#and do DO objective rule but also like... tyranny | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

babylon-crashing · 9 days ago

Text

🜄 THE EMPEROR – Card IV

TITLE: The Dragon Throne / 龍廷 (Lóng Tíng)

MYTHIC ARCHETYPE: The Pirate Dragon King

TAOIST PARALLEL: Ao Guang (敖廣), the East Sea Dragon King, merged with Zheng Zhilong (鄭芝龍)—the real-life Ming dynasty pirate admiral who commanded 3,000 junks.

PIRATE TWIST: He’s not just a mythical ruler—he’s the admiral of the ghost fleet, enforcing hǎi shén fǎ (海神法, "Sea God’s Law") from a throne of cannons and coral. His trident? A tide-cutting ji (戟) halberd that splits storms.

WHY THE EMPEROR? He doesn’t just control the sea—he is its justice. Cross him and your ship sinks paper-light (紙沉, zhǐ chén). Serve him, and he’ll guide you through fog-walled coves.

TAOIST PIRATE SYMBOLISM

KEYWORDS (Upright):

Lóngtíng lǜ (龍廷律, "Dragon Court Rules")—code of the sea.

"Tides obey the Bagua" (潮隨八卦, cháo suí bāguà)—order in chaos.

The admiral’s seal (海帥印, hǎi shuài yìn)—stamped on waves.

KEYWORDS (Reversed):

A broken tide-table (破潮曆, pò cháo lì)—navigation failed.

"Dragon’s yawn" (龍哈欠, lóng hāqiàn)—complacency before disaster.

The sea tribunal (海審, hǎi shěn) where traitors walk the plank.

INTERPRETATION: This card is law written in saltwater. The Dragon Throne rewards loyalty and sinks oath-breakers. His power isn’t tyranny—it’s the certainty of the tide.

RITUAL: THE ADMIRAL’S SEAL (海帥印, Hǎi Shuài Yìn)

(Inspired by Ming naval codes and Daoist tide-summoning rites)

PURPOSE: To claim authority or stabilize chaos.

MATERIALS:

A wooden plank (driftwood or bamboo).

Red ink (or bloodroot pigment).

A knife (to carve).

Nine copper coins (for the Nine Dragons).

Saltwater.

STEPS:

Carve the Bagua into the plank at dusk.

Dip coins in ink, press them onto the wood like a seal, chanting:

东龙审判，西龙称重，南龙焚烧，北龙付出代价。 East Dragon judges, West Dragon weighs, South Dragon burns, North Dragon pays.

Bury the plank at a crossroads or fling it into the sea.

PARALLEL MYTHOLOGY TITLE: Poseidon, Sovereign of the Sea’s Dominion / Keeper of the Trident MYTHIC ARCHETYPE: Poseidon (Greek God of the Sea, Earthquakes, and Horses) REGION: Ancient Greece and the wider Hellenic world FORM: God of the sea, storms, horses, and earthquakes; wielder of the mighty trident TALE: Poseidon is a formidable god whose temper mirrors the ocean’s tempestuous moods. As one of the Olympian siblings, he claimed dominion over the seas and all its creatures, as well as horses and the tremors beneath the earth. His trident symbolizes both creative and destructive power, capable of calming waves or shattering lands. Though sometimes seen as capricious and volatile, Poseidon also represents steadfast authority and governance over nature’s primal forces. His role as the Emperor in our oceanic Tarot is to teach the balance of control and power—how to rule with strength tempered by wisdom, and how to command loyalty and respect through firm, just leadership. WHY THE EMPEROR? The Emperor stands for order, structure, protection, and leadership. Poseidon’s role as the sovereign sea god aligns perfectly, embodying authority grounded in the elemental power of water and earth. INTERPRETATION THROUGH POSEIDON: When Poseidon appears, he calls forth the leader within you—the one who must wield power responsibly among tumultuous currents. He demands respect for the rules that hold worlds together but warns against becoming a tyrant who crushes rather than governs. Poseidon asks: Where do you exert control? Are you a protector of your domain or a rigid despot? How do you balance power with compassion? RITUAL: Invocation of Poseidon’s Command PURPOSE: To call upon strength, leadership, or the power to establish order in chaos. MATERIALS: A trident-shaped object or symbolic representation (can be crafted or drawn) Saltwater Blue or sea-green candles Shells or horse figurines (optional) A strong, grounded space to perform the ritual STEPS: Place the trident or its symbol before you. Light the candles, representing the sea and its powers. Sprinkle a few drops of saltwater around your space, envisioning Poseidon’s waves marking your territory. SPEAK THE INVOCATION:

Poseidon, lord of sea and shore, Keeper of waves, trident in hand, Grant me the strength to lead and guard, To rule with justice, firm but fair.

Visualize yourself standing tall like a pillar of rock amidst a stormy sea, unyielding but wise. Close the ritual with gratitude, grounding yourself and honoring the ocean’s mighty ruler. THE "BEST FIT" PRINCIPLE: Where Sedna is the deep, internal, life-giving source, Poseidon is the external, sovereign, structural power.

SOVEREIGNTY AND DOMAIN: The Emperor is the master of his realm. Poseidon's authority over the sea is absolute and was established at the dawn of the Olympian age when the cosmos was divided among the three brothers (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades). This act of structuring the universe is a perfect Emperor concept.

THE TRIDENT AS SCEPTER: The Emperor holds a scepter, a symbol of his power to rule. Poseidon's trident is one of the most famous symbols of divine authority in all mythology. It's not just a weapon; it is the tool with which he enforces his will, creating earthquakes and calming storms. It is his law made manifest.

THE SHADOW SIDE: Poseidon's infamous temper, his tyrannical rage against Odysseus, his stubbornness in his contest with Athena over Athens—these are all textbook examples of the Emperor's negative traits: inflexibility, despotism, and the use of power for personal grudges rather than the good of the realm.

THE RITUAL OF THE TRIDENT'S STRIKE (To Establish a Foundation)

OBJECTIVE: To create a stable, protected foundation in a chaotic area of your life. Use this when starting a major project, fortifying your personal boundaries, or bringing order to your home or mind.

MATERIALS:

A staff, a sturdy branch, or even your own arm and fist. This is your "Trident."

A bowl of saltwater.

Three stones, large enough to be stable. These represent the three points of the trident and the foundation you are building.

A piece of ground where you can perform the ritual (a yard, a park, or even a planter box).

STEPS:

SURVEYING THE DOMAIN: Stand before the piece of ground. This is your kingdom, the area you are about to bring into order. State your intention clearly and aloud. "I am here to bring order to my finances" or "I am here to establish a firm boundary of my personal time."

CONSECRATING THE TRIDENT: Hold your staff (or arm) and dip its end into the saltwater. Raise it to the sky. DECLARE ITS POWER: "This is not wood, but bone of the Earth. This is not my arm, but the will of the Sea. This is the Trident that strikes the foundation and commands the deep."

THE STRIKE: With all your focused intent, strike the ground firmly three times with the end of your staff. Each strike should be deliberate and powerful. With each strike, make a declaration:

(Strike 1): "By the power of the Earth Below, I set my foundation!"

(Strike 2): "By the power of the Sea Around, I set my boundary!"

(Strike 3): "By the power of the Sky Above, I declare my dominion!"

LAYING THE FOUNDATION: Place your three stones on the ground where you struck, forming a stable triangle. This is the physical anchor for the order you have created. Pour the remaining saltwater in a circle around the stones as a libation and a boundary of protection.

THE SOVEREIGN'S OATH: Stand straight, looking over your newly established "foundation." Make a vow of responsible rulership. "I will rule this domain with strength and with wisdom. I will be its protector, not its tyrant. This order is established. So it is."

CLOSING: Leave the stones in place for at least a full day and night. The act is complete. You have shifted from being a subject of chaos to the sovereign of your domain.

SYNCRETIC BRIDGE

Poseidon’s Trident → Dragon King’s Ji: Both split waves and enforce divine will.

Olympian Division → Fēngshuǐ of the Seas: The Dragon Kings divide the oceans like Bagua sectors.

THE "SCHOLAR'S HEART" MANDATE

Primary Sources: Homer's Iliad and, most importantly, The Odyssey, where Poseidon's role as a powerful, wrathful antagonist is central. Hesiod's Theogony is essential for his origin and the division of the cosmos. The Homeric Hymn to Poseidon is a direct invocation that praises his power. For the ritual see: the biography of Admiral Zheng He’s (鄭和) navigation charts—they were ritual objects blessed by Mazu to command currents; as well as the Jiaolong myth in the 《述异记》 [Records of Strange Things], 6th century CE.

