How to Survive as the Second Son of a Mage Family - Chapter 510

—————
This chapter was translated by Lunox Team. To support us and help keep this series going, visit our website: LunoxScans.com
—————

How to Survive as the Second Son of a Magic Noble Family (510)

Marian Baum had agreed to go to the conference hall with a time delay to prepare for possible surveillance, and was scheduled to depart last. A Catacombs colleague sat down in front of him as he was lost in thought. Susanne Nussbaum, she was a radical activist who shared the same views as the earlier co-chairman Yanina Schweitzer and was the chairman of the judicial committee of the Catacombs parliament. In the Catacombs where separation of powers was not clearly established, the chairman of the judicial committee was essentially the minister of the Reichsjustizamt. Marian Baum felt cold sweat breaking out again as she sat in the front seat and began looking at him. This was because Baum understood and sometimes sympathized with the views of radical activists, but was fundamentally a moderate realist activist, so he inevitably clashed with them most of the time.

Chairman Susanne Nussbaum was younger than Marian Baum but had studied longer than Marian Baum, who had only graduated from university, and longer than co-chairman Yanina Schweitzer as well. He was believed to prefer being absorbed in calculations rather than leading others, so he wasn’t considered leadership material like Chairman Schweitzer, but he was thorough in argumentation. Therefore, Marian Baum became even more tired upon facing this person and thought he needed to keep his wits about him even more. Chairman Nussbaum spoke.

“Count Marian Baum. We are facing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The message and opportunity from the Prince of Bavaria that you brought us will surely be an incomparable benefit, and I expect that based on this, we common mages will be able to obtain a foundation for returning to the surface.”

“Yes. I think the same.”

“However, I still don’t know how to accept that the opportunity to return to the surface has been given by the royal family. I did not want this kind of moderation.”

Marian Baum closed his eyes. So Chairman Nussbaum had an unbridgeable difference of opinion with Marian Baum. He understood there were unresolved rights. But rather than peacefully getting them back, he wanted to beat down the main enemy Prussia with our own strength alone and reclaim our rights. And Marian Baum deeply sympathized with such a state as well. The most satisfying thing would be to carry out revenge by defeating Prussia with force. But as fantastic as it was, it was equally fantastical. The radicals and moderates of the Catacombs split along these lines.

The moderates say that for the liberation of the Catacombs, we must be able to accept realistic alternatives, while the radicals say that for the true liberation of the Catacombs, we must fight with the resolve to pay back what we’ve suffered. The moderates point out that the radical approach could cause unnecessary casualties and that prioritizing will over reality is spiritually valuable but idealistic in that it fails to reduce actual damage. The radicals point out that even if we have to endure some realistic casualties, it’s important to achieve our ideals precisely without allowing any compromise, and that the moderate approach won’t achieve true liberation and is fundamentally flawed peace obtained by pandering to the times.

The word radical is connected to roots and essence, as its etymology suggests. Therefore, the current situation where radicals reject immediate change while moderates welcome immediate change arises from this difference in values. Radical chairman Yanina Schweitzer and judicial chairman Susanne Nussbaum want to give up the immediate opportunity and wait for a time when the Catacombs can gloriously and dignifiedly defeat Prussia in war by themselves. Conversely, moderate chairman Anze Dracher and Marian Baum want to seize the opportunity now that the realistically optimal moment has arrived to minimize damage to common mages who would be persecuted on the surface even at this moment and obtain surface power for the Catacombs as quickly as possible.

Marian Baum was a realist, but as a member of the persecuted Catacombs, he liked the radical way of thinking and knew that such activists could cause great shock to society and rapidly improve reality. However, he knew that if conditions were poor, they could lead the group to ruin due to the reaction of the times, or that the social movement represented by the radicals could stagnate for years. In Marian Baum’s view, this wasn’t the fault of the radicals but rather the fault of the unjust times that provided the need for radical improvement of reality continuing to commit injustice – such stagnation was also the fault of the times – but he felt it necessary to be wary of the ‘realistic’ possibility that unexpected backlash could come to the Catacombs due to overly radical foresight. Also, though it didn’t apply to the current Catacombs, he was wary that if radicalism spread throughout society, it could lead to catastrophes like the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

Therefore, Marian Baum hoped for a state where moderates and radicals balanced each other, being neither too passive nor too aggressive. So now he didn’t know what to say to this radical chairman who said ‘true independence is getting back our unresolved rights from beginning to end through our actions alone,’ and he knew that if he couldn’t persuade this person soon, he wouldn’t be able to persuade co-chairman Yanina Schweitzer and other radical activists in the long term either. But this problem wasn’t one where either side was completely right or completely wrong! Since all sides had valid points and all had parts deserving criticism, persuasion was difficult. In the end, all Marian Baum could do was try to explain his moderate views as sincerely as possible rather than trying to persuade the other party. Only by doing so could he find a point where he and Chairman Nussbaum could understand each other and appropriately coordinate their opinions.

