hold his class over in the building being occupied. He declined with the reasoning that he didn’t think it was right to declare a state of exception and say that the conditions were right for us to say we aren’t going to meet where we usually meet, inconvenience the students, and take class all the way over there.

Paige was still unsure as to what exactly was being protested so Ben pulled up the group’s blog while others were encouraged to talk of what they know.

Ben also interjected with that in response to Ahmed’s recent blog post, Tuesday is going to be all about liberals.

Ben found the site- www.studentactivism.net and read about how the students occupying the building have made it through their first night, and they’ve released a list of demands. On their website was the following:

“Because we are residents of Minnesota, and because this is a public, land-grant university,

We demand the right to peacefully occupy space at our university,

We demand that the general public has reasonable access to university resources;

We demand that the university respect the rights of all workers to organize and to earn at least a living wage;

We demand tuition and fee reductions;

We demand that regents be democratically elected by the university community;

We demand that the university treat student groups fairly and equitably with respect to funding and space. We demand student groups on the 2^nd floor of Coffman Union be able to keep their spaces.

In doing so, we stand in solidarity with the people of Wisconsin, and students and workers worldwide.”

Ben mentioned that if they’re trying to declare a state of exception that they are going to occupy a building, this is the same stuff they could have protested last year. Minus the Wisconsin thing, it is almost as if the World Spirit passed through already, so he found it seemingly belated.

Mandi expressed that she doesn’t think that the university is going to adhere to any demands. These actions are not pressuring anybody in the university to do something; people are simply occupying a building. She continued to say that she thinks there are different ways to go about it. The counterargument is that they are not trying to shut down the university, but rather create a learning space for all students, Ben replied.

We discussed how things could be viewed, and Ahmed, representing Hayek, shared his views on how this is an economy. They’re not paying for it, they shouldn’t get it.

Kate represented the modern liberal argument- It’s a public school, we should all have access to it.

It was concluded that there’s no answer which is part of the problem- there is no right answer.

We continued to discuss being in a state of exception. Why people may not be convinced is because, as Ben put it, they just aren’t showing it very well. Sophie believes that we more willingly accept things that come from administration, but if a group of students come together, you have to have a really good strategy because they have less authority. Rachel said that she didn’t think the protestors were all students and that they all seemed like random people. Ben clarified that “It is a lot of people in the anarchist community.” He also wanted to emphasize that Sophie’s comment is really important. Newspapers, government, they have bureaucratic authority. Anybody with the title President in front of your name, you have immediate legitimacy as opposed to ‘anarchist bums’ or ‘lazy ass students’. Even if they have the title, it does not mean that they are more informed”, he concluded.

Ben shared how he found a few other contemporary states of exception. On the http://startribute.com/politics website, Ben read part of an article titled, “Bachmann slams Obama over Libya intervention” to the class.

He explained that what is going on here is that there is a dispute in whether we are in a state of exception. Obama claims he doesn’t have time to talk to Congress, that there is immediate danger, that slaughter going on now. Bachmann says that this does not constitute as a state of exception. Ben brought up how one of the most important/dangerous things about how we handle history is that we don’t agree on the facts. But he brought up a good point: he dislikes Bachmann very very much and likes Obama fairly well, and agrees with his view on how we are currently in a state of exception with Libya; however, when Bush was essentially doing the same thing and the democrats did not view America as being in a state of exception, Ben was very much so against Bush going into Iraq without declaring war.

‘GOP plans may mean mothballing some state parks’ is another article that Ben opened. Many Republicans and Tea Partiers are saying we are in a state of exception and have to cut serious funding to state parks because we are broke. We are in a budget crisis, and we need to cut, cut, cut. Paul Krugman (a really brilliant economist, Anti-Hayek, has a column in the New York Times in Ben’s view) expressed an opposing view in that the nation always has a deficit, and it isn’t going to be bankrupt tomorrow. He finds this issue not an exception as the Republicans views it, but rather just a tactic to cut budgets.

We then moved onto covering some housekeeping details. Ben felt the need to slap us all on the wrist for a re-occurrence on the blog assignment. Many of us were not sure whether in our comments whether we were still supposed to be Vince Flynn, but he made it very clear and even italicized it in the description. Ben really wants us to read the whole assignment; he puts a lot of time and effort into wording it perfectly.

Ben asked if we have any questions about the External Writing Assignment #3. Paige asked if he has any ideas for us. Ben replied by saying he has ten thousand ideas for us. He said anything having to do with the tea party, the media establishment, state of exception politics, esoteric and exoteric truths with the Libya invasion, anything in White Noise that you can bring back to the Adorno/Arent capitalism, any aspect about contemporary culture you can link back to this are all possibilities for the assignment. Also, just to clarify, he said that it does not have to be a current state of exception that is being covered given that that is the topic we would like to write about.

Then Ben shared that he has actually learned a lot from homeless people.

He encouraged that in our “copious spare time”, we should read a book by the journalist Gary Webb called Dark Alliance. It is the very well documented story about how the CIA has imported crack to kill off pats of the low-income black community; there is a lot of documentation, Ben shared.

He also mentioned that in regards to the Final Assignment- what we should start doing is start talking about it and think about who you’re going to work with.

Resuming Rapp vs. Adams, Hong Fa asked that we take out the sheet of paper that we wrote on last class period. Tam asked what our reaction was to the scene and what our thoughts on the characters were. “Who do you side with and why?” was asked. Gina said that she felt really bad for Adams because in the first chapter that he showed up, she thought he was the good guy even though later on, it was apparent that he wasn’t. Mandi said she felt the same way, but she realized that when the doctor was evaluating Adams’ mindset, she realized that Adams was the only one who thought he was doing the right thing. Emily reacted differently. She knew that with Rapp being the main character, he was the good guy and Adams was the bad character. To further her intuitions, she also felt that Adams was bad because he was initially being watched. Ben found Adams to be a deeply unsympathetic character. He’s a drunk, he’s hypocritical, he says he’s defending the law but he breaks it. Adams also thinks that he’s special. Ben found it difficult to empathize with him. Ben described him in this way: “He’s the liberal elitist who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a dumb-ass and is simple-minded.” Britney said two really strong things: #1, this scene makes you choose. One way the rhetoric in this book works is that it makes you take a side. Either you’re with Rapp or you’re with Adams. This is classic Schmittian logic. Second thing is: the choice is between two different ways of breaking the law. This is where Ben finds the book insidious and dishonest- every person that opposes what Rapp is doing ends up doing something even worse. He shared a quote from Rapp on page 104: “I break these laws to keep people safe. Real people. You break ‘em to protect some piece of paper you don’t’ even understand.” Liz expressed her thoughts, “The reader is also constantly required to choose between the two sets of characters, there’s this binary way of presenting them.” Hakim and Karim were talked about as examples as well as Nash and Rapp. They functioned much like the thesis and anti-thesis; friend and enemy. It was also noted that in this book, there’s a third character to be included such as Ahmed with Hakim and Karim. Liz also viewed the bigger guy (with Rapp and Nash) as the binary to Ahmed.

Ben gave everybody a hand-out of a list of people who you were grouped with to talk about the themes regarded in our blog posts. It also included page numbers from the book and articles we’ve read to be used as references. We were to take about five minutes to see what we come up with to see if we come to some rare moment of clarity.

Ben said, “We are going to come back to this in the context of Lowen on Tuesday. So let’s talk about the friend and the enemy. Let’s talk about the enemy. What’d you all discuss?” He referred to a small group by the window, and they said that they discussed how the enemy always seems to have extreme narcissistic qualities; the psychologist points that out. Turning to the page on the enemy (page 487), we found that the psychologist gives the same diagnoses for Adams as Karim, and the enemy always has a problem. Schmitt says the enemy is the enemy because we say he’s the enemy, but in the book it is that there is something wrong with the enemy him/herself. Britney mentioned that Jared Lee Loughner is being medically evaluated right now. Ben expressed interest and asked if she would keep us posted.

Then we moved onto the group that discussed the friend theme. Sophie said Nash’s family becomes the prize at the end of the book. Nash’s family is kind of the American dream. After he gets released to the public, then his gun is working again in the bedroom on page 447. On page 468, it showed his authority over his kid. It presents a relatable tone to that family atmosphere. It was also noted that the book doesn’t talk about the terrorists have a family.

Our group covered concepts of how Rapp is being possessed by the World Spirit because he is essentially the one dictated to make history. We shared a quote that described how Rapp felt foolish to think he could ever lead a normal life in regards to his wife’s murder, emphasizing that the World Spirit is with him. We also touched on the problems with the FBI and how if you’re in a constant state of exception, then is there even an exception anymore?