#tarot #the emperor #Taoist-Pirate rituals #sea mythology #ocean folklore #chinese translation #Poseidon #龍廷 #Lóng Tíng

23 notes · View notes

taragreenfield · 2 days ago

Text

The myth of "a moral" protagonist

I always laugh when someone says, "Alina didn't join the Darkling because she has actual morals!" What morals are we talking about? Her outrage about the Darkling stems exclusively from Baghra's infodump. She was wary of him, but she never actually took her time to examine and understand what he stands for and what exactly he wants to achieve. She spends her time in the Little Palace gossiping, pining after Mal, and pitying herself for being a shit Sun Summoner. After Baghra tells her how "bad" the Darkling is (with no evidence, mind you), Alina immediately starts panicking: "oh no he's evil! he wants to destroy the world" because she "knows in her heart that Baghra is right". it's confirmation bias, not a moral stance. Moreover, her treatment of the whole rapist-king situation is horrific. She hears Marie and Nadia mocking Genya for being assaulted by the King, and continues to hang out with them. When captured, she literally offers Genya, who at the time is still loyal to the Darkling, to go to the king, her rapist, and ask him to help stop the Darkling. Apparently, Alina doesn't have anything against collaborating with a rapist and tyrant. Weird, I thought she condemned the Darkling for tyranny. Is that some other, acceptable flavour of tyrant? When Nikolai sends his rapist father to a comfortable resort with maids in tow, she doesn't raise any objections. Moreover, she jokes about the king not attending the council meetings because he's too busy "hobbling after maids". Yeah, a known rapist harassing defenseless girls is exactly the type of situation a highly moral person would laugh at, right. Already mentioned bombing of the supply lines—no objections from Alina. Grisha not getting justice after pogroms - silence. Any horrors that happen to Grisha - crickets, silence, "but what about Maaaal?" Apparat recruiting 10-year-olds into her cult - one offhand comment, "no more kids", and it's forgotten. Grooming kids into a cult is also not beyond the acceptable moral threshold, apparently. Fraternizing with the First Army that has just been recently slaughtering Grisha - absolutely no issue? Leaving for your crappy orphanage despite persecution getting worse - sure, running and hiding like a sewer rat is exactly what a morally upstanding person would do! When faced with the consequences of her own actions - her desertion or the skiff incident, she immediately starts feeling sorry for herself ("It's not fair! I didn't have a choice! All those people are dead, and I didn't even manage to run away!"). Is deflecting accountability a sign of a strong moral compass now? So what is so moral about her? Looking uncomfortable when the magical animal is being killed? Wringing her hands at Novokribirsk ruins and then going and destroying a skiff full of innocents? Claiming that the Darkling rules with fear and then almost killing a soldier for questioning her (unearned) leadership? In conclusion, Alina has the moral backbone of a rotten, worm-infested apple. If the literal Nazi Jarl Brum offered her and Mal a nice cottage in the woods with no responsibilities, she would gladly let him torture Grisha in his death camps. Jarl Brum also hates the Darkling, so he must be a good guy, right?

#grishaverse #anti grishaverse #anti leigh bardugo #anti alina starkov #the darkling #aleksander morozova

19 notes · View notes

dailycharacteroption · 3 months ago

Text

Deity Drop 9: Bohga

It’s time for another special on the many deities of Pathfinder, and we’ve gotten to another Asura Rana, the paragons of those living reminders of the various mistakes of the gods. However, due to the lack of focus on these entities, we barely know anything about them, so sit back and relax folks, we’re breaking out the thumbtacks and string again.

Much like Andak, I wanted to look up some real-world Hindu lore on named asuras in mythology to get an idea of what Bohga was based on, but sadly, I wasn’t able to find any. Either she was made up wholesale by Paizo, or my research sources were inadequate.

What we do know about Bohga in Pathfinder is that she is an asura of vengeance, but also greed and meditation. Her most notable act was that she looted countless temples and monasteries in the wake of destruction left by Kothogaz, one of the spawn of Rovagug. She then achieved enlightenment after meditating on her plunder.

Given what we know about the general contempt that asura have for the gods, we can assume that Bohga was perhaps a lesser form of asura that ascended to this form, most likely an asurenda or perhaps a vayuphak. With that in mind, it was likely that the realization that Bohga had was the irony of how the gods were supposedly above material wealth, yet they allowed or even encouraged their mortal worshippers to construct temples of opulence in their name, perhaps coming to the conclusion that she deserved this wealth more as compensation for the injustices of the divine.

Bohda takes the form of a faceless, yet beautiful woman whose body is composed entirely of gold and gems, wearing her opulence through her own physicality.

Unlike many deities, Bohda actually dwells on the Material Plane, in the ruins of the city of Jaradisam, where she to this continues to meditate on the vast horde she has collected. No word on whether the city was another casualty of Kothogaz, but it seems likely.

Given her portfolio and beliefs, I imagine that Bohda attracts worshippers who are filled with envy and greed, seeing the wealth and prosperity of others, particularly of religious sorts, as a great injustice, that surely they deserve such wealth and power more than those who currently have it, and that this wealth disparity goes beyond cosmic imbalance to outright personal slight, one that they aim to correct with their plots and the asura’s blessings.

The Treasurer’s relationships are unknown, though I imagine she is at least cordial with other ranas, and an enemy of all gods, particularly those associated with opulence, such as Abadar.

She no doubt also has many asura at her beck and call. Additionally, however, Bohda has allowed many monstrous folk and beasts to dwell in the ruins of Jaradisam, and could potentially call upon them for aid in defending it.

Her domains are Evil, Law, Protection, and Strength, with the Defense, Ferocity, Resolve, and Tyranny subdomains, all of which reflects her desire to accumulate great wealth and use her might to protect it from others, as well as the power it brings to rule as well.

Second Edition hasn’t given us any deity stats for the ranas yet, so she has no listed domains in that edition as of this writing.

As a lesser divinity, Bohga’s obedience is rather limited, requiring that the worshipper write down reasons why they deserve the treasured heirlooms of another and plot how to steal it. Those that do so correctly are blessed with deft hands while stealing from or disarming foes in combat. However, they also gain a selection of spells as their boons, including multiple ways to remotely view and spy upon objects and people, as well as gaining preternatural awareness of the near future. All perfect for keeping tabs on your treasure or those that might steal it, as well as avoiding harm.

Bohga hasn’t been mentioned in Starfinder to my knowledge, but in a distant future of obscenely wealthy corporations and their owners, I can see her cult playing both sides of the equation. The extremely wealthy are, after all, always looking for excuses for why they deserve wealth and others do not, and the common citizens can also be easily corrupted from desiring to redistribute wealth to instead coveting it for themselves, eager to gain a fortune of their own on the backs of others that failed to defend it.

That does it for tonight, but I think this was a solid start. Tune in tomorrow for another deity, this one almost forgotten.

#pathfinder #deity #bohga #asura rana

10 notes · View notes

yourtoradorasextendedwarranty · 1 year ago

Text

I don't understand people sometimes. I was scrolling through a little earlier and saw someone call Trump a fascist which isn't uncommon but it wasn't from someone I'd have expected to it come from. But nothing about Trump is fascist. Sure he's nationalistic but fascistic and nationalistic are not the same.

What's more when it comes to Dems v Reps I don't see how anyone can vote for Dems especially when they've gone full Neo Progressive. What do I mean? Well let's look at the most general of what the parties have represented across the US.

The right has been pro border security and this has been exemplified by Rep states either reinforcing their own borders, or sending them to sanctuary states.

The right has been historically and still is anti abortion. And while I didn't personally fully after with the stance, it SHOULD be left to the states to decide.

The right are for protecting the second amendment and even IF not all politicians on the right are for it, the SCOTUS justices that do understand the conservative values of the Constitution have given us more freedoms back. Many red states in fact now have constitutional carry.

Also of note those same justices have removed the Chevron act. Meaning that 3 letter agreements etc can't just wildly interpret the law as they please.

Now having said all this yes, there are war hawks on the right. There are racists on the right there are sexists on the right. But those same people very much exist on the left with no shortage at all

The left supports full term abortion and doesn't even consider the child alive until it's outside the womb.

The left is STAUNCHLY anti gun and anti second amendment.

The left is staunchly anti first amendment as seen by their calls to "hate speech".

The left is mostly pro open borders

The left is and has been pro war for a long time. Need proof? Obama started almost 5 new wars.

The left has proven recently they are ABSOLUTELY above the law and will manipulate every word in existence to jail their political rivals.

The left is actively racist and actively promotes white supremacist ideology with stuff like affirmative action and DEI.

The left has gone out of their way to allow kids to transition and get surgeries before the age of 16 even and want kids introduced to and TAUGHT LGBT themes, and have pushed for graphic pornographic books to be in elementary schools.

Leftists states and federally have demanded higher taxes, reduced potentialities for crimes, have sold you out to China, and aim to replace you with illegals they can buy off.

Is this a commentary on ALL of the Left and Dems and ALL of the Right and Reps? No. There's good and bad on both sides. But if we look at policies pushed, and the media apparatus who's been lying non-stop for years who are very clearly leaving left we see the real pattern of behavior. And it bothers me. I'm a left of center, small l, libertarian. You'd think the Dems world actually be "my side" and yet, they aren't. Biden insists on being a tyrant and ignoring SCOTUS ruling WAY outside of his power, trying to forgive loans that he doesn't have the right to forgive since it comes out of the taxpayers dime. And what bothers me even more, is the fact that he has also repealed all of the legislation that Trump pushed forward that kept our border safe. Specifically remain in Mexico. Which was very reasonable legislation.

Looking at all of this objectively no sane person can go with Biden or the Democrats. And as far as I am concerned, if at this point you are on the side of the Democrats then you're in favor of anarcho tyranny. You're in favor of lawlessness. And your favor of being manipulated by the media Non-Stop and watching the dollar crater in value.

19 notes · View notes

sun-in-retrograde · 5 months ago

Text

Lilith Opposite Eris - Everything is fine. STOP SAYING EVERYTHING ISN'T FINE!

So I’ve been thinking a lot about Lilith - the point in the Moon's orbit that’s furthest from the Earth. Long story short for those who don’t know - Lilith is calculated in two ways which astrologers generally call Mean, and True. Despite these names there’s no true way to calculate it - both are valid. I tend to use Mean for Personal Reasons.

No, I can’t just leave it at that. I use Mean because I did some digging on the chart of the first person to use Lilith and looked at correlations between where he calculated it was, and where it actually was and the mean calculation was really intensely apt, and it just generally seems to work better for me. Your mileage may vary but sometimes in astrology you have to make a call on something or become obsessed with how vast and confusing the universe is.