As Marian Baum’s contemplation lengthened, Chairman Nussbaum spoke.

“If you have nothing to say to me, let me speak first. I actually have something to say to Teacher Marian Baum. Teacher Marian Baum probably already knows there was a problem with the conversation you had with Chairman Schweitzer earlier. If you agreed without knowing, that would be disappointing.”

Marian Baum looked at Judicial Chairman Nussbaum with inner bewilderment at those words.

“What do you mean?”

“There are points for improvement in co-chairman Yanina Schweitzer’s argument. Even though Chairman Schweitzer shares the same radical intentions as me, I think the chairman’s remarks were merely idealistic theories with feasibility converging to zero, but setting that aside, they were most decisively developed while committing conceptual errors.”

Marian Baum only slowly closed and opened his eyes without speaking. Chairman Nussbaum enjoyed arguing like this when he felt that even if someone shared his views, the grounds or other statements used to develop those views were invalid. No, actually, since he was expressionless about everything, he didn’t seem to enjoy it much. Conceptual error – Marian Baum repeated that thought and swallowed. Chairman Nussbaum continued in a cool voice.

“Chairman Yanina Schweitzer made the error of confusing the usage of ‘bystander.'”

Chairman Nussbaum spoke about Yanina Schweitzer without courtesy, stating things as they were. Marian Baum had to try not to show his bewilderment, and it wasn’t difficult. Why wasn’t it difficult? Because Marian Baum also knew well what Chairman Nussbaum was going to say.

“Chairman Yanina Schweitzer used the concept of bystander based on the crime of aiding and abetting in criminal law. This bystander was used in the sense of an accomplice who allows crime to continue by neglecting to stop it. While there may be differences in perspective about when the term bystander can be used in this case, under no circumstances can the Kingdom of Bavaria be called an absolute or continuous bystander.”

“…”

“The ‘bystander’ in the sense Chairman Yanina Schweitzer used should strictly speaking be the 100 million German citizens, not the Kingdom of Bavaria.”

Chairman Nussbaum spoke with sharp eyes. Silence flowed.

Marian Baum thought. The Catacombs leadership was naturally composed of Germans and formed according to the population ratio of each country, and this person was Prussian. So was he trying to praise Bavaria as a counterpart to Prussia due to his desire for revenge against Prussia, or could he truly prove with grounds that Yanina Schweitzer’s words were insufficient and therefore not the best choice befitting her position as representative? Or was it because of profound disappointment with the 100 million German citizens who let the Catacombs reach this state?

“Is it because of antipathy toward Prussia?”

Then Judicial Chairman Nussbaum made a disappointed face as if he hadn’t expected such a question, like someone who had been asked a question not worth answering, and Marian Baum felt embarrassed by this judicial chairman’s rudeness but had no intention of withdrawing the question. If Chairman Nussbaum intended to thoroughly examine everything, his intent in speaking also had to be clearly addressed. In this case, the intent to correct the frame set by ‘political activist’ Chairman Yanina Schweitzer was most important.

Chairman Nussbaum argued in a low voice.

“We are now at a historic moment for the Catacombs. Our Catacombs can face a different destiny starting from Easter 1898. Now is a time when everyone must devote their heart and soul to one goal, and as much as that one goal requires it, it’s also a crisis period when all other sensitive issues that should be handled thoroughly and carefully despite being topics that should be treated meticulously can be treated carelessly like cigarette butts thrown on a hillside. As judicial chairman, I don’t want political words to become seeds that make the Catacombs a gathering of the ignorant masses or divide us from each other at this point when this invisible crisis has arrived. Right now the Catacombs are taking one step closer to the common goal of becoming the foundation of the surface, and therefore we are facing a moment before a life-or-death period of resetting the Catacombs’ direction, course, and goals. Not forgetting that in numerous revolutions, contrary to the people’s fiery hopes and resentments, after the first great victory, instead of fields of flowers unfolding, partisan bloodbaths occurred, we leadership have a duty to learn from history as a mirror and strive not to repeat the same mistakes. Therefore, I speak to prevent Chairman Schweitzer’s argument from spreading into clever misuse of straw man tactics and uncontrollable dichotomous thinking and extremism within the Catacombs. Do you understand up to here?”

