#Ethical and Religious Directives

[zvaigzdelasas]

New York University led by troubling example when the school shared an updated code of student conduct last week. Ostensibly aimed at curtailing bigotry, the new language instead shuts down dissent by threatening to silence criticism of Zionism on campus. Students who speak out against Zionism — an ethno-nationalist political ideology founded in the late 19th century — will now risk violating the school’s nondiscrimination policies.[...]

Tucked into a document purportedly offering clarification on school policy, the new NYU guidelines introduce an unprecedented expansion of protected classes to include “Zionists” and “Zionism.” Referring to the university’s nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy, known as NDAH, the updated conduct guide says, “Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists.”[...]

“Using code words, like ‘Zionist,’” the guide says, “does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH policy.”[...]

The entire premise of the guidance — that “Zionist” must be functioning as a “code word — is a flaw egregious enough to reject the entire document outright.

The language here is of utmost importance. The text does not say that “Zionist” can and has been used by antisemites as a code word, which is no doubt true. Instead, it takes it as a given that, when used critically, “Zionist” simply is a code word.[...]

According to NYU’s guidance, then, Zionist and Zionism are either antisemitic dog whistles when invoked critically or a protected category akin to a race, ethnicity, or religious identity. Ethically committed and politically informed anti-Zionism — including the beliefs of many anti-Zionist Jews like myself who reject the conflation of our identity and heritage with an ethnostate project — is foreclosed, and the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism, which has existed as long as Zionism itself, is all but erased.[...]

“For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity,” the NYU guidance says. And this is of course true. That does not, however, make Zionism an essential part of Jewish identity.

There are conservative Christians for whom the damnation of homosexuality is a key part of their Christian faith too, but Republican lawfare to see homophobic positions enshrined as protected religious expression have been rightly and consistently condemned by the liberal mainstream.

“The new guidance sets a dangerous precedent by extending Title VI protections to anyone who adheres to Zionism, a nationalist political ideology, and troublingly equates criticism of Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people,” NYU’s Faculty for Justice in Palestine said in a statement in response to the updated conduct guide.[...]

“Furthermore, the new guidance implies that any nationalist political ideology (Hindu nationalism, Christian nationalism, etc.) that is integrated into some members of that group’s understanding of their own racial or ethnic identity should be entitled to civil rights protections.”

27 Aug 24

[mostlysignssomeportents]

MLMs are the mirror-world version of community organizing

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/05/power-of-positive-thinking/#the-socialism-of-fools

In her unmissable 2023 book Doppelganger, Naomi Klein paints a picture of a "mirror world" of right wing and conspiratorial beliefs that are warped, false reflections of real crises:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

For example, Qanon's obsession with "child trafficking" is a mirror-world version of the real crises of child poverty, child labor, border family separations and kids in cages. Anti-vax is the mirror-world version of the true story of the Sacklers and their fellow opioid barons making billions on Oxy and fent, with the collusion of corrupt FDA officials and a pliant bankruptcy court system. Xenophobic panic about "immigrants stealing jobs" is the mirror world version of the well-documented fact that big business shipped jobs to low-waged territories abroad, weakening US labor and smashing US unions. Cryptocurrency talk about "decentralization" is the mirror-world version of the decay of every industry (including tech) into a monopoly or a cartel.

Klein is at pains to point out that other political thinkers have described this phenomenon. Back in the 19th century, leftists called antisemitism "the socialism of fools." Socialism – the idea that working people are preyed upon by capital – is reflected in the warped mirror as "working people are preyed upon by international Jewish bankers."