The class came to a close as Ben exclaimed his disappointment in that, “We didn’t even get a chance to talk about chapter 50 where abortion is the same thing as terrorism!” He reminded us to keep these sheets, they’re a decent guide as a knowledge that we all produced on this. He may send out a PDF of a little bit of American history text to contextualize Lowen. Blog posts will be up tomorrow, we’ll get an email. We were reassured that the blog post assignment will be about Lowen. At 12:33pm, people began to gather their belongings and head out the door.

Protocol 3/29

As we started with some house keeping today we congratulated Alyssa with having her letter published in the Daily. She wrote about the movie Limitless in comparison to college students use of ADD medication. In order to be published she first mailed her article to the Daily. The Daily edited her paper only a little. It was published very close to the way she had wrote it. Ben pointed out that the comment shared underneath her article said "umm, wtf?" Ben pointed out that this person is clearly not a great thinker.

Next on house keeping was to pass out the hard copy assignment for external writing number three and the final project. Ben explained that external writing number three is making history using the bureaucratic system and said it would be smart to start with information that we already know from class. He stated that he is scared we are going to go back to what we think an academic paper should be and BS it. A formal paper does not mean boring. Think about Wolf and Vidal, you can put yourself into the paper but still follow the rules. This paper is what we have already done yet in a different form. Ben recommends coming and talking to him about what you want to write about and he can help. The grading is a little different for this external writing. The grading is collaborate, so we say what we think we deserve our grade to be and Ben says what he thinks what our paper's grade should be. He will update us more on this later. The final assignment is to make history charismatically. This assignment is shorter. We do not need to write a paper, but simply tell the class what we did. The groups are four to six people. Creativity, wit and originality always helps! Ben says he will answer more questions later.

Today we had some guests in class. Ben had everyone say their name and if we were a sovereign state who would be our enemy and the exoteric and esoteric reasoning behind it. Ben gave the first example by saying his name is Ben and if he were a sovereign state his enemy would be exams. The exoteric reasoning is that exams are destroying the state of critical thinking. His esoteric reasoning is that his preliminary exams start next week. Ben recapped that exoteric is the noble lie you feed to the masses. This lie is used to scare the hell out of the American people. Carrie said her enemy was tuition. Her exoteric reasoning was it stops people from attending school. The esoteric reasoning was she is exhausted from working eighty hours. Gina said her enemy would be her high school's school board. Her exoteric reasoning is that they provide false promises, and her esoteric reasoning was she is pissed they didn't read her paper. My personal enemy was basically anything medical such as doctors, health insurance companies, etc. My exoteric reasoning is it cost a ridiculous amount to go to the doctor. People do not have enough to pay so they cannot go and then of course they die. My esoteric reasoning is bills, especially the Boyton bill where they told me to go home and rest for 132 dollars. How kind of them. Ahmed said his enemy is credit credit companies. His exoteric reasoning is that they manipulate and trap people. His esoteric reason is his interest rate. Ben pointed out that our enemies are all connected. You can take the reasoning for hating a group and bring it to hating a group of people . This all relates back to Nazi Germany and hating the Jews. The guest's shared as well. Anil shared that his enemy was skinny jeans. His exoteric reasoning was that they cause strangulation of the leg flow that results to bad blood flow and can lead to a car accident. The esoteric reasoning is that he just doesn't like them. The second guest name was Rachel. She shared that her enemy was the director Arnosky. Her exoteric reasoning was lack of directorial skills contributes to death of cinema, and her esoteric reason was the director looks like a douche. The third guest name was Jesse, his enemy was cars. His exoteric reasoning was they pollute and cause accidents. The pollution causes global warming which will rid us of civilization. His esoteric was he has a bad sense of direction and wishes people would just navigate for him. These guests are prospected doctoral students. Which means they would get tuition cuts yet ironically have to pay 500 dollars in fees. Ben says a question to think about is "What can we do about that? What can we do to build agency?"

We then moved to thinking about the history we have learned in class and how has it led us to Flynn. Marika said the study of truth and what actually happened. I shared what we have learned about why people make the decisions they make and how it is based on their background. Ben asked for an example. I said that the differences between Hakim and Karim and how they made the decision to kill the dad and his son. Britney shared the bureaucratic vs charismatic and how the book attempts to convince someone. Mandy then said that going off of charismatic truth she was thinking of Howard Beale and told everyone she found out that Network is Rachel Ray's favorite movie. Ben then asked if Pursuit of Honor is Charismatic truth. Sophie says it is charismatic since although Flynn did research he still uses his own truth to come through his characters. Ahmed asked if a fiction book can be bureaucratic truth. Kate said that it could not and Ben agreed. We discussed how Vince Flynn is a brand. His name on the book is even bigger than the title. People are buying the book since he wrote it not for the title. Our guest Rachel shared that since Flynn's book is shows that it is a New York Time's best seller does that influence people on the truth. Does Flynn's status make people what he writes. Ben says Flynn has a position of authority since he appears on talk show, etc. Beck says if you are looking for the truth to go to the fictional writers. Ben believes that you need sources and to list those sources in order to gain bureaucratic truth. He noted that this is important for all of us to remember, "Bureaucratic truth is suppose to show you are disinterested. You are just telling it how it is." Since there is no way to check Flynn's sources then he is not bureaucratic truth. However, a lot of people learn their history from Flynn rather than Wolf. Just cause its charismatic truth does not mean its not true. Ben shared that it is impossible to get things just the way it happened. Take a look at my protocol vs Mariana's protocol. They will be different since we are in different positions.

Then we moved on to Hongfa, Tam, and Shukuri's difficultation. Tam asked for six volunteers to go out to the hall. Inside the classroom Hongfa has the rest of us come up with quotes, moments, and keywords from Flynn that is related to four authors: Vidal, Wolf, Strauss, and Schmitt. A picture of this can be found in Mariana's protocol. The six volunteers came back into the room. The first three acted out a scene from Flynn chapter 17 page 100-104. Alyssa, Kate, and Ahmed performed the reenactment first then Ben, Heidi, and Mandy performed the same scene second. It was interesting to see the differences in the scenes by different actors and by adding a prop. The class then took notes by using three sections one for our reaction to the scene, the second for the reaction to the characters and the third for "What is Flynn's purpose of having the characters portrayed in this scene. We got into groups of twos to discuss. As the whole class moved to group discussion the class time had sadly run out. By next class Flynn is supposed to be finished.

PROTOCOL!

