The road into Mineth was half ice and half mud, and Rynae al’Gode guided her wobbling donkey cart with patient hands. The axle creaked, the wheels leaned at an angle that made onlookers wince, yet the donkey plodded on as it always had. In the cart lay nothing but bundles of parchment, a cracked lute, and words meant for evening fires. She was singing softly when the Whitecloaks stepped into the road. Their cloaks were clean, their armor bright, their faces hard with certainty. Inquisitor Malvar Daineth raised a gauntleted hand, and the donkey stopped. The cart swayed, lurched, nearly tipped. For a heartbeat it seemed the whole fragile thing might collapse into the snow. Daineth flinched. Later he would say the cart charged him. Later he would say he saw shadow in her eyes, danger in the way the wheels rattled toward the Light. Later he would say he had no choice. Rynae only steadied the reins and looked at him, calm as a woman who had spent her life naming truths aloud. “Be careful,” she said. “It’s a poor road for fear.” The donkey shifted. The cart creaked again. That was enough. Steel flashed. Daineth stepped forward and drove his sword through her, pinning her to the frozen ground as if she were a lie that needed fixing in place. The song ended mid-note. The cart tipped at last, spilling pages into the snow. The Whitecloaks moved on, satisfied that the Light had been defended. But that night, in Mineth, people swore they heard verses on the wind — steady, unafraid — and the road remembered what the Inquisitor did not: that a shaking cart is not a weapon, and that the Pattern keeps account of every blade.

Many of the female characters in The Wheel of Time behave in this manner. I refer to it as toxic femininity, and it constitutes an exact mirror image of the toxic masculinity that can be found today in certain strata of American society—extending even into the highest levels of politics, though as an outsider I refrain from naming names. A wink to those inclined to draw their own conclusions.

In Fal Dara, Lan utters a peculiar line about “sheathing the sword.” The meaning seems to lie in a great blademaster’s willingness to accept a mortal wound himself in order to destroy his foe. Thus the sword does not come to rest in the scabbard, but in his own body instead.

Well, I’ve been a recruit in the White Tower for a few weeks now, and I’d like to think that with my 300-plus posts I’ve made at least some kind of contribution to your — or rather, our — community. The responses and comments, however, have been rather thin on the ground, to put it mildly. This makes me wonder whether my posts were truly so dull and forgettable that they failed to spark any reaction at all, and whether it still makes sense to keep pondering ever more “interesting” topics. I’m not quite sure. Then again, it may simply be that the currently active ranks on Dragonmount have dwindled to such an extent that the number of interested readers has become almost negligible. Ah well — time will tell.

As my choice of subjects should make abundantly clear, I am driven by a particular resolve to bring the abominations of this fanatical movement into the full light of scrutiny. Core Patterns of Fanatical Movements Regardless of religious tradition, such movements tend to display the same underlying features — patterns that are strikingly reflected in the ideology and behavior of the Whitecloaks in The Wheel of Time: “Only we possess the truth.” An exclusive claim to moral and spiritual correctness, mirrored by the Whitecloaks’ conviction that only their interpretation of the Light is valid, while all others are misguided or corrupt. Sharp boundary-making (“us versus them”). The world is divided into the righteous and the condemned — a worldview central to the Whitecloaks, who categorize nearly everyone outside their order as suspect. Demonization of dissenters. Those who disagree are not merely wrong but actively evil. In the Whitecloaks’ logic, disagreement itself becomes evidence of allegiance to the Shadow. Rigid rules with little tolerance for doubt. Moral certainty replaces reflection. Among the Whitecloaks, doubt is treated not as a human weakness but as proof of moral failure. Authority that must not be questioned. Hierarchy is absolute, and obedience is framed as virtue. Whitecloak leadership embodies this principle, demanding submission in the name of righteousness while exempting itself from scrutiny. The character traits outlined above are, of course, not unique to religious movements, but are equally characteristic of other ideological movements. Above all: when a society lets down its guard, the slide into fundamentalism and authoritarianism follows with grim inevitability. Keep your eyes unclouded, stand watch, and summon the courage of citizens wherever conscience demands it.

The wisdom of the Grey Aes Sedai would be sorely needed in certain places down here (Mar-a-Lago, Gaza, Ukraine…). At present, it is hard to decide whether some of the negotiators are lacking in intelligence, in humanity, or in both. I have deliberately left the names unspoken.

Atha’an Shadar is a region on the Seanchan continent. It lies in the northern part of Seanchan, near the icy wastes. I wonder whether this inhospitable region is meant to parallel the land north of the Borderlands—what people in Randland commonly call the Waste—where the influence of the Dark One grows steadily stronger the farther north one travels. Does anyone know more about it?