The mirror world is a critical concept, because it shows that far right and conspiratorial beliefs are often uneasy neighbors with real, serious political movements. The swivel-eyed loons have a point, in other words:

https://locusmag.com/2023/05/commentary-cory-doctorow-the-swivel-eyed-loons-have-a-point/

Once you understand the mirror world, you start to realize that many right wing conspiracists could have been directed into productive movements, if only they'd understood that their problems were with systems, not sinister individuals (this is why Trump has ordered a purge of any federally funded research that contains the word "systemic"):

https://mamot.fr/@Lazarou@mastodon.social/113943287435897828

This also explains why the "tropes" of right wing conspiratorialism sometimes echo left wing, radical thought. I once had a (genuinely unhinged) dialog with a self-described German "progressive" who told me that criticizing the finance industry as parasitic on the real economy was "structurally antisemitic." Nonsense like this is why Klein's "mirror world" is so important: unless you understand the mirror world, you can end up believing that "progressive" just means "defending anything the right hates."

Historian Erik Baker is the author of a new book, Make Your Own Job: How the Entrepreneurial Work Ethic Exhausted America, which has some very interesting things to say about the mirror world:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674293601

In a recent edition of the always-excellent Know Your Enemy podcast, the hosts interviewed Baker about the book, and the conversation turned to the subject of pyramid schemes, the "multilevel marketing systems" that are woven into so many religious, right-wing movements:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/know-your-enemy-the-entrepreneurial-ethic/

MLMs have it all: prosperity gospel ("God rewards virtue with wealth"), atomization ("you are an entrepreneur and everyone in your life is your potential customer"), and rabid anti-Communism ("solidarity is a trick to make you poorer").

The rise of the far right can't be separated from the history of MLMs. The modern MLM starts with Amway, a cultlike national scam that was founded by Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos (father-in-law of Betsy DeVos).

Rank-and-file members of the Amway cult lived in dire poverty, convinced that their financial predicament was their own fault for not faithfully following the "sure-fire" Amway method for building a business. Andrea Pitzer's gripping memoir of growing up in an Amway household offers a glimpse of the human cost of the cult:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/amway-america/681479/?gift=j9r7avb6p-KY8zdjhsiSZxYkntna5M_rYEv4707Zqqs

Amway – and MLMs like it – don't just bleed out their members by convincing them to buy mountains of useless crap they're supposed to sell to their families, while enriching the people at the top of the pyramid who sell it to them. The "toxic positivity" of multi-level marketing cults forces members deep into debt to pay for seminars and retreats where they are supposed to learn how to repair the personal defects that keep them from being "successful entrepreneurs." The topline of the cult isn't just getting rich selling stuff – they're making bank by selling false hope, literally, in Hilton ballrooms and convention centers across the country, where hearing an MLM scammer berate you for being a "bad entrepreneur" costs thousands of dollars.

Amway destroyed so many lives that Richard Nixon's FTC decided to investigate it. The investigation wasn't going well for Amway, which was facing an existential crisis that they were rescued from by Nixon's resignation. You see, Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, was the former Congressman of Amway co-founder Jay Van Andel, who was also the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the most powerful business lobbyist in America.

At Ford's direction, the FTC exonerated Amway of all wrongdoing. But it's even worse than that: Ford's FTC actually crafted a rule that differentiated legal pyramid schemes from illegal ones, based on Amway's destructive business practices. Under this new rule, any pyramid scheme that had the same structure as Amway was presumptively legal. Every MLM operating in America today is built on the Amway model, taking advantage of the FTC's Amway rule to operate in the open, without fear of legal repercussions.

MLMs prey on the poor and desperate: women, people of color, people in dying small towns and decaying rustbelt cities. It's not just that these people are desperate – it's that they only survive through networks of mutual aid. Poor women rely on other poor women to help with child care, marginalized people rely on one another for help with home maintenance, small loans, a place to crash after an eviction, or a place to park the RV you're living out of.

In other words, people who lack monetary capital must rely on social capital for survival. That's why MLMs target these people: an MLM is a system for destructively transforming social capital into monetary capital. MLMs exhort their members to mine their social relationships for "leads" and "customers" and to use the language of social solidarity ("women helping women") to wheedle, guilt, and arm-twist people from your mutual aid network into buying things they don't need and can't afford.