Mean or True, Lilith is in Libra. One way to think about Lilith in Libra that I quite like is to think about obsessive peacekeeping. Being on your last nerve and still trying to be friendly when maybe you shouldn’t be. It’s in the nature of Lilith that emotions related to it are imbalanced and aggressive. It can lead to absolutely obsessive behaviour, or an outright rejection of that energy at all. Sometimes both. Someone who obsessively tries to keep the peace and keep things nice can flip and suddenly not be able to handle this at all.

Right now, Eris is pretty much exactly opposite Lilith, and this makes sense to me. The opposition reached 3 degrees on 8 January and will remain so until 5 March. Eris is a Dwarf planet that's almost exactly the size of Pluto. The difference is, Pluto has a big moon to go with it. So, Eris is, to my mind, the best candidate for something with Astrological meaning that's smaller than Pluto. This includes Chiron. It's just a shame we're still learning about it.

One important key phrase I use with it is that Eris is the immovable object. What happens when someone with immovable views negotiates with people who are obsessively keeping the peace? What happens when someone is obsessed with keeping the peace to the extent that they are immovably commited to believing that things are fine?

Eris is pretty damn near conjunct my sun and I noticed this aspect in my personal life first. But I think it maps well to world affairs. We have Democrats dancing in their meetings, we have Keir Starmer negotiating with Trump to keep Britain out of a trade war as though Trump is doing normal politics. Innuendo Studios video on at what point America has crossed the Rubicon into tyranny captures some of the mood I'm seeing. Things look grim but there's a strong motivation to see things as somewhat normal, or to try to make peace with the new world - for instance here in the UK we have politicians like the Health Minister talking about the dangers of anti-whiteness and society not doing enough to cater to white men. Trying to meet MAGA halfway.

The last Conjunction of Lilith and Eris was in Aries in August to September 2020, when Trump was formulating the ideas that would lead to him taking the pretty unprecedented act of trying to overturn an election result in the way he did. He announced his reelection in November 2022 during the square. The next square is April to June 2027 with Lilith in Capricorn so note your diaries.

On a personal level, this is a tough aspect. I'm looking at Venus because it rules Libra. My Venus is in Taurus so I'm resting and trying to find calm in comfort and pleasure. The Aspect will continue within 3 degrees till 5 March. All that time, Venus is in Aries. Ultimately this is making me think that action is a great form of self care for now. Activism can be a necessary part of self care. It allows you to focus on trying to make changes in a sea of news, it connects you with friends, it builds support networks, also, doing stuff can frankly feel good. I mean, take care of yourself and others but if you're feeling this aspect, consider it

#astrology #dwarf planet astrology #eris astrology #lilith #lilith astrology

6 notes · View notes

dynamic-k · 1 year ago

Note

I just saw 'The Dark Lord' in a fic that wasn't even about ava/avm.

I SWEAR I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO HYPERFIXATED ON A FANDOM-

anyway i need to actually ask a question now.

Okay, I'm fairly sure that the Government is one of the antagonists of Arc 2.

sooo... What is the Government's intentions? Why were the two people watching the clip of Second's powers? The Government is an organisation -I think-, so who is allowed to know their plans? What are their plans?

Are they targeting Vic, Second, Chosen, or Dark? OR Kaori or ALan?

wait i just reread and I think it says Second is the primary focus.

Also it says:

'I'd always assumed the main objective with collecting all these powered individuals was so we could make some, I don't know, supreme ultra powerful stick or an ultimate individual source of energy.'

AYO? WHY ARE THEY REFERRING TO THE 'powered individuals' LIKE POKEMON CARDS?!? why did i say that iv never even played pokemon

'Collecting'?

Oh yeah why does Vic Chosen Dark and Second even have powers in the first place? Same with like- the villains.

Nearly all the heroes and villains have powers, so I'm excited to see Color Gang as heroes without powers, just tech.

I've always liked seeing people without powers and just technology and/or their talents beating people who just rely on their powers.

I'm not sure why. I think that's why I like Agent so much more than the others.

Thanks for listening to me ramble and Have a great day!!

-R

also for the crossover ramble- i dont actually have any ideas and my brain is just drawing a blank. A blank, empty, sad, depressing, endless void.

[aha not me referring to a story that i made xd]

I TOO DO EXACTLY THAT-

Literally in any other media where there is a Dark Lord- I just think of a certain hollowheaded red boi, with no regard to the color scheme of this other fandom Dark Lord- XD

I also have never been this hyperfixated on a fandom- XD My favorite fandom ever in ever. You and I are best friends now. XD

O v O Well well well~ Somebody is poking around for info on the Government within Super Sticks~ Whatever shall I do-

They are an organization, yes. They rule a lot of areas, but are not all-powerful or in a position of full-on tyranny.

There are places that are private property, owned by a single stick or perhaps two sticks, and leased or available for public usage, that the Government cannot do much about. There are also small organizations of some groups of sticks, that built up their businesses to help improve the city. The properties they own and let the public around also is unable to be touched or interfered with via Government hands.

One of those such places, is the police station that Vic is currently imprisoned inside. Government cannot touch him there, even though they are very well aware that Vic has powers. They were quite put off and frustrated when Vic made arrangements for both himself and Primal to go to that specific prison~

[The non-Government station itself and the guards/officers thereof actually don't know Vic has powers right now. This fact comes into play later, for a future scene I have already written~]

They are... targetting a LOT of sticks, actually- XD They even have code names for some of the higher priority sticks, as seen when "Target Amnesia" was mentioned.

Second is the highest priority thoouugghhhh~ I wwoooOoonnndeeerr whhhhhyyyyyY~ >:D

Every currently imprisoned stick in the Government right now: ...Yeah, I guess we're Pokemon cards now- It's accurate-

XD I love Pokemon, although I've only seen Indigo League. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily into the fandom either, but from what I have seen of the show I have loved dearly.

| Oh yeah why does Vic Chosen Dark and Second even have powers in the first place? Same with like- the villains. |

....

[*looks at canonically powerless Alan*]

[*side eyes Kaori*]

I have absolutely no idea. I don't believe I have the faintest notion what you're insinuating. [*nervous sweating*]

Now- Anyone with abilities, obviously it's genetics where the ability came from.

Hence, Rum: the mother of Vodka and Whiskey, shares a similar power. Jade has a different power, but he is Rum's husband so he's family though not by blood. And the Alcoholic Twins ended up inheriting their Mom's powers rather than their Dad's, so nobody except me at the moment knows what Jade can do, ehehehehhee

The title of Pretzel might have something to do with it, but that is ALLLLLLLL I will be saying on that front- /total-lie, I-can't-keep-my-mouth-shut, /silly

Color Gang is absolutely going to be epic with their non-powers, I will say this much. I AM VERY EXCITED TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE WHAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO, but I gotta break it to the readers slowly over the course of the four building the upgrades-

I do got the specifics all figured out, thoughhh~~ Not the names, yet- But the upgrades for each quadruplet, I have that down and ready to implement into the plot at will.

Canon!Agent is so cool, yes- I think he may be my favorite as well! [although I LOVE HAZARD so much too...] And! That is one of the big reasons why, as he doesn't even have any abilities, he uses a tech weapon. On a similar note, Mono of Super Sticks is much the same way, and on an even greater note because leg injury~ :D

It's funny you should mention reliance on one's powers, as I have a bit of a motto/theme built up in relation to that. In Spark AU. :3 Do with that information what thou will...

It's fine: I have plenty of crossover-related ideas for the both of us!! LIKE- THE NAME-

My sister, Trixie, suggested something to do with Kindle/Kindling. Because that sparks a fire and also is usually tiny sticks. XD

She's a straight-up genius- XD

[i will no-hesitation read anything you write- gimme-] /silly /but-also-serious

#Ask Scarlett #Scarlett Post #Super Sticks AU #The Spark AU

3 notes · View notes

fishylife · 1 year ago

Text

Fishy's top movies watched in 2023

It’s that time of year again. Time for my movies roundup for the year.

This post includes movies that I watched in 2023, not movies that were released in 2023. I will rank movies based on my personal impression, so this is not an objective post. As well, I sort the movies in tiers as opposed to individual rankings.

From my ‘About’ page, you can see my movies posts from prior years as well as my Dreamwidth blog where I post writeups on movies and other media.

And on with the list!

My Favourite Movies of the Year

These were the movies that had the biggest impact on me. I think of them often.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco (2019)

This movie was about a man and his attachment to his childhood house. It was based on the experiences of one of the writers, who also played a fictionalized version of himself in the movie as one of the main characters. I thought the movie was thoughtful in its themes, about gentrification, and people's attachments to places.

Another reason why I liked this movie was because it was very beautiful. I was so in awe of some of the shots and aesthetic choices that the director had made. San Francisco is such a visually distinct city and the director definitely took advantage of that. As well, the colour palettes in this movie were so pretty. I had fun choosing a gif for this movie in my post because there were so many beautiful shots. (My custom Tumblr theme seems to be cutting off some gifs so if you are viewing this post in my custom theme, please click on the above gif to see it in full because it is pretty :3)

Definitely check out this show if you want a visual feast and a meaningful story.

Creation of the Gods I: Kingdom of Storms (封神第一部: 朝歌風雲) (2023)

I know this is more of a fun action flick but it really did move me. This movie is the first in a trilogy covering the Investiture of the Gods, a famous Chinese historical fantasy and mythology novel. The novel is a retelling of the fall of the Shang Dynasty and the rise of the Zhou Dynasty, with mythology weaved in.