Marian Baum was greatly bewildered by the words flowing at a constant speed without pause as if reciting memorized legal provisions, but he nodded. Because it was true that he understood.

“If Teacher Baum truly thinks Bavaria is an absolute and continuous bystander nation, though judging from your previous words you probably don’t, you must understand every word of what I say from now on without missing anything. If you miss even one word, you won’t understand where exactly the error occurred. And the reason you must do so is that Teacher Baum set our leadership as an ignorant audience and in trying to persuade such thoughtless masses, you followed Chairman Schweitzer in distorting the truth, thereby accelerating the Catacombs’ actual situation. Teacher Baum now bears responsibility for this. Even if we are indeed ignorant masses at Teacher Baum’s level, you should have explained everything step by step. Do you understand why I try to be thorough in every way?”

In other words, Chairman Nussbaum was saying that Marian Baum had followed incorrect terminology to persuade them in the immediate debate, thus setting the direction for Catacombs politics to flow down the wrong path. While thinking whether they really had to examine every single term this thoroughly, Marian Baum knew that the extreme chaos after revolution or independence, the ‘new reaction’ that seemed too weak to call by the tentative term ‘chaos’ which retained possibilities of hope, was not only possible but highly likely. This is because after revolution and independence, instead of the desirable world they had hoped for, new power struggles and debates about resetting subsequent goals tend to occur. That possibility begins with complacency in not dealing with problematic seeds when they are discovered.

Therefore, Marian Baum recognized his own complacency and also understood Chairman Nussbaum’s intention of not wanting the Catacombs to go wrong.

No, that’s not all. After thinking about this fact, Marian Baum shuddered. Rather, through Nussbaum’s criticism, he realized they were standing at a historic moment for the Catacombs.

“I understand. …Though I didn’t think of them as ignorant masses, I know there were mistakes in my strategy. Since I was so eager to persuade that I didn’t even try to broaden the audience’s scope of thinking, Chairman’s words are also valid. I’ll accept them.”

Chairman Nussbaum nodded. He closed his eyes and was lost in thought for a moment, then opened his eyes like a machine that had organized everything it needed to say.

“We can divide the meaning of ‘bystander’ into two types based on the usage of ‘bystander’ in the relevant discussion. Bystander1 is simply ‘watching without taking action.’ Bystander2 is criminal law bystander, precisely aiding and abetting through omission. Let’s consider Bystander2. In that Bavaria ultimately failed to stop Prussia during the constitutional amendment, we could see the establishment of omission as ‘not performing certain acts normatively expected,’ and such ‘bystander behavior’ could be somewhat valid. However, considering that the Imperial Chancellor presented the constitutional amendment and passed the review to the upper parliament, the Federal Committee, where Prussia held 17 of 58 seats and Bavaria held 6, and to prevent Prussia from using allied nations to exceed the constitutional amendment threshold, Bavaria’s 6 seats alone were insufficient and needed to bring in an additional 12 allied seats, we all know this situation. In circumstances where even incorporating the Grand Duchy of Baden and the Grand Duchy of Württemberg would only add 7 votes, it’s questionable whether complete aiding and abetting through omission could be established considering how Bavaria could have realistically opposed. However, depending on perspective, one could also say Bavaria’s omission existed in not making more nations into allies.”

Marian Baum nodded silently, struggling to understand due to his rapid speech. He now knew well that Chairman Nussbaum was radical but entirely realistic. He happened to bring up a related topic.

“Up to here, we’ve examined whether bystander behavior ‘at the time of’ the constitutional amendment could be established, and we can conclude that depending on the perspective of setting the scope of omission, Bavaria could or could not be a bystander nation. What’s clear is that if Bavaria had the influence to stop Prussia, the hegemon of the German Empire would have been Bavaria, not Prussia. However, I don’t entirely fail to understand Chairman Schweitzer’s hard-line ethical theory that ‘even if it wouldn’t work, they should have rushed toward justice with the resolve to perish.’ But states simply cannot operate that way. States must not rush toward self-destruction, because obviously using power that tens of millions of citizens have transferred to the state for suicide clearly violates the contract. Chairman Schweitzer could apply hard-line ethical standards to Bavaria because she doesn’t value the welfare of anyone outside the Catacombs enough to argue that it’s fine if human non-mages die in war, but a selectively moral state operating as Chairman Schweitzer described would no longer be a legitimate normal state. Now we must examine ‘continuous’ bystander behavior.”