But it's worse, because what MLMs really sell is MLMs. The real purpose of an MLM sales call is to convince the "customer" to become an MLM salesperson, who owes you a share of every sale they make and is incentivized to buy stock they don't need (from you) in order to make quotas. And of course, their real job is to sign up other salespeople to work under them, and so on.

An MLM isn't just a pathogen, in other words – it's a contagion. When someone in your social support network gets the MLM disease, they don't just burn all their social ties with you and the people you rely on – they convince more people in your social group to do the same.

Which brings me back to the mirror world, and Erik Baker's conversation with the Know Your Enemy podcast. Baker starts to talk about who gets big into Amway: "people who already effectively lead by the force of their charisma and personality many other people in their lives. Right? Because you're able to sell to those people, and you're able to recruit those people. What are we talking about? Well, they're effectively recruiting organizers, people who have a natural capacity for organizing and then sending them out in the world to organize on behalf of Christian capitalism."

Listening to this, I was thunderstruck: MLM recruiters are the mirror world version of union organizers. In her memoir of growing up in Amway, Andrea Pitzer talks about how her mom would approach strangers and try to lead them through a kind of structured discussion:

Everywhere we went—the mall, state parks, grocery stores—she’d ask people whether they could use a little more money each month. “I’d love to set up a time to talk to you about an exciting business opportunity.” The words should have seemed suspect. Yet people almost always gave her their number. Her confidence and professionalism were reassuring, and her enthusiasm was electric, even, at first, to me. “What would you do with $1 million?” she’d ask, spinning me around the kitchen.

This kind of person, having this kind of dialog, is exactly how union organizers work. In A Collective Bargain, Jane McAlevey's classic book on labor organizing, she describes how she would seek out the charismatic, outgoing workers in a job-site, the natural leaders, and recruit them to help bring the other workers onboard:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

Organizer training focuses on how to have a "structured organizing conversation," which McAlevey described in a 2019 Jacobin article:

“If you had a magic wand and could change three things about life in America [or her town or city or school], what would you change?” The rest of your conversation needs to be anchored to her answers to that question.

https://jacobin.com/2019/11/thanksgiving-organizing-activism-friends-family-conversation-presidential-election

The MLM conversation and the union conversation have eerily similar structures, but the former is designed to commodify and destroy solidarity, and the latter is designed to reinforce and mobilize solidarity. Seen in this light, an MLM is a mirror world union, one that converts solidarity into misery and powerlessness instead of joy and strength.

The MLM movement doesn't just make men like Rich De Vos and Jay Van Andel into billionaires. MLM bosses are heavy funders of the right, a blank check for the Heritage Foundation. Trump is the MLM president, a grifter who grew up on the gospel of Norman Vincent Peale – a key figure in MLM cult dynamics – who tells his followers that wealth is a sign of virtue. Trump boasts about all the people he's ripped off, boasting about how getting away with cheating "makes me smart":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/04/its-not-a-lie/#its-a-premature-truth

The corollary is that being cheated means you're stupid. Caveat emptor, the motto of the cryptocurrency industry ("not your wallet, not your coins") that spent hundreds of millions to get Trump elected.

Tech has its own mirror world. The people who used tech to find fellow weirdos and make delightful and wonderful things are mirrored by the people who used tech to find fellow weirdos and call for fascism, ethnic cleansing, and concentration camps.

In Picks and Shovels, my next novel (Feb 17), I introduce readers to a fictitious 1980s religious computer sales cult called Fidelity Computing, run by an orthodox rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Mormon rabbi:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865908/picksandshovels

Fidelity is a faith scam, a pyramid scheme that is parasitic upon the bonds of faith and fellowship. Martin Hench, the hero of the story – a hard-fighting high tech forensic accountant – goes to work for a competing business, Computing Freedom, run by three Fidelity ex-employees who have left their faiths and their employers to pursue a vision of computers that is about liberation, rather than control.