This movie specifically followed the journey of Ji Fa, who would be the future King of the Zhou Dynasty (sort of a spoiler though most Chinese audiences will already know who he is). Ji Fa was a hostage son who glorified his captor, Yin Shou, the last King of the Shang Dynasty. Over the course of the movie, Yin Shou’s tyranny was revealed, and by the end of the movie, Ji Fa understood his values and decided he had a responsibility to take down the tyrant. The mythological story line had to do with the immortals seeing that Yin Shou’s rule would be bad for the common folk, and wanting to stop that from happening. It was an exciting movie about war and politics, but it was also a touching story about fathers and sons. I kept rewatching scenes between fathers and sons and brothers and feeling those moments of love for one another.

There have been comparisons between this movie and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and for good reason. The director, Wuershan, took much inspiration from the Lord of the Rings and consulted and hired people who had worked on the Lord of the Rings. Many behind the scenes videos outlined the extensive design process in creating the world that this story was set in. There was also a separate variety show that covered the 8-9 month training camp that all of the young actors attended to hone acting and physical ability. It’s clear that a lot of love went into this movie, and it showed in how rich the movie felt to me.

For some reason, I couldn't find any Creation of the Gods gifs using the Tumblr in-post gif finder. So instead, I looked up specific characters and found a gif from one of the most hype scenes in the movie >3

Check out this movie if you want something fun and fast-paced!

Honourable Mentions

These were also movies that I enjoyed and they made me think. They just weren’t at the top of my list.

The King of Comedy (1982)

The King of Comedy was about a man who was desperate to find fame through any means possible. There were characters in the movie who were fascinated with fame and celebrities in different ways. What was chilling was that some of these characteristics were familiar to us and I was sympathetic to them to varying degrees. I thought the different interpretations of obsession with celebrity were interesting, and relevant even to celebrity culture now.

An Elephant Sitting Still (大象席地而坐) (2018)

This was a drama film focusing on a few main characters living in a town, each with their own battles. One of the characteristics of this movie was its length, nearly 4 hours long, and yet this movie did not feel as long as other long movies I watched. The director Hu Bo naturally had a slow style but it didn’t feel slow. Rather, he captured some of the mundanity of life so instead of feeling bored, I felt that I was accompanying these characters in real time as they went about their day. As mentioned, this was a story about characters and their battles, and I did feel some parts of this story to be somewhat hard to watch. Not literally, but in the sense that I felt bad and I knew I couldn’t do anything for the characters. I know this movie definitely isn’t for everyone given its length and style, but I felt that I could get a sense of what the director was trying to express, about trying to break free of one’s chains.

Movies that were still good

I thought these movies were good and they had messages that would speak to other people.

From Up on Poppy Hill (コクリコ坂から) (2011)

This was a movie about young people, young romance, and coming of age. Our main characters were high school students. Through the course of the movie, they learned about themselves, each other, and they learned to fight for causes they believed in. As a story, it was fun. It was cute, but our characters did encounter troubles which I appreciated.

While this movie was animated by Studio Ghibli, it was directed by Miyazaki Goro, the son of Miyazaki Hayao, and there were notable differences in style. I felt that From Up on Poppy Hill was a bit faster paced, but still showed off much of the Studio Ghibli style that we appreciate, in high quality animation and pacing.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

I’m not normally drawn to war films, but I felt that the story line of this movie offered something a bit different. This movie was about a military captain who was assigned to assassinate a defector during the Vietnam War. I think this movie appealed to me because the plot was more of a personal journey of the captain as he tried to understand why the defector had decided to take the path that he did. It offered a different perspective on the horrors of war that I commonly see. I think this is one of those movies that I’ll have to re-watch several times because it was packed with interesting dialogue.

Bullhead (Rundskop) (2011)

This was a solemn drama/crime film, surrounding an illegal market where livestock were injected with hormones. From beginning to end I felt a serious sense of gravity over the main character as he went about his life, and as we discovered his past. I think the appeal of this movie was the style and the character, as opposed to the story. Not that the story was bad, but rather, I think the story was more of a vehicle to show us what life was like for the people in this movie, specifically our main character.

I Am Mother (2019)

I do love a science fiction story that asks questions and makes me think. I Am Mother was about a child who was raised by a robot. Initially, we were only privy to the nurturing of this child. As she grew older, we were shown more about the truth of the world. I liked this movie because it was simple from a story standpoint, but it did raise a lot of hypothetical questions, which is what I love about science fiction stories.

Quest for Fire (1981)

I included this movie on my list because it certainly left an impression on me. To sum up my feelings on it, I appreciated the commitment to the concept. This movie was about a group of cavemen in prehistoric times. They had had a fire, but it was put out, and so the group sent a few members to find fire again. The reason this movie left an impression was because it was very raw. This was a prehistoric time, a time before many of the social norms we were familiar with would have been common among people. Some of it was gruesome, such as violence or just eating habits that were hard to watch, but I appreciated that the movie retained this cohesive style to immerse us in the time period. I’m pretty sure this movie was not historically accurate (for reasons that I won't say because of spoilers) but I think it delivered the story it set out to deliver.

The Heroic Trio (東方三俠) (1993)

If I was 13 years old I probably would have made this movie my entire personality. This was an action-adventure movie starring three icons of Hong Kong and Chinese entertainment (Michelle Yeoh, Anita Mui, and Maggie Cheung). It was a story about solving crime mixed in with a little bit of the supernatural. It had a surprising amount of backstory, particularly relating to two members of the trio. And of course I loved seeing the women fight in cool action scenes.

Closing Remarks

I’m a little surprised myself that there were some critically acclaimed movies that didn’t make this list. This didn’t bother me in previous years but it did bother me this year. I went into some movies expecting to love them because they were what I would consider my type of movie. Perhaps it was because my expectations were too high, that the parts I didn’t like seemed to stick out more to me. I did do some thinking as to why I didn’t like those movies and I think I still stand by those opinions.

Anyway, that’s it for 2023. Have you seen any of these movies? What did you think of them? Let me know!

Wishing everyone a happy 2024!

#thinking out loud #thoughts #movies #fishy's top movies

2 notes · View notes

nicklloydnow · 2 years ago

Text

“Liberals of the eighteenth century were filled with a boundless optimism that said, Mankind is rational, and therefore right ideas will triumph in the end. Light will replace darkness; the efforts of bigots to keep people in a state of ignorance in order to rule them more casily cannot prevent progress. Enlightened by reason, mankind is moving toward ever-greater perfection. Democracy, with its freedom of thought, speech, and of the press guarantees the success of the right doctrine: let the masses decide; they will make the most appropriate choice.

We no longer share this optimism. The conflict of economic doctrines makes far greater demands on our ability to make judgments than did the conflicts encountered during the period of enlightenment: superstition and natural science, tyranny and freedom, privilege and equality before the law.

The people must decide. It is indeed the duty of economists to inform their fellow citizens. But what should happen if economists do not measure up to the dialectic task and become pushed aside by demagogues, or if the people lack the intelligence to grasp their teachings? With the awareness that men like J.M. Keynes, Bertrand Russell, Harold Laski, and Albert Einstein could not comprehend the problems of economics, must not the attempt to guide the masses in the proper direction be considered hopeless?

One is mistaken and fails to understand what is involved if one expects help to come in the form of a new election system or from some improvement in public education. Proposed changes to the election system would result in a portion of the masses" being denied the right to vote for legislators and other administrators. This offers no solution, for when an administration put into place by a minority has no popular support it is not sustainable over the long term. If it refuses to yield to public opinion, it will be overthrown by revolution. The advantage of the democratic system consists in the fact that it makes possible a peaceable alignment of the government system and its personnel with the will of the people. This, in turn, guarantees the continuance of uninterrupted and untroubled social cooperation within the state. Concerns taken up here are not just those having to do with democracy. Indeed, they are much more than that: they are concerns that exist under all circumstances and under every conceivable form of government.

It has been said that the problem lay within the realms of public education and public information. But we are badly deceived if we believe that the right opinions will claim victory through the circulation of books and journals and with more schools and lectures; such means can also attract followers of faulty doctrines. Evil consists precisely in the fact that the masses are not intellectually enabled to choose the means leading to their desired objectives. That ready judgments can be foisted onto the people through the power of suggestion demonstrates that the people are not capable of making independent decisions. Herein lies the great danger.

Thus had I arrived at the hopeless pessimism that had long pervaded the best minds of Europe. We know today from the letters of Jacob Burckhardt that this great historian, too, harbored no illusions about the future of European civilization. This pessimism had broken the will of Carl Menger. It had cast a shadow over the life of Max Weber, who had become a good friend of mine while spending a semester at the University of Vienna during the last months of war.

How one carries on in the face of unavoidable catastrophe is a matter of temperament. In high school, as was custom, I had chosen a verse by Virgil to be my motto: Tune cede malis sed contra audentior ito ("Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it"). I recalled these words during the darkest hours of the war. Again and again I had met with situations from which rational deliberation found no means of escape; but then the unexpected intervened, and with it came salvation. I would not lose courage even now. I wanted to do everything an economist could do. I would not tire in saying what I knew to be true. I thus decided to write a book about socialism. I had considered the plan before the beginning of the war; now I wanted to carry it out.” (p. 54 - 56)

#mises #ludwig von mises #economics #austrian economics #liberalism #world war 1 #wwi #democracy #libertarianism

2 notes · View notes

agapewizard · 3 months ago

Text

➝ Whats Holding Humanity Back in Consciousness.