“Continuous.”

Marian Baum thought the story he expected would now come out and continued trying to listen attentively as he had been doing.

“The territory of the Kingdom of Bavaria is Bavaria, not all of Germany. Within Bavarian territory, the Bavarian government protected human mages while violating the Imperial Constitution. Violating the constitution is not a matter at the level of violating ordinances. Violating a constitution established by Prussia and passed through the ‘somewhat democratic’ decision-making processes of other states could itself be said to already risk the possibility of German civil war, however small. This shows that the Bavarian government made maximum efforts to minimize damage to its own people. Legally speaking, the Bavarian government had no obligation to rescue subjects of other pro-Prussian German regions, and as the German Empire was a federal state, Bavaria had no such authority either. As Chairman Schweitzer intended, there remains regret that Bavaria could have morally requested help from international society, but I judge there is error in saying they continuously neglected the problem just because Bavaria didn’t do so.”

Up until now, it hadn’t deviated much from Chairman Schweitzer’s arguments and rebuttals. But from this very point, we can see the decisive difference in perspective between Chairman Nussbaum and Chairman Schweitzer.

Marian Baum spoke quietly to see if he would say what he really expected.

“If acts of disobedience based on ‘not taking action’ can be called bystander behavior, such bystander behavior is actually a statement of intent – not acting is itself acting.”

Chairman Nussbaum quietly looked at Marian Baum. Understanding this meant to continue, Marian Baum checked his watch and opened his mouth.

“I know, Chairman. Bavaria is a massive power group called a state that can exercise power, so their bystander behavior, whether its cause is indifference, economic conflicts of interest, or ethical compliance, ultimately appears as ‘failure to follow orders,’ and such non-compliance is actually not bystander behavior that has no effect on the opponent, but expression of political opinion and confrontational action that disagrees with Prussia’s hegemony and unethical acts. Bavaria committed constitutional violations by letting common mages live freely on Bavarian land, and that was directly confronting Prussia’s hegemonic order by ignoring the constitution Prussia made. Therefore, Bavaria acted by ‘not taking action.’ In this sense, Bystander1 cannot be applied to Bavaria. This is an act of disobedience by one power against a greater power. Given that Bavaria and Prussia are in the special relationship of federal member-hegemon rather than horizontal independent states, this ‘watching without acting’ is not bystander behavior. In the case of horizontal independent states, non-interference in each other’s unethical acts could be interpreted as tolerance of immorality. However, in the relationship between federal member and hegemon, this is not non-interference like bystander behavior but an act of disobedience, resistance that threatens the hegemon’s status and power by committing bystander behavior meaning they won’t carry out orders from the hegemon. Violating the constitution is already closer to opposition rather than bystander behavior. Opposition that attacks even the most fundamental national ideology.”

Chairman Nussbaum only watched Marian Baum with cool eyes. Since it seemed like he was questioning why he had spoken that way earlier when he knew this, Marian Baum licked his lips and continued speaking.

“I also know why Chairman said ‘the bystander in the sense Chairman Yanina Schweitzer used should strictly speaking be the 100 million German citizens, not the Kingdom of Bavaria.’ Unlike being able to extend the concept of civil disobedience to disobedience between one power and a great power, citizens’ bystander behavior cannot become disobedience. In short, citizens’ bystander behavior results in violent acts that actually support Prussia’s outrages through ‘not acting’ stemming from indifference, rather than insubordination or failure to follow orders like the power group Bavaria shows as a group with active decision-making authority. Bavaria’s ‘Bystander1′ as state power that must carry out orders is unconstitutional, while citizens’ ‘Bystander1’ is constitutional, complying with the constitution. Co-chairman Yanina Schweitzer lumped together problems that should be carefully examined by treating bystander behaviors from inherently different positions identically.”

The chairman finally nodded and spoke.

“Then you’ll now understand exactly why I pointed out Teacher Baum’s mistake. Of course, aside from the perspective that acknowledges omission during the constitutional amendment, we could call Bavaria a bystander for failing to rescue persecuted humans in other countries, but that’s not Bavaria’s duty so it’s not legally omission, and rather Bavaria committed omission against the Empire by not killing the common mages in their own country they were supposed to kill. Whether Bavaria deserves the title of bystander is a difference in perspective arising from the gap between political opinion expression methods that states can choose within reasonable ranges and methods individuals pursue, so there’s need for caution in using terminology that could be misunderstood as Bavaria having absolutely stood by. Chairman Yanina Schweitzer distorted the essence at the level of choosing political terminology, which should have been most important. And Teacher Marian Baum’s simplification of meaning to make the masses understand imprinted that distortion on everyone. Bavaria could indeed be a bystander to a radical like the chairman, but it’s in a complex situation to call it a bystander in the general sense, and rather that term should be directed at the 100 million German citizens who remained silent about the Catacombs massacre to be most semantically accurate. Citizens must know how to distinguish this subtle multifaceted nature. Otherwise, those trying to seize power during this chaotic period could easily deceive the masses by committing such disloyalty.”