The women of Computing Freedom – a queer orthodox woman who's been kicked out of her family, a Mormon woman who's renounced the LDS over its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and a nun who's left her order to throw in with the Liberation Theology movement – are all charismatic, energetic, inspirational organizers.

Because of course they are – that's why they were so good at selling computers for the Reverend Sirs who sit at the top of Fidelity Computing's pyramid scheme.

Hearing Baker's interview and reading Pitzer's memoir last week made it all click together for me. Not just that MLMs destroy social bonds, but that within every person who gets sucked into an MLM, there's a community organizer who could be building the bonds that MLMs destroy.

[hope-for-the-planet]

From the article:

For Brother Xavier Boutiot, treasurer of a Benedictine abbeyin central France, pulling the abbey's investments from fossil fuels was an obvious step. Committed to the “Green Church” initiative for four years, the Olivetan monks aimed for consistency in all aspects of their community life. “Financial investments have an ecological impact that is 25 times greater than our daily actions!” emphasized the treasurer. To embark on this ecological and financial transition, the abbey had to scrutinize its investments, which was not straightforward. “The financial world is so opaque for basic investors like us, who don’t have access to all the information,” explained Boutiot. “We called our banks that were not on board with this direction, explained our reasoning, and applied some pressure by saying, ‘Either you support us in this approach, or we’ll switch banks.’” [...] The reasons to divest from fossil fuels are not only ethical but financial: the International Energy Agency predicts fossil fuel use will peak before 2030 and then decline. Religious institutions, managing $3 trillion globally, have divested from fossil fuel companies more than any other sector, aligning their investments with their values.

[lee-do-hwas]

lumon is an everything company and a religious cult. can you imagine how restricted even the most mundane things would be for helena eagan. lumon soap, lumon tooth paste, lumon doctors, kier school, kier church, lumon clothing, kier approved music and extracurricular activities. she wants to try candy as a child but can’t eat anything unbecoming of kier. she gets a cavity in elementary school and it’s a pr nightmare worthy of a public statement. she wants to see a movie in middle school but can’t because the film’s distributor is in direct competition with lumon’s production house. she wants to go to any ivy league university for grad achool but can’t because the ethics department put out a statement against severance. everything she says is a talking point for the religion and everything she consumes is an advertisement for the company. how could anyone stay rebellious in an environment that controlled.

[kiefbowl]

What about amateur porn or drawn erotica?

"amateur porn" is mostly a marketing term. it's meant to convey an idea that the porn is "homemade." but what stops people from just producing and marketing content that looks like that? especially since the idea has been pushed successfully that this is "more ethical porn." That is capitalism 101 - find a market you aren't capturing, make them a product they'll buy.

Even in the event it's not actually a production by a studio, you cannot verify that the porn you're watching is not a woman in an abusive relationship with a pimp. Boyfriends become pimps all the time. I think people have this idea that pimps are caricatures that pop out of the ground organically and fully formed, like some sort of mythological "bad guy." They don't stop to think that any opportunistic man (or woman) can become a pimp easily by just having access to a vulnerable woman. If someone enjoys porn, I think it's easy and worthwhile for them to have a disconnect between what "real abusers" do and what happens in a mythical porn setting that's more convenient to imagine. Yet do you need to look far to find examples of couples either A) joking how much money they could make if the wife would get on OF B) fighting because the husband wants the wife to get on OF to increase their revenue and she doesn't or C) just flat out admitting the wife is on OF and how much money it brings to the table? Besides the fact that in any one of these situations, this could be a covert marketing tactic by OF working with a couple, but even if it's not...why believe in scenario C that the husband is just some good guy and this is just some normal situation they fell into? The difference between scenario C and a pimp is what? They're being public about it by framing it a certain way? Well if that makes the public normalize it, why wouldn't "real" pimps just take that lead and do the same? My point is that there is no distinction: a man (whether it's a stranger, a friend, a dad, a husband, a boyfriend) exerting control over a woman by making her perform sexual acts for his own profit is a pimp, and I don't see why we should trust the way he frames it publicly, even if he says "I'm just a progressive husband who isn't jealous and loves that my wife shakes ass online for our family" or whatever gets people to go "cool! I will not questions this."