Here is an overview of some of the things that are holding humanity back in consciousness.

• UNCHECKED EGO - Ego-identity and ego attachments. Self-preservation as a higher goal than doing what’s right. Identifying purely with the physical body as if that’s the totality of who you are (i.e. “I AM my gender, I AM my race, I AM my sexuality, etc”). Believing that truth/reality is whatever you want it to be or what you’re comfortable with (solipsism). The perpetual “ME ME ME” mindset which leads to divisive ideologies, the cult mentality, and immoral violations of the inherent Rights of others who “aren’t like you.” Not letting go of illusions and false beliefs; willful ignorance; not being able to say “I WAS WRONG.”

• PACK MENTALITY - This goes along with ego-identity. It's collectivist "us vs. them" group-think whether it be based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, etc. People with this mindset tend to have zero concept of freedom or sovereignty in principle, applying these ideas only to themselves – the "MY freedom, screw you" mindset. This results in immoral behavior such as putting up razor wiring along a "state/country border" as well as hacking, doxxing, canceling, or other such infringements upon someone else's privacy, security, and well-being. The CULT-ure must be protected. Pack Mentality is extreme low-consciousness thought and rooted in the following limiter.

• MORAL RELATIVISM - Thinking that morality is entirely subjective, that “what’s right for me is right.” Absolute decimation of Conscience. Moral Relativism is the true “original sin.” It is the rejection of true, objective Moral Law which exists inherently in Creation; the subjective arbitration of truth and morality. It is the REAL pandemic in our world and one of the primary tenets of Ideological Satanism. It is the "foundation" of all false religion, all government and "law," and all egotism.

• UNI-DIMENSIONAL THINKING - Making blanket-statement assumptions about certain ideas, concepts, words, symbols, and so on. Example 1: assuming anything under the term "occult" is dangerous, evil, or absurd due to willful ignorance of what the word itself means and what knowledge it contains. Example 2: thinking that an entire group of people are guilty (or potentially guilty) because of the actions of a few individuals within that group. This relates to the Pack Mentality limiter.

• FALSE BELIEFS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE - Believing that we are “just animals,” or that we are inherently vicious. Also the opposite of that, believing that we’re all inherently good. No understanding that human nature is programmable: good info goes in, good output; bad info goes in, bad output. We are beings with Free Will who can make conscious choices based on the information we take in. We can override bad programming through an act of will. We are not ruled or defined by our genes. Consciousness is key.

• THE EXTERMINATION OF IMAGINATION - No ability to imagine a different way of being, that everything is “just the way it is” and can’t ever be changed. This is the continuance of the control of what people believe is possible. If you can’t imagine freedom, you won’t fight for it. This is why daydreaming is immediately discouraged in children - to kill the imagination early on. This not only destroys our ability to visualize possibility, but fosters the irrational fear of the unknown.

• THE BELIEF IN AUTHORITY - The belief that some human beings have some magical “right” to declare what morality is or isn’t through “laws,” that everyone else are morally obligated to obey those edicts. It is the deification of mortal men. This belief perpetuates tyranny, coercion and duress, and is rooted in deep-seated abandonment issues and the denial of personal response-ability. It is the total antithesis to human sovereignty. You cannot be both governed and free simultaneously. Authority = Slavery.

• RELIGION / SCIENTISM - The continued acceptance of traditional religious or “scientific” dogma through 1) right-brain imbalanced blind belief/faith or left-brain imbalanced rigid skepticism rather than employing Trivium-based truth-discovery methods; and 2) the suppression of true human origins via Darwinian Evolutionism or Abrahamic Creationism. These belief systems also reinforce the purely evil notion of “salvationism” (that something outside of ourselves will rescue us from our own ignorance, apathy, and inaction whether it be politicians, holy avatars, mystical forces, ET races, or artificial intelligence systems) rather than the understanding that WE create our conditions and are ultimately responsible for changing them through an act of will. #Truth #NaturalLaw #Knowledge #Morality #Wisdom #Right #Principles #SelfWork #SelfGovernance #Autonomy #Consciousness #Anarchy #Sovereignty #Freedom #Government #Slavery #Enslavement #Manipulation #Deception #Control #Occult #CosmicLaw #SelfDevelopment #Alchemy #Reality

#truth #consciousness #knowledge #humanity

0 notes

dailycharacteroption · 2 years ago

Text

Races Among the Stars 8: Giant

Something that’s been coming ever since we first got entries for what giants have been up to in the far future of Starfinder, Ports of Call granted us a playable giant option!

More specifically, an option to play as many of the various large-size giant subspecies, so sadly no playable cloud or storm giants and the like, not without homebrewing, anyway.

While advances culturally and technologically have made sure that even hill giants have access to education to leave behind Pathfinder-era assumptions behind, giant culture as a whole is steeped in tradition and history, hailing back to their descent from the gigas, who in turn descended from the titans.

In this far-future era, their love of tradition and heritage means they spend much time honoring and preserving those traditions even with the modern amenities and advances all around them.

While giants are all large humanoids that seem very human-like, this does not truly encapsulate their appearance, especially since many have ties to the elements. Additionally, their proportions are oftentimes somewhat off from the human norm, rather than just being “resized human”

Hill giants are the most human-like in appearance, albeit favoring broad features and bodies. Meanwhile, fire giants sport red skin and vibrant hair that makes them seem to have flaming scalps and and/or beards at first glance. Meanwhile, stone giants tend to be lean with stony skin and irregularly or angular craniums that make their bald forms seem to be made of unworked stone. Slag giants, on the other hand, as hybrids of fire and stone giants, tend to have rust-colored skin and sturdy yet lean frames.

While fully capable of wearing modern armors and clothing sized for them, those living a civilian’s life on their claimed homeworld of Pholskar tend to wear outfits that draw upon the heritage of their ancestors, but with modern upgrades. A hill giant may still wear furs, but they are expertly tailored and symmetrical with under layers of modern fabrics, while the brass accents of a fire giant’s kilt hide modern alloys as well.

Giant society as a whole varies by various species, but all are defined by their love of their history and their pride. However, when you are most well-known for your strength, it becomes a mighty temptation for even the most supposedly civilized giants to not use their might, be it physical or political, to get one’s way, especially as evidenced by the Cloud Imperium, one of the major ruling bodies of Pholskar. That being said, there are plenty that see the tyranny of their kin and reject it, choosing to use their strength for the good of others, giant and otherwise, but change comes slow to these beings.

Giants are strong and tough, but their size makes them a bit ungainly.

They do, however, has a instinctive knack for picking up heavy objects and turning them into impromptu projectiles, which only grow in lethality as they master themselves.

They also possess a knack for both building things, as well as looming over others intimidatingly.

Where things get really interesting is the abilities granted by different subspecies. Fire giants are naturally resistant to flame and train with armor to move in it easier, while hill giants have a long tradition of wrestling and throwing their weight around that they put to good use. Slag giants are also resistant to flame, but their history as crafters gives them a knack for recognizing and exploiting the stress points of objects. Finally, stone giants have even better night sight, and their thrown objects hit just a bit harder.

Their strength and toughness makes giants an easy pick for pretty much any melee or tanking class, from melee soldiers, evolutionists, nanocytes, vanguards, and even melee solarions. Meanwhile, social and casting classes tend to be fairly neutral for them, though biohackers, mechanics and technomancers have their roles with their love of crafting, while mystic and witchwarper have their connections to the traditions of giant-kind. Their biggest weakness is the penalty to dexterity and size making most types of operatives, as well as most ranged builds somewhat difficult, but it’s not impossible to get around, especially when the heavyweight skirmisher gives you an option to play a strength-based operative anyway.

And that’s that. Giants are a fascinating addition to the playable options, and obviously the list of types of playable giants has been pared down a bit to save space, but there are plenty of Large-sized giants out there to adapt and play as, such as frost giants, though Huge and larger are still probably out of the picture due to the difficulties and power that they grant.

#starfinder #race #giant #Ports of Call

10 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 10 months ago

Text

I.5.6 Won’t there be a danger of a “tyranny of the majority” under libertarian socialism?

While the “tyranny of the majority” objection does contain an important point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons. This is because those who have historically raised the issue (for example, and as discussed in section B.2.5, creators of the 1789 American constitution like Hamilton and Madison) saw the minority to be protected as the rich. In other words, the objection is not opposed to majority tyranny as such (they have no objections when the majority support their right to their riches and powers) but rather attempts of the majority to change their society to a fairer and freer one. Such concerns can easily be dismissed as an ingenious argument in favour of rule by the few — particularly as its proponents (such as the propertarian right and other defenders of capitalism) have no problem with the autocratic rule of property owners over their wage-slaves!