Chairman Yanina Schweitzer is a representative who unifies the Catacombs as a person appointed following the existing chairman Anze Dracher, who is the substantial decision-making center. With fiery leadership, she is skilled at unifying and moving the masses with powerful and bold language. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean logical precision. Sometimes what is easy to understand and intuitive actually deviates from truth precisely because it’s intuitive. Chairman Schweitzer was a politician skilled at presenting intuitive images to people. Declaring that the Kingdom of Bavaria is a bystander is, when examined in precise meaning, a simplification that emphasizes only one aspect in a multifaceted situation – a framing strategy that politician Schweitzer uses intentionally or unintentionally. This was a problematic element that could spread like wildfire in the ‘post-opportunity chaos’ situation that Judicial Chairman Nussbaum was now worried about.

It’s not just the word bystander that’s the problem. It’s because the intuitive images that politician Yanina Schweitzer skillfully presents distort the complexity of essence and implement simplification that can interpret events only in terms of good and evil dichotomy. Chairman Nussbaum was wary of the possible emergence of Cromwell and Robespierre after the Catacombs’ new opportunity, and was ultimately analyzing everything coolly for the Catacombs’ welfare, hoping everyone could develop such capability. Having thought this far, Marian Baum strangely felt his initially heavy heart gradually being washed clean, felt words surging up.

Chairman Nussbaum spoke.

“So what I want to say is this. I don’t know whether the prince will be able to persuade us or not. But if he succeeds in proving himself, I want Teacher Baum to clarify this again directly before the leadership.”

“Haha, me…? I understand. Since it’s true that I used simplification.”

“Since Teacher Baum has brought so many people to the Catacombs, you have deep popular support, so it would be much more effective than someone like me speaking.”

Chairman Nussbaum stood up from his seat and continued speaking.

“Even though I’ve discussed flaws in terminology usage like this, I can understand with my heart why the chairman criticized Bavaria as a bystander. However, carelessly using terminology that’s easily misunderstood by others and imprecise is something to be wary of. I like co-chairman Schweitzer very much and value her abilities highly, but I don’t want power to be gained through sharp and intuitive words.”

“I feel the same way.”

“So I hope Teacher Baum will take on that role with me. I hope we can check the dominance of easy and intuitive language that way.”

The dominance of easy and intuitive language – Marian Baum nodded silently. Chairman Nussbaum, being a radical, inevitably had more in common with Chairman Schweitzer. Though Chairman Nussbaum might clash slightly with Chairman Schweitzer for being overly analytical and realistic, Chairman Nussbaum agreed with and worked together with Chairman Schweitzer much more often, so there was no reason for him to become close with Marian Baum, who had opposite political views. Yet he was asking Marian Baum for cooperation.

Chairman Nussbaum knew what the internal enemy existing in the Catacombs was. He knew the enemy lurking not only in the Catacombs but in all forms of society. Earlier, Chairman Nussbaum had said it was ‘also a crisis period when all sensitive issues that should be handled thoroughly and carefully despite being topics that should be treated meticulously can be treated carelessly like cigarette butts thrown on a hillside.’ He also said he didn’t want political words to become seeds that make the Catacombs a gathering of the ignorant masses or divide each other at this point when invisible crisis had arrived.

“Chairman Nussbaum.”

Marian Baum spoke thoughtfully while looking into space. He continued.

“You said you still don’t know how to accept that the opportunity to return to the surface has been given by the royal family.”

“That’s right.”

“I thought there was no answer other than explaining my moderate views as sincerely as possible. Because the question of radical versus moderate isn’t something that can be persuaded.”

Chairman Nussbaum, who had been preparing to move, looked at his watch once and turned toward Marian Baum. Marian Baum, who had been looking into space, now looked up at Chairman Nussbaum and spoke.

“However, I think I’ve found appropriate words I can offer in response to Chairman Nussbaum’s question.”

—————
This chapter was translated by Lunox Team. To support us and help keep this series going, visit our website: LunoxScans.com
—————