I'm sure you're asking in good faith anon, so this isn't directed specifically at you, but often when porn watchers are engaging in debate about porn, they'll start bringing up things like 'drawn erotica' as if it's some sort of gotcha. To me, it's so revealing how little they care about the arguments presented about the harms of the porn industry because yes, obviously drawn erotica is different than filming real humans having sex. It also reveals some sort of assumed bias that the person presenting objections to porn without appealing to religious morality or puritanical ideas about sex are somehow being deceitful. As if once "victimless porn" is brought up, they'll be unable to lie and their true nature will be revealed because they'll have some thinly veiled excuses about how drawn porn is obviously just as bad, because it's so sexy!

Drawings of people having sex or being naked and sexual are not above criticism in how they replicate harmful ideas about sex, sexuality, and gender - but they also aren't literal forms of violence against real people. So, it's irrelevant to the discussion of vulnerable people being pushed into porn to perform sexual acts against their will to a point of ruination. If someone feels comfortable continuing to watch and masturbate to porn after this has been explained to them, I don't see why any thoughts I have on erotica written or drawn or otherwise really matters. They can't be convinced through that avenue, clearly. They're probably willing to take whatever thread they can pull on to justify their consumption and to assuage their conscience over watching porn. That to me signifies a porn addiction, because even a casual viewer of porn who's never come across any anti-porn arguments knows they can live without porn, knows they don't need to defend it tooth and nail, and will not play stupid about comparisons to real people having sex on film/enacting violence on each other to erotic drawings.

At the end of the day, re: erotica, I would need to take each thing of media in it's own right and judge it for itself (like all film, books, and art). If it replicates pornographic images (i.e. the film language of porn that I take issue with vis-a-vis misogyny and violence against women), then yeah I'm going to have a problem with it. Not because it's sexual, but because it's content is disagreeable to me in that it's misogynistic. The scale for that is going to be sliding - the difference between a causal representation of unexamined gender dynamics and extremely violent CSAM is huge. I don't take issues with people finding, say, mild 18th century drawings titillating as much as I take issues with people acting entitled to violent images as if their masturbation depends on it and they're entitled to masturbate to whatever they want. Why? I masturbate to my imagination all the time. It's literally the easiest and most natural thing to do. If someone can't, it's probably because they're addicted to porn. If desperate poor women being pushed into drugs to continue making porn that becomes increasingly violent doesn't stop someone from watching porn, then maybe I should ask them to get angry at porn for altering their brain so badly. That's how desperate people sound when they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel in the face of facts about violence, poverty, suicide, and abuse.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

just a few more "troublesome" words

fable, parable, allegory, myth

Fables and parables - stories intended to have instructional value.

They differ in that parables are always concerned with religious or ethical themes, while

fables are usually concerned with more practical considerations (and frequently have animals as the characters).

Allegory - an extended metaphor—that is, a narrative in which the principal characters represent things that are not explicitly stated.

Orwell’s Animal Farm is an allegory.

Myths - originally were stories designed to explain some belief or phenomenon, usually the exploits of superhuman beings.

Today, the word can signify any popular misconception or invented story.

florescent, fluorescent

Florescent - in flower

Fluorescent - radiating light

forbear, forebear

Forbear - (verb) to cease or refrain from

Forebear - (noun) ancestor

forceful, forcible, forced

Forcible - indicates the use of brute force (“forcible entry”).

Forceful - suggests a potential for force (“forceful argument,” “forceful personality”).