However, as noted, the objection to majority rule does contain a valid point and one which anarchists have addressed — namely, what about minority freedom within a self-managed society? So this is a danger, one raised by people who are most definitely not seeking minority rule. For example, someone who was sympathetic to anarchism, George Orwell, suggested:

“the totalitarian tendency … is explicit in the anarchist … vision of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But pubic opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by ‘thou shalt not’, the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by ‘love’ or ‘reason’, he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.” [Inside the Whale and Other Essays, p. 132]

There is, of course, this danger in any society, be its decision making structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some form of government). However, this does not really address the issue to point out this obvious fact. Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing concern about it, recognising that the majority is often a threat to freedom by its fear of change (see, for example, Emma Goldman’s classic essay “Minorities versus Majorities”). We are well aware that the mass, as long as the individuals within it do not free themselves, can be a dead-weight on others, resisting change and enforcing conformity. As Goldman argued, “even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual the most.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 116] Hence Malatesta’s comment that anarchists “have the special mission of being vigilant custodians of freedom, against all aspirants to power and against the possible tyranny of the majority.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 161]

However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life under capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which restrict popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the few) — as classical liberals do — libertarians argue that only a process of self-liberation through struggle and participation can break up the mass into free, self-managing individuals (as discussed in section H.2.11 attempts by Leninists to portray anarchists as elitists are both hypocritical and false). Moreover, we also argue that participation and self-management is the only way that majorities can come to see the point of minority ideas and for seeing the importance of protecting minority freedoms. This means that any attempt to restrict participation in the name of minority rights actually enforces the herd mentality, undermining minority and individual freedom rather than protecting it. As Carole Pateman argues:

“the evidence supports the arguments … that we do learn to participate by participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the individual.” [Participation and Democratic Theory, p. 105]

So while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are at the forefront in expressing it), the “tyranny of the majority” objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct and representative forms of democracy.

In the current system, as we pointed out in section B.5, voters are mere passive spectators of occasional, staged, and highly rehearsed debates among candidates pre-selected by the corporate elite, who pay for campaign expenses. The public is expected to choose simply on the basis of political ads and news sound bites. Once the choice is made, cumbersome and ineffective recall procedures insure that elected representatives can act more or less as they (or rather, their wealthy sponsors) please. The function, then, of the electorate in bourgeois “representative government” is ratification of “choices” that have been already made for them! This is also the case in referendum, where the people “are not to propose the questions: the government is to do that. Only to questions proposed by the government, the people may answer Yes or No, like a child in the catechism. The people will not even have a chance to make amendments.” [Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution, p. 148]

By contrast, in a libertarian society decisions are made following public discussion in community assemblies open to all. After decisions have been reached, outvoted minorities — even minorities of one — still have ample opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive counter-arguments to try to change the decision. This process of debate, disagreement, challenge, and counter-challenge, which goes on even after the defeated minority has temporarily acquiesced in the decision of the majority, is virtually absent in the representative system, where “tyranny of the majority” is truly a problem. In addition, minorities can secede from an association if the decision reached by it are truly offensive to them.

And let us not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct or activity will not be discussed in the neighbourhood assemblies. Why? Because we are talking about a society in which most people consider themselves to be unique, free individuals, who would thus recognise and act to protect the uniqueness and freedom of others. Unless people are indoctrinated by religion or some other form of ideology, they can be tolerant of others and their individuality. If this is not the case now, then it has more to do with the existence of authoritarian social relationships — relationships that will be dismantled under libertarian socialism — and the type of person they create rather than some innate human flaw.

Thus there will be vast areas of life in a libertarian socialist community which are none of other people’s business. Anarchists have always stressed the importance of personal space and “private” areas. Indeed, for Kropotkin, the failure of many “utopian” communities directly flowed from a lack of these and “the desire to manage the community after the model of a family, to make it ‘the great family.’ They lived all in the same house and were thus forced to continuously meet the same ‘brethren and sisters.’ It is already difficult often for two real brothers to live together in the same house, and family life is not always harmonious; so it was a fundamental error to impose on all the ‘great family’ instead of trying, on the contrary, to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual.” In an anarchist society, continual agreement on all issues is not desired. The members of a free society “need only agree as to some advantageous method of common work, and are free otherwise to live in their own way.” [Small Communal Experiments and Why they Fail, pp. 8–9 and p. 22]

Which brings us to another key point. When anarchists talk of democratising or communalising the household or any other association, we do not mean that it should be stripped of its private status and become open to regulation by general voting in a single, universal public sphere. Rather, we mean that households and other relationships should take in libertarian characteristics and be consistent with the liberty of all its members. Thus a society based on self-management does not imply the destruction of private spheres of activity — it implies the extension of anarchist principles into all spheres of life, both private and public. It does not mean the subordination of the private by the public, or vice versa.

As an example, we can point to inter-personal relationships. Anarchists are opposed to the patriarchy implicit (and, in the past, explicit) in marriage and suggest free love as an alternative. As discussed in section H.4.2 , free love means that both people in a relationship have equal decision making power rather than, as in marriage, the woman becoming the property of the husband. Thus, self-management in this context does not mean the end of interpersonal relationships by the imposition of the commune onto all spheres of life but, obviously, the creation of interpersonal relationships based on equality and liberty.

So it is highly unlikely that the “tyranny of the majority” will exert itself where most rightly fear it — in their homes, how they act with friends, their personal space, how they act, and so on. As long as individual freedom and rights are protected, it is of little concern what people get up to (included the rights of children, who are also individuals and not the property of their parents). Direct democracy in anarchist theory is purely concerned with common resources, their use and management. It is highly unlikely that a free society would debate issues of personal behaviour or morality and instead would leave them to those directly affected by them — as it should be, as we all need personal space and experimentation to find the way of life that best suits us.

Today an authoritarian worldview, characterised by an inability to think beyond the categories of domination and submission, is imparted by conditioning in the family, schools, religious institutions, clubs, fraternities, the army, etc., and produces a type of personality that is intolerant of any individual or group perceived as threatening to the perpetuation of that worldview and its corresponding institutions and values. Thus, as Bakunin argued, “public opinion” is potentially intolerant “simply because hitherto this power has not been humanised itself; it has not been humanised because the social life of which it is ever the faithful expression is based … in the worship of divinity, not on respect for humanity; in authority, not on liberty; on privilege, not on equality; in the exploitation, not on the brotherhood, of men; on iniquity and falsehood, not on justice and truth. Consequently its real action, always in contradiction of the humanitarian theories which it professes, has constantly exercised a disastrous and depraving influence.” [God and the State, p. 43f] In other words, “if society is ever to become free, it will be so through liberated individuals, whose free efforts make society.” [Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 44] In an anarchist society a conscious effort will be made to dissolve the institutional and traditional sources of the authoritarian/submissive type of personality, and thus to free “public opinion” of its current potential for intolerance.

This is not to suggest that such a society of free individuals will not become stuck in routine and, over time, become oppressive to minorities who question certain aspects of public opinion or how it works. Public opinion and social organisations can evolve over generations in ways which no one expects. The best know, albeit fictional, example is in Ursula Le Guin’s classic science-fiction book The Dispossessed where the anarchist society of Anarres has developed something of a weak informal bureaucracy due to the routine of everyday life and the unconscious pressures of public opinion. When the protagonist, Shevek, and his friends try to point this out and do something about (including Shevek leaving Anarres for the capitalist world of Urras), most on the planet are extremely hostile to this activity (precisely because it is going against the normal routine). Significantly, though, a large minority end up supporting their activities, activities which can occur precisely because the society is still fundamentally communist-anarchist and so the dissenters have a rich libertarian tradition and sensibility to base their direct action on as well having use-rights over the resources they need to propagate their ideas and practice their protest.

In the real world, the best example would be the Mujeres Libres in the Spanish anarchist movement during the 1930s (see Martha A. Ackelsberg’s classic Free Women Of Spain: Anarchism And The Struggle For The Emancipation Of Women for more on this important movement). This organisation arose in response to the fact that many male anarchists, while expressing a theoretical commitment to sexual equality, were as sexist as the system they were fighting against and so they subconsciously reflected the oppressive public opinion of what a woman’s position should be. Unsurprisingly, many anarchist women were (rightly) angry at this and their marginalised status within a libertarian movement that ostensibly sought to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy. In response, and often in the face of the hostility or indifference of their male comrades, they organised themselves to change this situation, to combat and transform public opinion both within and outwith the anarchist movement. Their activities meet with some success before, like the rest of the libertarian revolution, it was crushed by Franco’s victory in the civil war.

We can, therefore, suggest that a free society is unlikely to see public opinion becoming authoritarian. This is because, as the example of the Mujeres Libres shows, members of that society would organise to combat such developments and use various means to raise the problem to public awareness and to combat it. Once a free society has been gained, the task of anarchists would be to ensure it remained free and that would mean keeping a constant watch on possible sources of authority, including those associated with organisations developing informal bureaucracies and public opinion. While a free society would place numerous safeguards against such developments, no system would be perfect and so the actions of dissident minorities would be essential to point out and protest as if such dangers appeared to be developing.

As such, it should be noted that anarchists recognise that the practice of self-assumed political obligation implied in free association also implies the right to practice dissent and disobedience as well. As Carole Pateman notes:

“Even if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself alone, but along with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles of political morality.” [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 160]

If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political morality in an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend that freedom:

“The political practice of participatory voting rests in a collective self-consciousness about the meaning and implication of citizenship. The members of the political association understand that to vote is simultaneously to commit oneself, to commit one’s fellow citizens, and also to commit oneself to them in a mutual undertaking … a refusal to vote on a particular occasion indicates that the refusers believe .. . [that] the proposal … infringes the principle of political morality on which the political association is based … A refusal to vote [or the use of direct action] could be seen as an appeal to the ‘sense of justice’ of their fellow citizens.” [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 161]

As they no longer consent to the decisions made by their community they can appeal to the “sense of justice” of their fellow citizens by direct action and indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the majority were not aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect of an anarchist society and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority. Anarchism rejects the “love it or leave it” attitude that marks an authoritarian organisation.