Protocol 3/29 Ben came in today and wrote the program on the board like he usually does. It reads: -we’ve gone public! Elisa on the daily -Housekeeping- the last two big assignments -introducing ourselves (and we’ve got quest. Anil, Rachel, and Jesse) sorry if I misspelled them. -Vin Flynn difficultation - (if time: building metacommentary) which we didn’t have time for. First Ben starts off by letting the class know that we have some guest and we are introducing ourselves using Exoteric and Esoteric. Ben’s example: was my name is Ben, my enemy would be tests and the exoteric reason would be that exam are destroying the state of capacity and will destroy our ability to think. The esoteric is that doctoral exam start next week and he is terrified. After that everyone in the room had to go around and say their exoteric and esoteric examples. But before that...Elisa went public! CONGRATS! Elisa got her external writing published in the daily. ‘Limitless’ and the college student. She wrote a comparison to student and medicines they have taken (drugs) she said it wasn’t edited that much. Then after congratulating Elisa and her telling us how ironic is was that she wrote about drugs and the guy that she talked to on the phone must have been on drugs. (Lol) Ben passed around a couple things. The last two big assignments. He handed out external writing number three. This is a Formal academic paper (surprise!). He explained that its part of the core material of this class. Hopefully all the stuff we have been talking about don’t just forget it! Ben said to keep in mind that formal doesn’t mean boring. Think about Vidal, wolf, (and I missed the other person’s name) that is actually really engaging. He will answer some questions at the beginning of class. Ben recommends that all the students come and talk to him about what you want to write about. The external writing number three rough draft is due two and a half weeks from Thursday. Steal from yourself and use what you wrote! No reason why you have to re invent the wheel. Ben explained that the grading will be different. We are going to be grading it together. We will meet and negotiate what you think you should get on the paper. After his mini lecture he made us put them away. NOW- having seen the external assignment number three, the final assignment is about making history charismatically, and I want you to start thinking about it! Ben explains that it’s a much shorter assignment. There is no written involved, work in groups together. Remember THE SKY IS THE LIMIT! Groups 4 to 6! Give it a read before Thursday! Questions will be answered in class. Ben had one more thing to add before we moved on to Vin Flynn he told us that his friend Richard leapord?? Is a big Adorno fan and he Found another pamphlet called soviet tendencies or control over America. He didn’t read from it but Ben passed around the pamphlet. He explained that it’s a Classic state of exception. We are being attacked!! You have to declare a state of exception! After all that Ben introduced the quest and we went on with the introductions! Kari (sorry for misspelling names I apologize!) volunteered to begin! (I personally don’t get it quite yet!) Ben gave the definition of exoteric once again for those who didn’t understand. Exoteric is the noble lie you feed to scare the hell out of the American people. My example was: My enemy is people who can’t drive! Because they are the reason why there is accidents and traffic. My esoteric is because I have road rage!! People don’t move over when they are supposed too! Going 55 on a 65!!! Ugh!! & DIE! As we went on it seemed that people had a lot of problems with credit card companies and money over all. But what can we do about that?!? Student tuition is ruining everything!:(Before moving on Ben stressed two things! -Schmitt and Strauss! We are pretty good!: thinking about the history of this class what brings us to Vin Flynn?? Marika answered- the truth of history and what actually happened! Rachel followed with how people make decisions, like the two terrorist and karim kills them and hakim is against them. Ben exclaimed “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception!” Brittany raised her hand and added on-how do we convince people to convince what is actually true! With that being said we moved on to Vin Flynn PURSUIT OF HONOR The book is writing in a charismatic although Vin Flynn did do research to write the book he didn’t cite any sources. This was pointed out by Sophie. Mandy speaks up and says because he only offers one side of it and only shows the story! Agrees with what Ahmed said about how it can’t be bureaucratic if it’s a fiction book. Ben says that if you are talking about the production of historical truth it can be bureaucratic. Rachel one of our guests speaks out and says that Vin Flynn is a brand this name sells book more than this title! He is a New York Times best seller because he is an authority on the subject! Ben explained that the book didn’t sell very well at all and didn’t get any good reviews! Kate points out that Glenn beck said it was his best book though!! (Surprise there!) Ben argued that Vinn Flynn is just a good fiction writer! He has this position of power! Sometimes if you are looking for the truth you have to turn to the fiction writers! He also said No writing is charismatic or bureaucratic you have sources somewhere! What is true!? Bureaucratic truth is supposed to effect disinterestedness which Ben enforced that is was very important!! Ben also pointed out that Vin Flynn Degree is in what?? He has no foot notes! And it’s not scientific! And there still is a truth! It’s impossible to write “how it actually happened” Ben gave an example with the protocols. Two different people write different protocols because they come from different points of view/positions!! After discussion about Vin Flynn and running late on time we jumped into the Difficultation! Tam gets up and asked for 6 volunteers! The people doing the difficultation today are Hongfa Tam and Shukuri. After the six volunteers leave the room Hongfa wants everyone to come up with keywords from the book that is related to Vidal, wolf, Strauss, Schmitt, the square in the middle is for similarities between all of them! After about five or ten minutes everyone walks back in the room including Ben. HOngfa then said they are going to be doing a reenactment from pages 100 to 103 and to follow along and pay attention. The first to perform were Ahmed, Elisa, and Kate. NEXT were Heidi, Mandy and Ben! (This was very funny! And good job guys!) The difficultators stressed again for us to pay attention to the actors as well. Ben is on the floor and the same acting is taking place from page 100 to 103! Tam now asked the class to take out a piece of paper and make three columns (Not going to be turned in!) They explained to write our reactions the play! The reaction to the characters and last to answering the question: “what is Vin Flynn purpose of having the characters portrayed in this scene?” We got a few minutes to work on this! Sophie and I were partners. Sophie thought that the purpose of this was that Vin Flynn was trying to portray this sort of hero. (Sorry if that’s not exactly what you said!) With all that being said we didn’t have enough time to finish the difficultation and will take over from where we left off in the next class, Thursday!

A necessary dialectic

I worked to convince my audience of an overarching truth that the world at large should be aware of. It is clear that America, a land symbolizing opportunity, pride, and glory, is easily targeted by terrorists. Why wouldn't corrupt people want to undermine the most powerful and successful nation in the world? In a seemingly twisted way, I would argue that the pathetic attempts of corrupt people to destroy our country are necessary in maintaining the grandiose that America stands for.

This may seem like a contradiction. Why would the terrorism afflicted upon our land be necessary in sustaining our nation for all of its worth and value? As Natalie Wolf states in her book, The End of America, "The 'enemy is functional: What matters to a fascist leader is not to get rid of the enemy but rather to maintain an enemy." In doing so, America has only furthered their foundation as the strongest nation in the world, and has proven its strength in challenges that would crumble other countries. Furthermore, I took into account Theodor W. Adorno's message from his article, "The Psychological Technique of Martin Luther Thomas' Radio Addresses". Essentially, Adorno speaks on how being rationally irrational contradicts itself, but history works on this dialectic phenomenon.

I did not necessarily need to be speaking to a particular age group, race, or social class of people; I intended to have an eclectic audience with a range of backgrounds. This is why I wrote 500 times more than what was required in the assignment, and published it for the world to read. It is a message that I believe anybody can take from, and I hope that they do. I chose to convey my truth through a thrilling story to captivate my audience. The way I exemplified the strengths of our nation will hopefully shine through as the reader takes in the message I am trying to send. I chose to implement a number of historiographic elements by including a concepts expressed by other historiographers such as Wolf and Adorno to legitimize my truths. In describing the pitiful actions of the terrorists in Chapter 12 through an idiotic conversation between Hakim and Karim, I hoped to display how various nobodies work to terrorize our nation, but we withstand the terror and stay exalted through this complex relationship.

Breaking the Rules

The Pursuit of Honor gave me a great chance to acknowledge the stress our country has been under the war on terror and the great work from the people who work hard to keep us safe. However, the people who work hardest to keep our people safe are at times the ones who get little recognition. This book is for them.

As Americans we have rules in our everyday life. Rules we must follow on the roads, at home, and in our work place. In Pursuit of Honor I show that in order to do your work successfully at times you must push back against the system. Mark Rapp goes against the rules and break the laws in order to keep the country safe. I show this in chapter 10 when Adams and Hurley are talking. Adams accuses Hurley of breaking the law. Hurley responds, "You're damn right I do. What in the hell do you think it is that the CIA is supposed to do? You think we're supposed to obey everyone's law?" (62). He goes on to say that they have done more than the Senate and the House to protect the country without recognition. Following the book gets in the way of what they are trying to achieve. By keeping Adams, Rapp has broken many laws, but he does what he needs to do in order to do his job, whether legal or not.

There are many different perspectives that shows the truth that people must "break the rules" in order to achieve their goal. With Adams he seems to believe people should never break the rules. However, he wants to expose the CIA and bring down Rapp and in doing so he commits treason and releases classified information. It is interesting on the pursuit of honor everyman must break rules and push back against the system.

This truth works on the audience since everyone can relate to doing something they are not suppose to in order to get ahead. Mark Rapp also does a lot of influencing. Mark Rapp breaks the rules and could care less. He does what is right, not necessarily what is by the book. His attitude of being so casual and confident in his actions make him someone to admire. The audience wants to relate and be a Rapp character them self.

Along with Schmitt "Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" which shows that there is always a way around the rules in order to do what is right. When the different people see what is the right way then there are always exceptions to get what is "right". In here I saw Hegel. I felt that when one person had a plan, such as Adams wanting to bring down the CIA and Rapp then the antithesis was created which was Rapp and his guys taking down Adams. They both use the exception in order to do what they both believe is right. They are both moving towards truth and freedom, yet could not do so if they were playing by the rules.

Pursuit of Honor metacommentary

I wrote Pursuit of Honor because the United States is facing backhanded, cowardly terrorist attacks and in order to protect the American people these terrorists and anyone else who harbors them or condones their actions should and must be brought to justice by any means necessary. Terrorists, at their core, are really idiotic lunatics who just want to destroy American cultures, ideals and values. In response, it is not only important but also imperative that we elicit information from these terrorists in any way possible, including torture. Paper-pushing, sheltered office politicians are not only wrong to oppose torture, but they are endangering national security by publicly opposing it and by letting bureaucracy get in the way of justified, vigilante justice. Large government only ends up getting in the way of protecting its constituents. This is evidenced with the rise of the Tea Party that is “an authentic popular movement, brought on by anger over the economy and distrust of government- at all levels, and in both parties,” (Zernike 5). Individuals are finally realizing the importance of having a small government and are demanding that government reduce restrictions and cut programs.

A distinction must be made between friend and enemy in order to further the interests of the United States, and enemies deserve to be tortured and even killed in the name of national security. Politicians especially need to realize that methods such as torture are necessary because “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced in that between friend and enemy,” (Schmitt 26). Terrorists are enemies and thus they should be treated accordingly. It is unfortunate that politicians do not realize that enemies are present at home and abroad; the American people expect that they be protected by all threats equally, internal and external. Torture functions to protect citizens from these threats.