Forced - can be used for forcible (as in “forced entry”)

but more often is reserved for actions that are involuntary (“forced march”)

or that occur under strain (“forced laughter,” “forced landing”).

forego, forgo

Commonly confused, as here:

“The independents must destroy all documents obtained during the case and agree to forego any further litigation against the chains for three years” (International Herald Tribune).

Forego - means to go before, to precede.

To do without is to forgo.

former, latter

Former - properly used, should refer only to the 1st of 2 things

Latter - refers to the 2nd of 2 things

Both words, since they require the reader to hark back to an earlier reference, should be used sparingly and only when what they refer to is immediately evident.

fusion, fission

Both describe ways of producing nuclear energy:

Fusion - by fusing 2 light nuclei into a single, heavier nucleus

Fission - by splitting the nucleus of an atom

gabardine, gaberdine

Gabardine - a type of worsted cloth

Gaberdine - a long cloak

grisly, gristly, grizzly

Grisly - horrifying or gruesome

Gristly - applies to meat that is full of gristle

Grizzly - gray, especially gray-haired, and is a cliché when applied to old men

hanged

”It was disclosed that a young white official had been found hanged to death in his cell” (New York Times).

“Hanged to death” is a tautology.

So too, for that matter, are “starved to death” and “strangled to death.”

The writer was correct, however, in saying that the official had been found hanged and not hung.

People are hanged;

pictures and the like are hung.

harangue, tirade

A tirade - is always abusive and can be directed at one person or at several.

A harangue - need not be vituperative but may merely be prolonged and tedious.

It does, however, require at least two listeners.

One person cannot, properly speaking, harangue another.

heir apparent, heir presumptive

Heir apparent - inherits no matter what

Heir presumptive - inherits only if a nearer relation is not born first

impractical, impracticable, unpractical

If a thing could be done but isn’t worth doing, it is impractical or unpractical (the words mean the same).

If it can’t be done at all, it’s impracticable (the word means “incapable of being put into practice”).

in, into, in to

Generally, in indicates a fixed position (“she was in the house”)

while into indicates movement toward a fixed position (“she went into the house”).

There are, however, many exceptions (e.g., “she put the money in her pocket”).

As so often with idiom, there is no describable pattern to these exceptions; it is just the way it is.

Whether to write into as one word or two also sometimes causes problems.

The simple rule is that in to is correct when in is an adverb.

The distinction can perhaps best be seen in paired examples:

“He turned himself into [one word] an accomplished artist” but

“The criminal turned himself in to [two words] the police.”

Source ⚜ On Grammar & Vocabulary ⚜ Writing Basics & Refreshers

[astra-ravana]

Keep It Eclectic

Eclecticism in witchcraft and magick refers to the practice of drawing from multiple traditions, spiritual paths, and systems of belief to create a personalized practice. In modern witchcraft, eclecticism plays a crucial role in making the craft more inclusive, adaptable, and meaningful to practitioners. Below are some of the key reasons why eclecticism is important in contemporary magickal practices.

Personalization and Authenticity

Modern witches often find that no single tradition fully resonates with their experiences, beliefs, or needs. Eclecticism allows individuals to:

• Craft a practice that aligns with their personal spirituality.

• Blend different traditions in a way that feels authentic and meaningful.

• Avoid dogma and rigid structures that may not fit their worldview.

For example, a practitioner may feel drawn to the herbal wisdom of traditional European witchcraft, the protective symbols of Hoodoo, and the lunar cycles of Wicca, forming a practice that uniquely reflects their path.

Accessibility and Inclusivity

Historically, many magickal traditions were closed to outsiders, limited to specific cultures, or hidden due to persecution. Today, eclectic witchcraft makes spirituality and magick more accessible by:

• Welcoming people from diverse backgrounds who may not have a direct lineage in a particular tradition.

• Allowing solitary practitioners to develop their own methods rather than requiring formal initiation.

• Encouraging respect for different cultural practices without enforcing exclusivity.

This inclusivity is especially important for witches who may not feel connected to a single cultural or religious identity but still seek a meaningful spiritual path.