This vision of self-assumed obligation, with its basis in individual liberty, indicates the basic flaw of Joseph Schumpeter’s argument against democracy as anything bar a political method of arriving at decisions (in his case who will be the leaders of a society). Schumpeter proposed “A Mental Experiment” of imagining a country which, using a democratic process, “reached the decision to persecute religious dissent” (such as Jews and witches). He argued that we should not approve of these practices just because they have been decided upon by a majority or using a democratic method and, therefore, democracy cannot be an end in itself. [Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, pp. 240–3]

However, such systematic persecution would conflict with the rules of procedure required if a country’s or community’s political method is to be called “democratic.” This is because, in order to be democratic, the minority must be in a position for its ideas to become the majority’s via argument and that requires freedom of speech, discussion and association. A country or community in which the majority persecutes or represses a minority automatically ensures that the minority can never be in a position to become the majority (as the minority is barred by force from becoming so) or convince the majority of the errors of its way (even if it cannot become the majority physically, it can become so morally by convincing the majority to change its position). Schumpeter’s example utterly violates democratic principles and so cannot be squared with the it (Rousseau’s somewhat opaque distinction between “the General Will” and majority rule sought to express this). Thus majority tyranny is an outrage against both democratic theory and individual liberty (unsurprisingly, as the former has its roots in the latter).

This argument applies with even more force to a self-managed community too and so any system in which the majority tyrannises over a minority is, by definition, not self-managed as one part of the community is excluded from convincing the other (“the enslavement of part of a nation denies the federal principal itself.” [Proudhon, The Principle of Federation, p. 42f]). Thus individual freedom and minority rights are essential to self-management. As Proudhon argued, “a new spirit has dawned on the world. Freedom has opposed itself to the State, and since the idea of freedom has become universal people have realised that it is not a concern of the individual merely, but rather that it must exist in the group also.” [quoted by Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, p. 28] Unsurprisingly, then, the “freedom of the collectivity to crush the individual is not, however, true Liberty in the eyes of Anarchists. It is one of those shams, which the Revolution is to destroy.” [Charlotte M. Wilson, Anarchist Essays, p. 25]

It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that the way to guard against possible tyranny by the majority is to resort to decision-making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every person in the group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts). Both consensus (see section A.2.12) and contracts (see section A.2.14) soon result in authoritarian social relationships developing in the name of “liberty.” Rather, we seek new forms of free agreement to replace contract and new forms of decision making which do not replace the possible tyranny of the majority with the real tyranny of a minority.

Then there is freedom of association. As Malatesta argued, “for if it is unjust that the majority should oppress the minority, the contrary would be quite as unjust; and if the minority has a right to rebel, the majority has a right to defend itself … it is true that this solution is not completely satisfactory. The individuals put out of the association would be deprived of many social advantages, which an isolated person or group must do without, because they can only be procured by the co-operation of a great number of human beings. But what would you have? These malcontents cannot fairly demand that the wishes of many others should be sacrificed for their sakes.” [A Talk about Anarchist-Communism, p. 29] In other words, freedom of association means the freedom not to associate and so communities can expel individuals or groups of individuals who constantly hinder community decisions — assuming they do not leave voluntarily and seek a community more in tune with their needs. This a very important freedom for both the majority and the minority, and must be defended.

So while minorities have significant rights in a free society, so does the majority. We can imagine that there will be ethical reasons why participants will not act in ways to oppose joint activity — as they took part in the decision making process they would be considered childish if they reject the final decision because it did not go in their favour. Moreover, they would also have to face the reaction of those who also took part in the decision making process. It would be likely that those who ignored such decisions (or actively hindered them) would soon face non-violent direct action in the form of non-co-operation, shunning, boycotting and so on. Anarchists think that such occurrences would be rare.

As an isolated life is impossible, the need for communal associations is essential. It is only by living together in a supportive community can individuality be encouraged and developed along with individual freedom. However, anarchists are aware that not everyone is a social animal and that there are times that people like to withdraw into their own personal space. Thus our support for free association and federalism along with solidarity, community and self-management. Most anarchists have recognised that majority decision making, though not perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a political system based on maximising individual and so social freedom. Self-management in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers’ councils ensures that decision making is “horizontal” in nature (i.e. between equals) and not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver and order taker). In other words, anarchists support self-management because it ensures liberty — not because we subscribe to the flawed assumption that the majority is always right.

0 notes

aressida · 1 year ago

Text

Old entry: "Despite being quite vehement in my opposition to mandates, I want you to know…" - Aressida. 20.12.21.

I do not entirely see only the vaccinated and the unvaccinated that are being divided. What I do see is the vibration itself. Love or Fear. A form of a large system that is being cracked, splitting open. I am certain of this. Since the ‘release’ of a biological and chemical warfare, we are about to face famine next. From pestilence to famine. War and Death after that. So, why the need the Great Reset? Watching how our world unfolds, like a line is being forged – a beginning of a new economical system and new society. A new civilization. But which one? Take a look in front of you, people all around you, got terrified and demanded an authoritarian overreaction. By the biomedical tyranny. It is hard to watch some people who are still expecting as they are quick to trust the experts, scientists, or the professors, not realizing that these kind of people who listens to the millionaires that fund their research. It is a continuum. It is becoming so polarized now. It is Twilight zone. Crazy willful ignorance and some kind of mass hypnosis. Some of us are seeing how many people prefer fear, living in different realities. What about the awareness of the insidious programming that is been happening over the years? Many friends and family decided not to be tolerant or allow the dissents, or people who have different voices and they do not even want to even hear any questioning. Very object of anxiety of them. Sighs, fear and guilt are such powerful drugs. They still have no idea that there is an agenda taking place. I can see why sometimes progressivism can be nonsense and destructive. Depends on how you run it. We already have, like, three vaccines that do not work. I do not think there is going to be any amount of vaccines or boosters that could stop a weaponized virus.

They do not ‘need’ us to believe, all They need us is to comply given. They want it to remain a pandemic. That way, they can use it to boost their political campaigns by telling people that they have a grand plan, to end the pandemic. Especially the taste of mass obedience from many of us, and they are not going to give it up that easily. With all of the noise that are going on right now, seeing so much ego from those who think they know everything. They are also very deeply conditioned and manipulated, and you are not alone in this. I know some who are intelligent but sadly lacking in common sense. But truly, I am devastated when one person would concede to someone else’s demands, without thinking of their own first, out of fear. I believe all medical procedure should be by consent, not the “show me your papers” people. It is medical tyranny, and it is bullshit, that needs to end. I believe the restrictions, mandates, variants, and boosters will stop once the money runs out. I want everyone to know that I am practicing to both support and challenge all of your perspective, with love. Deeply. It is difficult, but doable. I know by heart that many of you are the people come from a place of love. You are doing it out of love, not fear. I want you to know that. All I am doing is to try and lead people by their choices, I do not sit well with the black and white, but understanding the continuum that is rooted, in love I believe, because it is the only way to keep any of us stay centered. I personally do not want you to get yourselves drawn to opposition as it is extreme, mostly by fear, and what you need is to have your love that keeps you centered between all perspectives. Turn yourself into the light to rule over instead of the darkness, by changing your perception.

It is a mental chasm to cross.

#aressida #vaccine #blog #medical tyranny

1 note · View note

strange-ness-is-me · 1 year ago

Text

New academic essay just dropped!!

Freedom is not eternal.

Freedom, unlike most perceptions of it, is a state of being. A temporary condition that is achieved through unshackling oneself from something, or someone detrimental to one’s existence. The only way to achieve freedom is to acknowledge that something isn’t good for you, it is hard to do, especially if that situation blinds you with pleasure, it is an addiction. However that isn't the entirety of how to achieve this state of freedom, sometimes the harm can be external coming from an outside source, but sometimes it can be something that you put on yourself. The harmful circumstance controls your life, restricting you from attaining what you need, such as food, self-determination, and economic freedom, among other things. Life will always send things to obstruct your freedom, it is up to you to claim it back.

Mary Wollstonecraft was a brilliant lady, she was the mother to Mary Shelley. Not only did she mother one of the most revered authors of history, but she also was an activist for women's rights. For her and a lot of women their freedoms were being restricted by the patriarchy, a government ruled primarily by cishet white men. Wollstonecraft found this to be detrimental to her freedom and so she fought back against the patriarchy as much she could. Unfortunately, women especially those of higher class weren't allowed to fight physically, so Wollstonecraft decided to write letters to the legislature. She wrote letters to persuade the entirely male legislature to at least include women in the votes and to have a voice when making decisions about laws. Wollstonecraft says in the letter A Vindication of the Rights of Woman “But, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a participation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to ward off the charge of Injustice and inconsistency, that they want reason, -- else this flaw in your new constitution, the first constitution founded on reason, will ever shew that man must, in some shape, act like a tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of society it rears its raised in front, will ever undermine morality.” (Wollstonecraft). This quote shows that without the input of women, that reason isn't entirely reason. Wollstonecraft is trying to make an argument that the oppressors, in this case, men, should take women's advice in the government because having someone else make decisions for you is taking away your freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson one of the American founding fathers was the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence of the United States, this is another prime example of the harmful outside situation. Britain's Parliament and King George III had colonies in what is now the United States of America, it held a tyrannical rule over the colonies, taxed the people unfairly, and made living there not preferred. After years of this tyrannical rule, the United States Congress had Thomas Jefferson write up the Declaration of Independence of the United States and sent it to the British Parliament. this started a war between the British and the Americans, but because the Americans had an army of mostly trained soldiers, they were able to fight in that war and eventually won. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of the United States that it is the duty of the people to alter the government or abolish it if it becomes detrimental to the quality of life of the citizens (Jefferson). This encourages the citizens to go forth and claim their own freedoms when something wants to take it away. A quote from the text is “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future.” (Jefferson). Because freedom is temporary, one must put up walls to protect their freedoms and secure their future from any impending threats.