I intended this book to be read by ordinary citizens as well as politicians to enlighten them on the importance and place of torture as a means to protect the rights and liberties of all American citizens. Using the method of torture to protect the nation seems rash and wrong to those individuals who oppose it because they don’t realize that in order to combat irrational, crazy lunatics you have to break some rules in order to get the job done and restore safety. The murder of Dan Stewart and his wife who were law abiding American citizens by terrorists illustrates the urgency to deal with terrorists as enemies. Hakim, Ahmed and Karim invade Stewart’s home and kill him on the spot, shooting his wife in bed. This should convince all readers that terrorists are cold-blooded murderers who prey on innocent, defenseless citizens.

I chose to write from the point of view of the CIA because this forces the reader to identify with the perspective of those who must torture traitors and terrorists to keep the country safe. The truth that torture is not only necessary but desirable is legitimated through Mitch Rapp who must use these methods in order to save the day and put down terrorists. Rapp must put his life on the line in order to keep the country safe day in and day out, and the only way he can do the job right is through torture and by keeping large government away from his work.

Convinced, not decieved

“We are becoming the very monsters we are trying to destroy.” This quote was intended to make you think about the actions that those in higher power take. A lot of the time they might think they’re helping but there really just helping themselves or other people of higher power. Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by mistake. I went to the extreme and make my fictional character, Mitch, to give the American people someone they can easily identify with. Someones who goes through trials and tribulations like themselves. It is often said that “the road to hell was paved with good intentions.” I think this quote fits well with this book. The CIA may or may not have good intentions but they’re going about things the wrong way. They feel as though they’re above the people they’re supposed to be protecting, which is never good. This is just my personal opinion. I remember a quote that I heard earlier in the class (I can’t recall exactly when, but it was during Glenn Beck.) but it was, “TV is strictly for entertainment, I don’t believe a word I hear from it.” Or something close to that nature. The same thing goes for books. I’m not saying my book or events that occured in my book couldn’t be true, but I’m also not telling you that they are. My job is to make the American population aware of what could be going on with the CIA. And I just happened to be entertaining them at the same time. All I did was convince people in a strong manner, with vivid detail that the CIA was no good, and everyone fell right in line. So the truth I’m trying to get to is that anythings possible. And Mitch can definitely show you how misleading the CIA can be. Weter you choose to believe it or not is your own choice. But if you want my opinion or Mitch’s for that matter, the CIA can not be trusted.

Truth or Lie?

Vince Flynn speaking. Do you read me?

First, “ knowing it, and experiencing it, is two very different things (31).” You could know all the truths in the world, but that knowledge will not necessarily enlighten you to what actually happened. You will never know how you truthfully feel, unless you experience it yourself and develop your own personal perceptions. You people, as consumers are constantly fed information that is either fabricated or over generalized in order to be protected.

As an example, different cultures and places across the world have different meanings for things that coincide with their traditional beliefs. Someone from America might see something as threatening, but someone lets say from Afghanistan, might see that same exact scenario as something that is normal. This reinforces the idea that “there are two sides to every story (59)” and that is utmost necessary to seek to find the truth before acting on preconceived notions.

I illustrated in the novel the situation in which Hakim and Krim became defensive when they saw Ted and his young son on their lawn in bright orange apparel. This was because “in Afghanistan the Americans would drape their vehicles and positions in orange panels to reduce the chances of their own planes bombing them (71).” However, Ted and his son were just hunting. Hakim tried relentlessly to convince Krim that they were not there to harm them, but Krim wouldn’t trust that until he experienced it himself. According to Wolf, “ each culture, identifies its own national enemy…once an enemy has been identified, the elites create myths inflaming the fears that the population begins to suffer from in relation to this “other” (37)”. Hakim and Krim had been taught from their country to fear these representations, but once they personally encountered these myths they soon came to realize the truth.

In conclusion, I write this novel in order to illustrate for people all over the world to realize that in everyday situations it is important to seek to understand the truth. What one is told may completely be wrong when you personally experience it.

Well, goodnight now.

Metacommentary on Persuit of Honor

I believe my book Pursuit of Honor legitimized many truths. One of the truths that I want to touch on is the “truth” that the world spirit is around us influencing the way the world works. Throughout the semester we have talked about the “World Spirit”. My book contains many events that were influenced by the “World Spirit”. In class the World Spirit came up during many class periods. Some that stand out in my mind at the moment were when we discuss the movie “Network” when Howard Beale’s body was bring taken over by the world spirit. The World Spirit would take over his body right before he would air on television to tell the viewers how he felt about how the way the world was being run. At the end of each show the World Spirit would leave his body and he would faint on stage. In my book I wanted to show my readers that the world spirit was present in many aspects of the novel. To begin, the World Spirit was present when the al Qaeda attacked and killed 185 public officials and then in Rapp’s body, consuming him with the idea that he needs do anything necessary to kill the men involved and make sure something like this never happens again. This idea also goes well with Hegel’s idea that everything happens for a reason, and bad things have to happen in society in order to move forward. So following up on what I just said, the attack on Washing D.C had to happen in order for society to learn from what happened and move forward. This is where Mitch Rapp comes in. His goal is to make sure an attack like this never happens again.

On page 39 when Hurley is describing the child hood of Adams to Lewis. He tells him that his father was never there and, “his mother was about as affectionate as the desk” (page 39) Lewis states that “It all fits the profile. Adams has an overinflated sense of worth that carries over into a sense of entitlement. The flip flop side is that his self esteem is very fragile.” Lewis was looking for answers to why someone would do such a thing and his answer was found in the way Adams grew up. Another “truth” that can be found in my book was the idea that in order to really understand the actions of a person you have to look beyond the moment they committed the crime. This “truth” was first discussed in class when we read American Assassins by James W. Clarke. We looked at the life of Samuel Joseph Byck before he committed the crime and look into reasons that led him to his actions.

While I was writing the book, in the back of my head I was thinking about the ideas of Strauss and his idea that all great writers give two messages in their text. The two messages are exoteric, meaning the message that is obvious the reader, and esoteric, meaning the message that is hidden or “between the lines”. I used these two forms to legitimize the truths by making the reader look at a deeper level on events and ideas throughout the book.

After reading this book I hope that people understand the truths I'm trying to legitimize. The book was written so the audience understands that everything can be understood my looking deeper to why they might have happened and understanding that everything happens for a reason.

Rapp can't rap.

FORGOTTEN METACOMMENTARY:
Flynn here, and though you are clever Ben, I feel the need to remind you that I am not Mitch, nor do I want to be him. He is a fictional character of my making. Anyways, my truth that I was trying to get across was that not everything is what you think it is. Or there is more to it than meets the eye... You can't judge a book by its cover, ect. I chose to use the CIA because they are the experts at being behind the scenes.. they are the stage crew to the government's performance--- they are vital to a smooth show but get little or no credit whatsoever. But that's how they like it. Mitch Rapp is the perfect character to further my point. The government and media will tell us whats going on it the most simplistic way that is possible, and leave out vital information in order to "protect" us. They leave out all of the "Exceptions." Guys like Mitch Rapp jobs' depend on the state of exception. "...because you're going to ask me in a very coded way to put my neck on the line and break these very laws you and the president pretend to hold so dear...make sure we're on the same page, before you send me down to the engine room to plug the leak" (pg 135-136). These jobs were made for teh purposes of use during those times of exception.

The audience I'm targeting is the people of America. I want them to realize that nothing in this life is black and white and I think that my use of the CIA and the government in this story proves my point very well. Using the government as my example provides a solid base because everyone has an idea of what the government is. I did a ton of research for this paper to make it a close to accurate as possible. The more accurate I am at explaining the government, the more legitimate my argument becomes.