As far as I have observed, the Grey Sisters primarily serve as diplomats, as they are exceptionally skilled in negotiation and logic. With these qualities, I believe they most closely compete with the White Ajah—would that be a fair assessment? As for their weaknesses, I cannot say very much; at times they appear overly hesitant and indecisive. Furthermore, considering the numerous—often military—conflicts raging throughout the Randlands, I find myself questioning just how effective their negotiating skills truly are. Am I right?

Within the Order of the Children of the Light, are there disproportionately many followers of the Dark One, and if so, what might explain this?” Within The Wheel of Time, there are indeed strong hints that the Children of the Light contain a disproportionately high number of Darkfriends. Not because the entire order is corrupt, but because its structure and ideology create fertile ground for hidden servants of the Shadow. Orthodox movements built upon a rigid dogmatic framework tend to foster a sense of superiority over all who do not belong to their organisation or creed. This, in turn, breeds a constant mistrust of others; one begins to suspect betrayal and conspiracy everywhere. The moral framework is placed in jeopardy, and ethical principles are cast aside. The Children fight the Shadow, but they do so with harshness, fear, and oppression. Such an environment allows anyone already inclined to overstep moral boundaries to remain hidden with ease. The power granted to them — or seized by them — tempts them to increase it further by currying favour with whoever appears strongest, or claims to be. The Dark One promises immense, unbounded power to those who serve him

Some of the structures and political intrigues within the fabric of Randland reveal certain parallels and similarities to our real world. One example is everyday life in the White Tower. Internal quarrels often lead to institutional gridlock, with important decisions being delayed or heavily watered down. The Ajahs rarely present a united front, as each group pursues its own interests (much like the political situation within the European Union). Truth often has many faces; groups interpret events in divergent ways, and only a few conclusions truly reflect reality. Instead of focusing together on real threats (the Seanchan, the Forsaken, the Shadow), they lose themselves in internal power struggles. As a result, we see parties or political factions blocking one another, mistrust between institutions growing, and internal conflicts weakening the ability to solve problems. Does that ring a bell for anyone?”

In The Great Hunt, Liandrin encounters Rand for the first time, and as far as I remember, she wraps him in bands of Air to suffocate him. Really? Did she actually have the authority to kill someone—especially since she knew nothing of Rand’s ability to channel—without any formal procedure and without any claim of self-defense? Would she have gotten away with that under the jurisdiction of the White Tower? Only because she was a "Red Sister"? Could they do to men whatever they wanted under the law of the WT? Everyone talks about toxic masculinity these days, and rightfully so. Here we have a fine example of its female counterpart.

Thanks for clarification, it's really worthwile considering this option as well!

What you say is probably true: evil deeds are not committed solely at the behest of religious dogma (one need only recall the atrocities of Stalinism and National Socialism). Yet since God evidently represents the highest authority for believers, His mandate—be it commandment, injunction, or imperative—is the least likely to be questioned and is followed with the greatest zeal and devotion. When God curses the descendants of Ham and relegates them to the status of second-class beings, is it any wonder that people then set about enslaving and persecuting them with fervor, regarding them as second-class human beings—right up to the present day? Critical thinking has no room to arise in such a context. But of course you are right again: This subject seems only loosely connected to the history of Randland. Or perhaps not? It keeps that subtle tension and invites the reader to question the connection. Its late, and tired recruits love their evening-Grappa, and thats exactly what I intend to do. Have a nice evening and love to hear from you again!

It is undisputed that there are religious people who do good, and they deserve full credit for it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the realm of human empathy or humanism that atheists could not also do — or perhaps even do better. In any case, when they perform good deeds, they do not cast a glance toward a heavenly reward, but act for the sake of the good itself. And one more thing: good people do good things, bad people do bad things — but it takes religion to make good people commit atrocities. Have a nice Christmas holiday, best 73, --.../...-- from Calean

Exactly my thoughts as well!

When discussing the role of Christians in the abolition of slavery, we must not overlook the fact that even in the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly the entire population of Europe and the United States belonged to some form (version) of Christianity. It was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but rather people capable of empathy and compassion, who stood up for their fellow human beings, even when they were of a different skin color. Side note: William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

I quote Richard Dawkins verbatim: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control‑freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Many of the slaveholders in the Southern states were devout Christians who took perverse pleasure in whipping runaway slaves to death. So let's dispense with the nonsense that it was Christians who championed the liberation of Black people from slavery. Far too many of them profited immensely from it.