While Pirates have already broken free from their detrimental situations, they still have to Make sure that they can keep their freedoms by having basic structures and rules kept in place. unlike most other rules where there are a lot of them, the Pirates put bass rules and only rules that will ensure the crew's safety. Since pirates are free of their restrictions they have to protect themselves but making sure that they won't get caught by the oppressors, in this case, the government. On ships, it was common to find that there was a lights-out policy of 8:00 p.m. since the British, Spanish, Polish, etc. ships could find them in the sea if they had lights on that late and they didn't want to be found. There are also a bunch of rules to keep fighting on the crew to a minimum such as no cheating or stealing and no gambling since those could raise tensions. there is also oddly a rule where there were generally no women alone on the ship, this was usually due to a superstition that women were bad luck on ships. All of these rules are to ensure safety and to make sure that no one gets locked back up into their detrimental situation again, if one person gets caught then that could lead to many people getting caught. Even though Pirates can be brutal they still look out for other people in the way that it also benefits themselves, or so it seems. (Johnson and Roberts) They also made sure that everyone was able to get a say in the decisions due to a council with everybody on the crew on it usually they would make decisions about punishments for crew members who betrayed the wider crew.

Peril the SkyWing from the book series Wings of Fire is an excellent example of internal shaking, for most of her life she obeyed the rule of her queen, Queen Scarlet, since Queen Scarlet raised her since she hatched basically. Peril has this condition called fire scales, she hatched with too much fire so her scales emit a burning heat that could kill anyone she brushes by. Queen Scarlet raised Peril to believe that she would always be a monster and that she could never change from being a murderous dragon, so Queen Scarlett used Peril in her Gladiator Arena as her champion. That is how she lived for the majority of her life until she met a dragon named Clay. Clay is a MudWing who also happens to be a Dragonet of Destiny, the Dragonets of Destiny are a part of a prophecy to end a 20-year-long war. Clay and his friends were captured by Queen Scarlet and taken to her prisons where he was held. Peril started talking to Clay and it revealed that Queen Scarlet never liked it when PerilTalked to any other Dragon except for her. Queen Scarlet is the harmful person in this situation, she restricted Peril's access to food, she restricted Peril's access to self-determination, and Queen Scarlet didn't even let Peril leave the SkyWing palace. Clay talked to Peril as Peril snuck out of the initial Palace to talk to him, and because Clay also grew up with him believing he was a monster he was able to sympathize with Peril. One huge difference between Peril and Clay is that Peril never believed she could be anything but a murderous dragon, however, Clay never was able to bring himself to actually harm anyone. the only reason Clay was labeled as a monster was that when hatching he tried to help the other dragons he was hatching with break out of the shells and the caregivers didn't know that that was an instinctual thing for MudWings, especially the first hatched MudWings experienced. After learning that Peril was being lied to by Queen Scarlet her entire life, she started to change for the better, she started to escape the grip that Queen Scarlet had over her (Sutherland 81). Peril directly confronts Queen Scarlet in the book Escaping Peril, she says “You can't make me. you can't make me kill anyone else for you. I'm not that kind of dragon anymore"(Sutherland 22). That quote demonstrates how Peril is starting to take more control over her life, she is making an effort to change from the Dragon that Queen Scarlet wants her to be.

All of these sources allude to the firm belief that freedom is not something that you can just have, it is something that you have to work for, to believe that you deserve. Without acknowledgment of yourself or the detrimental situation, you cannot begin to fathom breaking away from the chains. There are however small steps to be able to make those connections, if you as much wonder if a specific person or situation isn't good for you take a moment, step back, and think about it. thinking is probably one of the best things you can do when faced with a situation like that. letting people take away your freedom is one of the most vile things I can think of. fighting for your freedom no matter how big or small the act is, will be worth it in the end regardless, because you made that decision for yourself.

Works Cited

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence of the United States. 1776.

Johnson, Charles, and Bartholomew Roberts. A General History of the Pyrates. 1724.

Sutherland, Tui T. Escaping Peril. Scholastic Incorporated, 2017.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. 1792.

#peril shows up again #essay rant #freedom is a pretty fucking loose concept #essays im writing for school #peril is included again!!!

0 notes

phoenixglacier · 1 month ago

Text

Is he haunted by it? Does the guilt eat him alive? Does he think about how he stood there as an icon of overthrowing tyranny, trading lives and choosing who died for it? Did it only ever hit him what he'd done when he met Kaeya? Albedo? Alice? Does he see himself steeped in blood, unfit to rule just as much as his predecesor?

Would he do it again anyway?

I think Venti is prepared to do it again. For all Venti says he doesn't like to get involved, he actually involves himself with his people's problems a whole lot. He led the bulk of Mondstadt's prologue archon quest, kickstarting the plan before he even finished surveying how his people felt about Dvalin. He pulled pretty much all the strings in Vennessa's story according to the webtoon. And speaking of Vennessa's story, Venti was pretty ready to let the Lawrences take the fall for everything. Given his history, I can absolutely see him going full force with a plan to take down the Abyss with Kaenri'ah as collatoral before the Seven were truly on board.

But in the timeline of Teyvat right now, I think Traveler and Albedo are making him pause for once. New, inhuman forces who are invested in Mondstadt, but also in Kaenri'ah. Maybe there's a chance they could find a different solution. Maybe trading lives isn't the only solution anymore.

(As I say this, Albedo has freshly killed off big Durin and replaced him with Mini Durin so...)

The closer they get to a solution that will keep Mondstadt safe, the more Venti will start to regret the drastic actions he took on Kaenri'ah before. But not yet. He's still not convinced, he's still ready to make the same difficult yet clear decisions for the sake of Mondstadt over everything.

It's also interesting to think about how Venti views the Abyss vs Kaenri'ah vs the Fatui. The Abyss were arguably the singular big antagonist in the Mondstadt prologue quest as the ones behind poisoning Dvalin and also manipulating him. Jean and Diluc are worried about the Fatui and guess that they're after Barbatos' power, but Venti thinks Tsarita is just looking to draw him out. He's interpreting it as personal. In his view, the Fatui are targeting Barbatos, not Mondstadt, and that is immediately less concerning, whereas Dvalin and by extension the Abyss are targeting Mondstadt city. He glosses over the fact that he's not objective about Dvalin because he views it as an abyssal attack on his friend. And then we remember that Dvalin last fell fighting Durin, whose creator Rhinedottir is actually not associated with the Abyss as much as she is Kaenri'ah itself. If the Abyss' primary threat to Mondstadt was Durin, did Venti understand back then that Kaenri'ah and the Abyss were not one and the same?

And the fact that Venti views the Fatui not as a bad idea, but a lost oppurtunity, is so telling. Does he believe that Tsarita wouldn't really go too far? Or does he think of their relationship as one complicated enough where some betrayal is surprising but not that much? After living in Mondstadt a little longer and working closely with Jean, has he been updated on the political pressure they're putting on Mondstadt? On the other nations?

The prologue is the first time we're introduced to the gnosis, and Venti and Signora's reactions are why we're convinced it's important, before every subsequent archon proceeds to give it up easily like they don't care. And I think it definitely is likely that Venti didn't really care about his gnosis. What he cared about was Tsarita taking it from him.

Despite Venti claiming that he doesn't like to take charge, he does do so pretty quickly in both his Mondstadt Archon Quest Prologue and his own story quest Carmen Dei. In Paralogism though, he's very active but doesn't make many decisions by himself. The Knights pull him in to ask for godly aid in restraining citizens safely, he sets up a system of wind currents for communication, he requests a Triparte Conference using his status as the Anemo Archon on behalf of Albedo, and his performance in the ending makes Albedo's city-wide alchemy look like part of the show. All kind of small favours to make Albedo's plan go smoothly. He spends the whole quest watching Albedo carefully, assessing him for something they're not telling us yet.

None of the archons truly manage to hold up their respective ideals, least of all Venti. 'Freedom' is so, so vague. Anything Venti and Mondstadt have tried to tell us about his philosophy are just add-ons — things like love and peace and justice and everybody is equal. Nice-to-haves. Things that he's probably willing to sacrifice because he's an imperfect, complicated, emotional person who happens to be a god.

And this is why I love him so much.

I know it's popular fanon that Barbatos did not want to fight in Khaenri'ah and rejected the orders to destroy the kingdom etc... but I don't think that's the case. I think the seven were divided, and that's why so many fell at Khaenri'ah. But I don't think Barbatos stood against destruction or voted for peace or anything like it.

Because at the end of his archon quest, Venti tells us these things:

The Seven do not always get along, but it's seemingly unprecedented to attack another archon and take their Gnosis.

Venti wanted the Seven and their nations to deal with the abyss the first time. And since he mentioned the catastrophe from 500 years ago that's Khaenri'ah.

Venti wanted the Tsaritsa's army (the strongest army) to help fight the abyss and is frustrated? she is using it for personal gain...

Venti knew The Tsaritsa well once, but is entirely befuddled by her actions now.

Barbatos likely viewed the destruction of Khaenri'ah as a method of destroying the abyss.

Venti currently sees the Harbingers as being gifted power they're using irresponsibly and sees a potential for their military force. Which is interesting with the Paralogism quest and how we know Venti is deeply involved with the ongoings of his military.

My personal guess is that the Tsaritsa became offended at the suggestion that the Seven should use their people in a war against the abyss. If it were Barbatos's idea, it would explain why he feels targeted and the others just shrug and give up their gnosis.

#genshin impact #barbatos #venti #tsarita #phoenixgacier's words

77 notes · View notes