Pursuit of Honor

In my book, Pursuit of Honor, I included both exoteric and esoteric truths, as seen in Strauss’ Persecution and the Art of Writing. “An exoteric book contains then two teachings: a popular teaching of an edifying character, which is in the foreground; and a philosophic teaching concerning the most important subject, which is indicated only between the lines” (Strauss 36). The exoteric truth is that the CIA, in many senses, functions as a sovereign state. The CIA and its senior agents do as they wish, bending the law at will. As Schmitt says in Definition of Sovereignty, the sovereign “decides whether there is an extreme emergency as well as what must be done to eliminate it” (Schmitt 7). I wished to show my readers that the CIA functions as an exception, operating above the common law. Aside from that, I also wished to show my readers that not everything is black and white. I don’t think that I have mastered hiding the esoteric truth yet (though I’m also afraid that Strauss wouldn’t consider me to be a great thinker), but that might because I’m not really trying to escape persecution. This was just an assignment for class, after all. I think that many of my readers were sympathetic to Rapp, despite all of the torture that they witness him committing. I have it on good authority from Kate, one of our classmates, that for a second, she found herself agreeing with Rapp about the ACLU (such as when Rapp says “the day the ACLU starts driving our national security policy is the day America is really fucked” (Flynn 92).) If I can get someone like Kate to believe, even momentarily, that the ACLU is just another obstacle that needs to be circumvented in order for the CIA to be sovereign, I’ll consider that a success. But my real attempt at showing this truth was with Hakim. I made him very intelligent, well traveled, and (often) kind, in hopes of making him a likable character. I was very pleased with Kate’s thoughts on Hakim: she told me that by the end of the book, when Hakim is trying to flee from America to Nassau, she was rooting for him; when Mitch and the other CIA agents were on his tale, she didn’t want them to catch him; when he was their prisoner, she wanted the to let him go. This is what I was going for: to try and communicate to my readers that people and events are never exactly as they seem. Hakim may have been a terrorist, but he also tried to save the young boy and father (but then on the other hand, he was still a terrorist…). I wasn’t trying to push any particular point of view on my readers, but more to remind them to think for themselves, and not to see the world as rigid, black and white, and inflexible.
In order to make this book successful and showcase my truths, I employed Weber’s charismatic truth, as well as some of Adorno’s techniques. For Hakim, I employed the “persecuted innocence” device. Hakim “stresses, for example, his personal integrity and honesty…he also hints at his qualifications as a leader…he is satisfied by vaguely referring to God’s call” (Adorno 10). While I didn’t use this exactly (as I don’t think that anyone would actually consider Hakim innocent), I did use this tool to make him a more likable and sympathetic character.
My audience was the general public, not great men or great thinkers. I think that most people will be able to read and enjoy my book, and a good amount should also be able to understand my esoteric truth. Based on my conversation with my classmate, I think that my book was very successful.

There is always an exception...

My book Pursuit of Honor is written so people who do read it understand the importance of the CIA. The importance of what individual who work for the CIA go through, but most importantly the significance of when it is ok to do something and when its not ok to do something. like Schmitt said, "Sovereign is he who decides on a state of exception." the exception is the rule. So kidnapping Adam and killing him of course is not acceptable in the U.S. but there are those exception to trying to stop the "enemy" who is trying to destroy everything the CIA stands for. although, what Adam is doing is also not ok. on page 92 Adam says,"We are becoming the very monsters we are trying to destroy." the truth is, it can be worse. everyone can relate to being in a scenerio where the exceptions are ok, although it might not be the right thing to do. by writing this book i hope that many people see and understand that not everyone is always right. Sometimes we just need to step back and Let the CIA or whoever do their job. There is always going to be an enemy, like Schmitt would of said, is it important for the enemy to be found and defeated?

After reading this book i hope that people find the truth and relate to what im trying to say. By using Schmitt strategies people can take into account that one person can try to make a difference but those exceptions are always going to be there. these book has a lot to do with what the truth actually is. Alot of people dont see "behind the scenes" and what actually happens. By writting this book i try to bring out the truth from very different angles. No one is right or wrong, is just the way they view their "truth" and their "exception" and how the world should be run.there is always going to be that one person who thinks (like Adam) was brought to this world to make changes. "if we dont take a stand, i'm afraid what kind of country will be left for our kids." (pg. 12)

I am not Mitch Rapp

I AM VINCE FLYNN. Sorry, I’ve always wanted to do that. But really, I’m not Mitch Rapp. People keep getting us confused and it’s a little awkward. For one, Mitch is fictional. And for another, I am clearly not a CIA agent. I just do my homework.

That being said, I do have a lot of inside information about the CIA. Which goes to one of my sole motivations for writing this book. There’s a lot of talk about what the organization does but no one directly comes out and says it: the CIA’s job, in its simplest form, is to break the laws of other countries. From bribing people to killing terrorists, it isn’t pretty. But it’s what they do, in order to protect our country and our freedoms. Of course, you have to remember that other countries are doing the same things to us, every single day. It’s not a politically correct world. As I show on page 137 of Pursuit of Honor:

“It is undeniable that the Soviet Union was engaged in espionage on a colossal scale. They were recruiting agents, stealing our vital secrets, and attempting to undermine our political process by funding communist and socialists parties in this country… So while there are a lot of people in America who would love to embrace compassion and tolerance, and they have correctly labeled Joe McCarthy a bully, they do so by conveniently ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union was doing everything that Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover and J.F.K. and a whole host of political figures accused them of doing.”

I want people to realized the error overlooking this history, that what the CIA does is necessary. And by people I mean the average Joe, the guy who works down the street at Starbucks or lives in that apartment across the hall, or your aunt or what have you. “The only people I dislike more than politicians are reporters,” Rapp says on page 136. I couldn’t agree more. There’s a terrible amount of misinformation going around and I’d like to help set the record straight. We can’t simply be nice to our enemies and make the problems go away. Do you think you could reason with someone like Glen Adams or terrorists in Pursuit of Honor? They don’t play by our rules; it just isn’t going to happen.

In connection to that is another truth I think is really important to reveal – there are too many people on Capitol Hill like Glen Adams. Adams speaks in great amounts of charisma – and as Weber says, “Charismatic authority is naturally unstable” (1114). I try to show how dangerous Adams (and later, with Ogden) is through his words so the reader can clearly understand why we have such issues in our government. The great amount of hypocrisy that’s taking root there is shocking. And I don’t mean to point out more party one than another – both the Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible (recall, if you can, what political party Glen Adams belongs to. Drawing a blank? Good.). In the words of one of my characters, Dickerson, “Does it bother me that I am surrounded by people who want so badly to be liked… want so desperately to be thought of as enlightened that they are willing to tear this country apart? Yes, it does” (140). There are a lot of delusional ego maniacs out there in D.C. (as shown by those politicians who read my books and like them, not realizing they are the very people I’m incriminating!) who think we should know everything that is going on in the CIA. We simply can’t do that – it’s a risk to national security. And who really wants to know everything about what sort of methods must be used to protect our country? Do you really want to hear about how a man’s fingers were shot off so that he’d reveal information about Al-Qaeda on NBC Nightly News while you’re eating your hot dish? I don’t think so. There are some things just better not ventured into. Leo Strauss, who in other contexts would generally put me in mind of an elitist, actually drives home my point:

“They believed that the gulf separating ‘the wise’ and ‘the vulgar’ was a basic fact of human nature which could not be influenced by any progress of popular education: philosophy, or science, was essentially a privilege of ‘the few.’ They were convinced that philosophy as such was suspect to, and hated by, the majority of men. Even if they had nothing to fear with any particular political quarter, those who started from that assumption would have been driven to the conclusion that the public communication of the philosophic or scientific truth was impossible or undesirable, not only for the time being, but for all times. They must conceal their opinions from all but philosophers, either by limiting themselves to oral instruction of a carefully selected group of pupils, or by writing about he most important subject by means of ‘brief indication’” (34).

Though he’s mainly talking about philosophy here, I think this can be applied to how the CIA functions – there’s the few who know what’s going on behind closed doors, knowing that the public doesn’t want to hear the truth, (“You can’t handle the truth!” as Jack Nicholson yells in A Few Good Men). Instead of having total transparency, the CIA releases what should be known and protects Americans by keeping mum about other things.

“So Vince,” you might ask, “why the hell would you write such a revealing story about the CIA if the public shouldn’t know?” Because this is fiction. Obviously, I have a lot of inside information but I’m not revealing anything vital to the state of our national security. I’m simply showing how difficult it is for the CIA to get anything done in our country when they have to worry about being politically correct and walking on eggshells. I’ve admitted in the past that my writing is pretty unambiguous – you can easily see who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. I do that on purpose, not only to create a fast-paced easy-to-read narrative to draw readers in, but so that I clearly show the CIA’s way of working. The last thing I want to do is have my narrative look like an incrimination of their methods. So any esoteric level (as Strauss would call it) aims more towards the government than the CIA (check out chapter 50… my reference to a certain California Congresswoman might ring pretty clear for a few of you). What I do is simply mesh together fact and fiction – something my good friend Glenn (Glenn Beck that is) has, in reference to his own work, called “faction” (completely fictional books with roots in fact). It think this a pretty accurately description of what I try to do. Six months of research and 15 years spent studying Islamic Radical Fundamentalism, trying to understand the mind of the enemy went into Pursuit of Honor. All to give the average reader a better understanding of what’s going on.