Like many readers, I have often wondered why Robert Jordan depicted his world with such an overflowing matriarchy. It’s not only the Aes Sedai, endowed with the ability to channel, who assume an almost pathological ruler-like posture, but the female gender also dominates disproportionately within the political structures of Randland. I have reflected on this topic extensively and came to the conclusion—whether rightly or not, I cannot say—that Jordan deliberately sought to create a counterbalance to the toxic masculinity present in Abrahamic religions. I have never studied the Qur’an in depth, but it was enough for me to have to digest passages from the so-called Holy Scriptures. Would you like some examples? Deuteronomy 22:13–21 (NIV summary): If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, her parents must provide proof (the blood on the bed sheets). If the claim is true, she can be stoned to death; if false, the husband is punished. This law treats women as property and places the burden of proof entirely on them, allowing capital punishment for perceived sexual misconduct. Women not teaching in church 1 Timothy 2:11–12: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Frequently cited as restricting women from leadership or teaching roles in early Christian communities. Ephesians 5:22–24: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” Women are instructed to obey their husbands, reflecting a patriarchal structure. 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Establishes male authority over women. God thus appears not merely as a proponent of slavery (as specified in my former blog) but as the embodiment of misogyny. The stoning of women—though recommended, indeed commanded, only in the so-called “Old Testament”—ignores the physiological realities of the female body, which numerous studies have documented: only about 48 percent of women bleed during their first sexual intercourse. The conclusion: 52 percent of women were innocently murdered at the command of the Creator God. I can already hear your objection: Yes, Jesus stood protectively before the adulterous woman, saying, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.” But hold on—he apparently had no problem with stoning, as long as it was carried out by the “righteous.” In light of these facts, it seems entirely understandable—and even commendable—to me that Robert J. sought to provide a vigorous counterpoint. As always, your most Sincerely Caelan best 73, --.../...--

Thanks for the clarification! One can discern from this that, at times, evil—perhaps unintentionally—can also give rise to something good, something positive. It is rare, but it does happen.

According to the old myths, both the Ogier and the male Aes Sedai were equally involved in the construction of the Deep Ways. The Ogier contributed their mastery of stonecraft; the design and shaping of the Ways lay in their hands, and they were intended to provide a safe and swift connection between the steddings and the cities of humankind. The male Aes Sedai, for their part, employed the One Power to make the very construction of the Ways possible. This raises the question of how the latter were able to accomplish such a feat, given that saidin had already been corrupted and many—if not all—male Aes Sedai had already lost their sanity, wholly or at least in part.

So did the God of the Old Testament suddenly change his mind in the New Testament? Is Jesus himself not identical with the God of the Old Testament? Did Jesus ever, even once, state clearly and unequivocally that owning people is an abomination? God never tired of insisting on dietary laws, dress codes, and strict observance of the Sabbath—yet it never occurred to him to include the monstrosity of slavery among the Ten Commandments. It would have been so simple: “Thou shalt not own people.” Basta.

🥲

Since we are all (hopefully) agreed in condemning slavery and in regarding this kind of “ownership” of other human beings as abhorrent and repugnant, the Seanchan attitude on this issue should not surprise us, especially when viewed against our own far-from-flattering history. The Christian doctrine of salvation goes so far in its "holy book" as to enshrine slavery and its "rules," effectively normalizing it. Some examples appealing? Deuteronomy 20:10–14 In war, women and children may be taken as plunder. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 Female captives may be taken as wives after a waiting period. This effectively institutionalizes forced marriage / sexual slavery. Permanent, hereditary slavery of foreigners Leviticus 25:44–46 Israelites may acquire slaves from surrounding nations. These slaves are property for life and may be inherited by children. In contrast, Israelite slaves must not be treated as slaves permanently. They are to be freed after a servitude of 7 years, unless they are tricked (I can expand on this if you wish in another place...) Exodus 21:20–21 (NRSV) “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.” The New Testament does not call for the abolition of slavery. Instead, it generally accepts it as a social reality and instructs slaves to obey their masters. So here is my conclusion: just as our own history (up until modern times) regarded slavery as a normal institution—benefiting countless people massively by it (Liverpool’s wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries was largely built on the then-already illegal slave trade)—a social order like that of the Seanchan, living at a cultural level comparable to our European Middle Ages, should really come as no surprise. Your thoughts? Greetings and best 73 --.../...-- de Calean

Thank you very much for your comforting words. The one positive aspect of ageing as one’s memory fades is that, after a while, one no longer even notices it oneself. Isn’t that wonderful? Only those around us then still have to cope with our creeping foolishness — truly their problem!