This book is different from some of my earlier writing, as I wanted to emphasize the issues with the sudden changes that are coming about in America. Beck talks about this a great deal. In one of the books he’s recommended and one we read selections of, F. A. Hayak states, “If in the long run we are the makers of our fate, in the short run we are the captives of the ideas we have created” (58). I really like this quote and I think it drives home what I’ve been trying to do in my writing. I just want my readers – and other Americans – to see what sort of thinking is going on around us, to understand we must make costs in order to protect our country and that we should be more aware of what is going on in Washington. We don’t have to stay in the position we are now, afraid of hurting someone’s feelings in global politics when really the enemy could care less about how we feel. The same people who condemn torture have no right to do so when they support late-term abortions. Hypocrisy is rampant – and people like Mitch Rapp mean to put it in check. I hope my blunt, honest writing style that echoes the blunt, honest workings of Mitch Rapp urges people to think more about their government. I think my readers would agree that it does.

Behind the Doors of the CIA

Many people only have a fuzzy image of the CIA and what the do for our country. That is why I am writing to all of you who have always wondered what those men and women do every day. I want everyone to know that there is not always a correct way to go about things, sometimes one has to pick a different route from the one that the laws direct us in.

One side of the CIA shows, as Carl Schmitt would say, the exception because the normal law does not apply. During these exceptions there is unlimited authority, there are no rules holding them back. (Which Schmitt explained was a characteristic of an exception) An example of this from Pursuit of Honor is when Rapp and Hurley are interrogating Adams, not only did they kidnap Adams but they are now torturing him. Both these acts are not permitted under the law of the United States. Looking at it from the other way the actions of Adams are not acceptable either. So you see there is always an exception. The theories of Schmitt that I used are effective because almost everyone can relate to the idea that there is always an exception. There is always a scenario in your life where you have to do what needs to be done, not if ands or buts about.

After reading my book I hope it is clear to you that I write as though Adams believes he is a God’s most precious gift to the world, or in the words of Hegel the World Spirit. As the Doc points out on page 105 “He’s so narcissistic, so in love with himself, that he thinks he’s privileged. Rules are for the commoner, not someone like him, who is destined to make a difference in the world”. I believe that by showing this fact it will help my readers to believe that my truth is legitimate. It helps to show that because one again it is something that is seen all over, in someone’s every day life, in sports and it in the World. If the idea of the World Spirit is seen elsewhere it makes it more believable that it is seen inside the world of the CIA as well.

I hope that my book has made the image of the CIA lucid for all of you. I have tried a combination of tactics including theories from Schmitt and Hegel to build the logos of my truth.

Pursuit of Honor

Well it’s not a big surprise what really concerns and interests me in America. It’s the simple fact that the CIA is persecuted by politicians for protecting the country. If you get anything out of Pursuit of Honor, I want it to be the importance of National Security. Operatives in the CIA dedicate their lives to protect the United States. How are they repaid? By arrogant politicians who have the luxury to sit back and point fingers while the rest of the clandestine team is out making a real difference in the world. I don’t much care for politicians as you might have guessed after reading my book. Politicians might not like their portrayal in my book, but I believe it is important for them to hear the truth. They are going to have to face the truth one way or another. Politicians are notorious for saying one thing and doing another. On the one hand politicians want the clandestine team to keep doing what they are doing because they are protecting the country, but at the same time they are persecuted because of the way they get things done. As my main character Mitch Rapp says to Gabriel Dickerson on page 135, “you’re going to ask me in a very coded way to put my neck on the line and break these very laws you and the president pretend to hold so dear, and if I’m right about that, I’d appreciate a little honesty from you on this issue.” I use my books as a portal to illustrate my opinions about politicians. Like Rapp said, cowardly politicians tend to speak in code in order to avoid receiving the blame. This puts the CIA at risk to get blamed for following orders and doing their job.

Politicians are skilled at writing an esoteric message. It’s very typical to receive these “coded messages” from politicians. The beauty of these messages is that they are only visible to the elite. The elite in this case are the clandestine team. Writing in this fashion is their safety net for never having to be responsible for anything if the media catches wind of anyone breaking the law. Leo Strauss was a brilliant philosopher who specialized in classical political philosophy. Strauss wrote a book called Persecution And The Art Of Writing. This book is talking exactly about what I’m referring to about politicians. Strauss says that in order to avoid persecution you have to write between the lines. Strauss states, “Persecution cannot prevent even public expression of the heterodox truth, for a man of independent thought can utter his views in public and remain unharmed, provided he moves with circumspection. He can even utter them in print without incurring any danger, provided he is capable of writing between the lines” (24). I couldn’t have said it better myself. Politicians do everything in their power to avoid persecution while the operatives risk their lives protecting the country. Some politicians, like my character Gabriel Dickerson, have the ability to persuade the masses due to their charismatic authority. Like I said on page 122, “Whether he’d been born with all this charisma or had learned it on a used-car lot, Rapp didn’t know and didn’t really care, but he knew he’d better damn well be careful, because Gabe Dickerson was to politics what Rapp was to the intelligence business.” A politician’s charisma can be very powerful and can emotionally persuade followers. However, like Rapp said he better be careful not to be swayed by his charisma. Max Weber was a sociologist and political economist who studied the power of charismatic authority. He would probably have a lot to say on the matter if he was still alive. He wrote a book called Economy and Society, which he stated, “the recognition of the charismatic character of the royal office, which requires his personal qualification and effectiveness. As a rule, charisma is a highly individual quality” (1113). In my opinion, there are political figures that use their charismatic authority to obtain support and a following. That is why I portrayed Dickerson that way in my book.

Washington is messed up right now. I want to use real life situations and make people listen to my stories and the ideas I channel through them. This is not the first time I’ve talked about this and it won’t be the last.

The Pursuit of Honor: Allied Assault

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once had a goal to reach freedom "By any means necessary." I have the same goal in mind; that's why I write Mitch Rapp book series. I as a patriotic American have to write influential material so I can reach out to my audience. I started my Mitch Rapp series in opposition of the Middle Eastern terror attacks on Western countries like the United States, France, and many others. In the pursuit of honor however, the story kind of coincides the 9/11 tragedy. A series of explosions hit Washington DC's counter-terrorism center, same as a series of attacks on 9/11. Following 9/11, the world shifted gear and united together to put an end to terroristic acts. As I explain in my book that we must reach freedom by any means necessary, the same thing happened in real life. Following 9/11, the Patriot act came in place. Any one (especially Muslims) who were thought of being connected to terrorist groups were arrested immediately. Also a lot of laws who protected privacy were legal broken. This circulates around Carl Schmitt's Political Theology. Schmitt explains the concept of sovereignty. Schmitt's definition was "sovereign is he who decides on the state of the exception." In our case, the US government holds complete sovereignty. This is true because when Iraq war took place, no one could stand in front of US's decision. The concept of sovereignty also explains that in a time of emergency, laws no longer take place; its then survival of the fittest. The truth in my book was basically a wakeup call for American liberals in which there are no red lines when the country's national security is in danger. Logically, my audience will be patriotic Americans who love their country, but honestly, the message was intended for non believers in “with all means necessary.” The strategies I chose were basically similar to the strategies George W. Bush JR used to convince America that going to war with Iraq was a necessity. By achieving the ultimate good, the government can bend laws to protect its citizens. I think it was pretty effective because any man, either liberal or a hardcore conservative would love to know that his/her country is safe.

This is off the record: I have noticed that we always read conservative point of view books/articles. I also noticed that either never or rarely have we read anything from the liberal side.

Pursuit of Honor: Who Is Mitch Rapp?

Since 9/11, doing research for my books, there's something which has come up again and again and which has become like a major frustration for me, a truth which I think needs to be focused on and shared -- and that is how the real heroes of America, the CIA agents and men and women in the military, and the guys in special forces, work their asses off oceans away from their families because they are told to do whatever they need to do to keep the country safe. And then, while they're busy abroad protecting the country, the self-serving politicians at home decide to make them look likes brutes, because it will make the politicians look better to their overly-politically-correct fans. Our agents are told to do a job and then kept from doing it -- and meanwhile, they're risking their lives. I wrote this book for the people of America who still know who our heroes are, and want to read a book that makes sense. And I wrote it so that hopefully those people who don't get it can maybe begin to see that we would be a lot safer if we'd stop questioning our heroic law enforcement, and let them work.

Obviously, Mitch Rapp is a character I've been using for some time, so I didn't create him specifically for this book -- but he was created, originally, to be the straightforward, hardworking hero most Americans can identify with. You know -- he's got his issues; he's not perfect -- but he doesn't complain. He just wants to do his job; he wants to do it well -- and he's not afraid to put himself in danger to accomplish that. Right away on page 2 I write, "Rapp wasn't the kind of man who was going to start pulling the trigger from a climate-controlled office a couple hundred miles away. He needed to see with his own eyes if they were missing something...." He's proud to have his responsibilities. And I contrast him immediately with Glen Adams, in many senses just as much a villain in the novel as al Qaeda: Glen Adams the bureaucrat. I have Glen Adams say he feels "like General Custer at times -- surrounded by savages, trying to fight the good fight" (15). Adams identifies with American heroes; he loves the Constitution. So in many ways, and to many readers at first, he seems like a good American. But just like all those politicians over in Washington, he's gotten obsessed with the rules, and all wrapped up in his power to enforce the rules. Just as Dr. Lewis describes him in the book, he's gotten so narcissistic and self-important that he sees himself as the General and the real fighting men, the "gunfighters," as the savages -- when in reality Mitch Rapp is "doing the honorable thing, while all the overeducated assholes like [Adams] sit in [their] nice leather chairs and criticize his every move" (77).

I was also thinking of the Ayn Rand excerpt, from "Atlas Shrugged," while I developed Mitch's character, and Irene Kennedy's. You could almost say Irene Kennedy is an Ayn Rand, not only because she is an intelligent, accomplished woman, but she recognizes that these men society has deemed 'out-of-control' are actually the heroes, the people keeping society sane. Instead of sacrificing, being selfless for the sake of the terrorists' 'humanity,' they are protecting their own interests: their families and their friends. Rand wrote, "do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless.... Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved.... The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours" (979). This Randian idea of the heroic man, the free and rational, common-sense individual, helped me shape my American heroes.

So that's basically how I constructed the characters in Pursuit of Honor, to show the truth of the real characters in Washington, D.C. I also used some ideas from the readings we just did in class, especially the Schmitt. I didn't think I'd like the ideas of a Nazi, but you know, I read that actually he got in trouble with the Nazis because they didn't think he was truly hateful enough. They said he didn't really hate Jews, and that he couldn't be a real Nazi because he was Catholic. Anyway, I was surprised to find that a lot of his ideas made sense, especially in the context of this war on terror. One of my biggest problems with these 'enlightened' liberals is that they don't want to torture terrorists because they're human beings, and all human beings have certain rights -- or because it 'makes us just like them'. It makes me crazy, and Schmitt explains perfectly why: "[t]he distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation, of an association or dissociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all those moral, aesthetic, economic, or other distinctions" (Schmitt 27). In other words, we don't have to distinguish ourselves from al Qaeda by behaving differently in any way -- by being ethically better, or having a different economic system. We are distinct from al Qaeda simply because we have declared them to be the enemy, and because of that, they can't be us. By definition, they aren't us. The United States isn't a Little League team. We don't have to play fair, and we don't have to shake hands at the end of a game. We're a country, we are Americans -- and they are people who want to kill Americans.

I have no doubt that these ideas will make sense to my readers. People aren't dumb; they can see that the war on terror isn't going very well. It's been taking a long time, and we haven't even caught bin Laden. And they know it's not their kids' fault, or their spouses'. It's the government's fault, because they're too busy trying to get votes, to do the politically-correct thing so they won't get skewered by the media. Also, I know it will work because we share the same values. Some of us may disagree politically, on some things, but in the end, we like a patriot. We like a brave man, someone who protects his people. And we dislike elitists, people with inflated egos from too much power. It's part of what makes us Americans, part of what founded this great country. I understand that, and my readers will see it in my book. Once I can connect with them on that level, I think they'll be able to see the truth. I don't think it will be that hard, either. You might have noticed that women aren't forming book clubs anymore; they're forming Tea Parties! I think they share some of Mitch Rapp's anger, and that's a good thing.

Metacommentary on my work, Pursuit of Honor

For me, as well as many who have come before me, the issue of national security is very important. In many ways, it is what Ben might have referred to as "an inconvenient truth". Many people seem to struggle with the way things are handled at the higher levels of security in this country, whether or not things are "fair" or "legal". Well, my truth is simple: desperate times call for desperate measures. In his book Political Theology, Carl Schmitt discusses this idea of sovereignty, in simple words, when it is ok for the government to surpass the law. He brings in the ideas of French political philosopher Jean Bodin, saying "To what extent is the sovereign bound to laws, and to what extent is he responsible to the estates? ...commitments are binding because they rest on natural law' but in emergencies the tie to general natural principles ceases" (8). In other words, those who are sovereign are permitted to "stretch" or "bend" the law in cases of emergencies. I believe, as do many others, that the terrorism inflicted on the United States by radical Muslim groups constitutes a state of emergency, and this gives the US government the right, in some cases, to go above certain laws to protect its citizens.

As far as who i wanted to read this, well, i guess everyone who reads and enjoys fiction! It is geared more towards those in the right wing side of politics, but like I said, this is work is for anyone who enjoys reading a good thriller. I chose fiction because it is less pretentious then other kinds of writing. It is "only" a story, yet, as Leo Strauss elaborates in his Persecution and the Art of Writing, "...it is apt to arrest the attention of the young men who love to think"(26). In other words, yes, there are underlying political and even moral messages in my fiction, for those who are bright enough and engaged enough to find them.

I believe that the use of fiction is a powerful truth in convincing my audience that my truth is both real and legitimate. I was able to reach a much larger audience because it is a form of entertainment and not directly a form of news or political theory. I mean, lets face it, the average person in the United States would much rather be entertained then to read the straight up dry news of what is actually going on in the world!

I will admit that i did read Theodor Adorno's The Psychological Technique of Martin Luther Thomas' Radio Addresses, and from that, I gleaned many good ideas for creating a the likeable character of Mitch Rapp for my novel! The first one that I tweaked a little was what Adorno referred to as the "lone wolf" technique. Again, this concept did not fit my novel perfectly, but it was useful! Mitch Rapp is the lone wolf. Yes, he has those in power to back him, but he never really has the 100% of support from anyone. I evoke sympathy from the audience by showing that Rapp is the tough guy who puts his work above everything, and therefore will forever be alone: "You mean to find someone else. Settle down, have a bunch of kids..Not so sure it's for me. Besides, someone has to do this job, and i don't see too many guys with my skill set ready to step into the breach" (159). We are inclined to sympathize with him because he is sacrificing what many would see as personal happiness for the greater good.

Another tactic i picked up from Adorno's writing was this idea of 'persecuted innocence'. As Adorno says, "First, it has to interpret the danger to the leader as one to all and to rationalize aggressiveness under the guise of self- defense" (13). In the case of my novel, it isn't so much'self-defense' as it is 'defense of my countrymen'. This is how I am able to portray Rapp as aggressive as he is, without the audience (hopefully) writing him off as just a big jerk. Rapp's boss speaks to him about "'the part that most people would have a hard time with. The killing'. Rapp shook his head. 'Its never bothered me. The guys I am whacking aren't exactly upstanding citizens'" (158). In my fiction, I have created a character who is likeable, one that people can sympathize with, who is at the same time an extremely violent person, but doing it in the "pursuit of honor".

My hope is that by reading my novel, people will stop twice and think before bashing the government when it comes to issues of national security. After all, it is the best interest of the American people that they have in mind!

Posting assignment #6 (due Sunday 3/27, 11:59 P.M.): Vince forgot his metacommentary!

This week, a little more BARPing (blog action role-playing)...

YOUR CHARACTER CARD

You are Vince Flynn.  You think like Vince Flynn, write like Vince Flynn, have the same personal/contextual history of Vince Flynn, and in every way are Vince Flynn as he is in real life.  Every way, that is, but one:  in this role-play, Vince Flynn is a student in our class, and he wrote the novel Pursuit of Honor as the text for his external writing #2.  (Yes, I know it's a little longer than 1000 words.  What can I say?  He's an overachiever.)  And in your comment, you are still Vince Flynn, "self-"commenting on another part of "your own" work.

YOUR CHALLENGE

Vince, you wrote an excellent text for your external writing #2.  I can see, from reading Pursuit of Honor, that you chose a strong truth (or set of related truths), spent a lot of time thinking about your audience, and made very smart and intentional rhetorical and historiographic choices to make your truth legitimate in the eyes of your readers.  I can also see very clearly the influence of Schmitt in your writing, along with traces of Strauss, Adorno, Weber, and a few others -- and, very clearly, you are writing against the way people like Vidal, Wolf, and Arendt understand history.

There's just one problem:  you forgot to write your metacommentary!

So, Vince, in this blog post you're going to write a metacommentary on Pursuit of Honor -- or at least the first few hundred pages of it.  Just to remind you, your metacommentary should explain:

1) what truth(s) you were trying to legitimate,
2) who your intended audience was,
3) how you tried to make your audience accept your truth(s) as legitimate (i.e., what rhetorical and historiographic strategies you chose), and
4) why you think those strategies were effective in legitimating your truth(s).

Be as specific as you can, as you answer these questions.  Make sure to include some relevant quotes/moments from Pursuit of Honor, as well as relevant material from at least one text from the past week (Schmitt, Strauss, Vidal, Wolf) and at least one other text from earlier in the class, in a way that furthers your arguments. 

(Note:  for a text the size of Pursuit of Honor, of course, there's a lot to write about.  So when you (individual part-of-Vince) write your post, make sure to read all the other posts that have come before yours, and make sure your own post adds something to the discussion, rather than just repeating things that others have said.  Different quotes, different interpretations, different theory, etc.)

Go to it, Mitch.  (Err...I mean, Vince.)

Protocol 3/24/11 (Liz)

The class begins with Ben writing the program on the board as people trickle in still. Ben says good morning to the class and proceeds to take attendance aloud while the class makes small talk. Ben says good morning again, to which no one responds. He says it again, and the class responds. He begins to discuss housekeeping items, which include:

1)External writing assignments due tonight at 11:59pm
2)Blog posts will be up this weekend

He then asks the class for any other logisticals, and then proceeds to pick up where we left off on Tuesday, incorporating what we read for today.
He asks the class to stand up for a "temperature exercise"
Those of us who understood what was going on in the class completely were asked to stand at one end of the room, while those who had no idea what was going on were asked to stand on the opposite side. We were then asked to look at where we were in relation to others and to find someone who is halfway across and make eye contact. Once we had our partners, we were asked to put our hand on our heads to show that we were ready to go on. We were then asked to find somewhere to sit and discuss questions and/or issues we had with what we had read.
The class disperses, and Ben offers help.
We discuss for a few minutes, then come back together as a full group.
Ben asks for questions.
Jordan-talked about dialectic concept and was still fuzzy on the meaning.
Ben asks for help from the class... "What the hell is a dialectic?"
Heidi defines it broadly as a complex relationship.
Ben defines it (while quoting Hegel) as a "pop, new-age philosophy where everything contains or is equal to itself and its opposite"
Hegel was the first to theorize dialectics in terms of history.
Ben asks, "Did anyone read my blog post about Chicago?" and then goes on to tell us about it. He raises the question, "What created that city?" (Oppression and hardship)
He goes on to discuss dialectic in relation to reason and unreason, and uses Glenn Beck and Howard Beale as examples of unreason (irrational)
Historical dialectic in Hegels' terms are the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis-however this is imperfect because the thesis contains the antithesis in it, and for that matter, synthesis is not a compromise (Ben uses the Dakota as an example).
Ben asks, "Are other things unclear?" ... "Nothing?"
Sophie then brings up the connection between Strauss and Schmitt.
Ben asks what a Schmitt fortune cookie would say (2 things)
1) Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception... meaning...(Elissa) the person who is sovereign decides when you are above the law.
Ben tells us he can use his sovereign power to keep us here past 12:30 (and that if we stay we submit to this sovereign power) but according to the University, we can leave. A state of exception example was that if terrorists were outside the door, we would accept his sovereign power and stay. However, he says that the state of exception is not ALWAYS an emergency.
Definition: Sovereign-king, boss, fuhrer
In the US no one is sovereign because of checks and balances, however Schmitt says whoever decides there is an exception is sovereign (aka the president)
2) (Mandy) The friend/enemy distinction is politics or "the political" and the political is defined by the friend/enemy distinction-the stronger you make it, the more powerful a sovereign can be.
Ben asks if this makes sense. He then invites us to go back and look at the texts
Mandy says that Schmitt wouldn't agree with keeping enemies close, that it's good to have enemies separate.
Ben talks about the political being the enemy distinction and how the propaganda technique is used by the sovereign in convincing others that there is a threat.
Ben asks for questions on Schmitt.
What if Strauss were put on a fortune cookie?
1) (Kate Grayson) If writers are persecuted and not given freedom of speech, there will be a hidden meaning in the text
Ben tells us that in the state o exception there will always be hidden text because all writers have done this at all times. For Strauss, the exception is the rule, should always be taking place.
"All great writers give two messages in their texts-exoteric (the obvious, explicit) and the esoteric (the secret, true, implicit message that is visible only to the elite). He tells us that it would be bad if everyone could see the implied message

Brief Mini-Lecture to bring it together
We are in a class on the history of reading and the politics of history. In order to understand this and our current world, we have to understand Hitler.

(Ben quickly complains about the white board marker, and finds a new one)
Ben tells us that Hitler was a metanym for WWII, genocide, and fascism that all led toward a WTF moment in history. The question raised was how did this happen?

Before Hitler there was Hegel, Weber, capitalism/individualism/modernity
After, we have studied 3 different perspectives on why the Hitler era happened
1) Hayek/Rand-history was going along, then Hitler broke it. "The Abandoned Road" is the first chapter in "The Road to Serfdom". They discuss how we were headed toward Hegelian freedom, then the totalitarians happened and then the world "went to hell in a hand basket"
2) (Schmitt)/Strauss-tactically don't engage with this debate, instead challenge democracy. Schmitt is moved behind WTF moment, Strauss-democracy/equality lead to mob rule, fascism, etc.
3)Adorno/Arendt-opposites, but agree here that "captialism caused this" They argue that Hitler wasn't a break, but an inevitable outcome of the way the world was headed

Hayek/Rand and Adorno/Arendt argue opposite things.
What do all of these people have in common? They were all refugees fleeing fascist Europe, they all have personal stake in how their civilization was destroyed

Mandy asks "Can White Noise be up there?"
Ben asks the class for their thoughts. Invites everyone to look at the White Noise concept map on the back wall, and asks where it fits in.
Ben says that he doesn't think that Delillo consciously engages with the debate, but implicitly takes a side
Elissa asked why we took Schmitt out and put him before the "WTF moment"
Ben says that Schmitt doesn't ask WTF Hitler, and acts as more of a ghost on Strauss.
Ben says that Delillo would put himself at the bottom, because the whole book is about the saturation of media, and it tends to agree with Adorno and Arendt.

Ben asks for other questions.
We then turn to our same partners and discuss what we learned about Libya. Ben handed out a piece of paper with "Article 48" on it, and reads aloud.
When we came back together as a group, he asked what we'd found.
Gina-fox news article, reporter upset that Obama went without Congress declaring War. Problems? Weird situation, what side are we on? Very confusing. Don't know why we are still in Iraq
Kate G.-Biden called for impeachment when Bush invaded county without declaring war
Jordan-Obama might become enemy of US. The tea party sees Obama as an enemy
Sophie-Problem with it not being defined, US operates on Schmittian principles. Who is the enemy? decmocracy?
Bush doctrine-fight enemies of freedom over the world
why not Saudi Arabia?
Lindsay-If we don't do something it could hurt Obama's electoral chances...Bush never found Osama Bin Laden but got re-elected
Is it important for sovereign powers to defeat the enemy?
Kate G.-you don't want to find the enemy

What would Vidal and Wolf say about Libya and our governments' role in it?
Vidal (p. 159)
Big (implicit) issue: The US legally has been at war since 1941
Think about that, it changes how you think about "our history"
WWII-went to fight Japanese, which was the last time that the US went to war, and the troops never came home
Before WWII, the US had to build up military-it was a small military, no standing army
BUT standing army = profit (keep American sovereignty)
Republican leadership didn't want it (isolationist)
Soviet Union didn't start as a threat-US provoked them
1947-Department of Defense created-the President doesn't need to declare war to fight/use military

Lindsay-What would it take for it to have to go through Congress? (war)
Vidal-US would have to go bankrupt

How do you legitimate something that will benefit few and hurt many?
Vidal: Schmittian logic
Potsdam Conference: Truman could have negotiated with Russia, but had an atomic bomb to show power
Explains our history
Strauss p.98 exo, esoteric

Esoteric elite decide on and propagandize the state of exception. After the Soviet Union fell, national security continued. Wolf (p. 43) "Peace is bad for business"
What happened between 1989 and 2001 when there was no "enemy"?
War has been a perpetual state
How is it legitimized for people who haven't read Schmitt and Strauss?

2 Final Thoughts:
1) Ben is torn about Libya. Based on the reading, it's terrible, but on the other hand people are being slaughtered, are we going to stand aside or invade?
Obama would be criticized either way, it's a good move politically
When you are in a state of exception, you will rally around the sovereign
2)Anyone find anything about Wolf?
-Jewish, feminist writer/journalist, wrote about beauty, divorced from a speech writer for Clinton, big fan of the Tea Party

"More on this next time"
Ben will send articles and links in an email.