Adaptability to Modern Life

Traditional magical systems were often developed in specific cultural and historical contexts. While valuable, some of their original practices may not be practical for modern practitioners. Eclecticism allows witches to:

• Integrate new knowledge, science, and technology into their practice.

• Modify rituals and spells to suit contemporary lifestyles.

• Use materials and correspondences that are more easily accessible today.

For example, a city-dwelling witch who lacks access to wild herbs might use store-bought alternatives, clever placement of sigils, or even technomancy (cyber magick) as part of their eclectic practice.

Encouraging Growth and Exploration

Eclecticism promotes a mindset of continuous learning and exploration, allowing practitioners to:

• Study multiple traditions and expand their magickal knowledge.

• Experiment with different techniques to see what works best for them.

• Develop their intuition by working with various magickal systems.

Rather than adhering to rigid rules, eclectic witches remain open to new ideas, evolving their practices over time.

Bridging the Past and the Future

Eclectic witchcraft preserves the wisdom of ancient traditions while allowing room for new interpretations. This balance ensures that witchcraft remains a living, evolving practice rather than a stagnant relic of the past.

For example, many modern witches:

• Honor ancestral traditions while adapting them to modern ethical standards.

• Combine traditional spellcraft with modern psychology and self-help techniques.

• Use contemporary tools like apps, digital grimoires, or online covens alongside traditional rituals.

Eclecticism and Cultural Sensitivity

While eclecticism encourages borrowing from different traditions, it is also important to practice cultural sensitivity and respect. Responsible eclecticism involves:

• Understanding the origins and significance of the practices one adopts.

• Avoiding cultural appropriation by acknowledging closed traditions that require initiation or ancestral lineage.

• Giving credit to cultures and sources rather than claiming practices as one’s own.

A balanced eclectic practice respects both the freedom to explore and the responsibility to honor traditions appropriately.

Strengthening Individual Empowerment

Ultimately, witchcraft is about personal empowerment. Eclecticism allows practitioners to reclaim their spiritual authority by:

• Trusting their intuition rather than relying on external religious hierarchies.

• Creating a practice that is deeply personal and uniquely effective.

• Feeling free to evolve and change as they gain new insights.

This empowerment is one of the core reasons why eclectic witchcraft has become so popular in modern times.

Eclecticism is essential to modern witchcraft because it fosters inclusivity, adaptability, and personal empowerment. By blending elements from different traditions in a thoughtful and respectful way, practitioners can create a practice that is both meaningful and effective. Instead of being confined to one path, eclectic witches embrace the idea that spirituality is fluid, ever-changing, and deeply personal.

[vamphorica]

♰ Religion in Death Note ♰

One of the most fascinating things about Death Note as a franchise is its exploration of faith and religion in the context of the world building, and how it compliments this using Christian motifs and imagery. The latter is often portrayed superficially, which I think is a shame given that there are many occasions throughout the series where relationships that some characters have with faith could be examined in accordance with the world Ohba has created.

For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to consider two main religious influences in the world of Death Note:

The Canon Explanation (The Shinigami Realm, Rules of the Death Note, Mu as the Afterlife, etc.)

Christianity (specifically, the use of Catholic imagery in Ohba’s official art.)

Let's begin with Canon.

i. The Canon Explanation

Ohba is clearly partial to weaving a complex web of rules as a means to support the supernatural premises of his stories (see Platinum End). This makes The Canon Explanation so effective not only because it limits the behaviour of the characters throughout the text, but it is also very pertinent to religion conceptually. By listing out the apparent commandments of the Death Note, a set of religious principles have been established that the users of the Death Note must follow. While you are not technically committing a sin by, let's say, trying to kill someone over the age of 124 with the Death Note (x), it sets out a guide which is indicative of rules one might follow in a religious text. You could say that Light, Misa, Mikami, and Takada each had to have a level of faith in the Death Note in order to use it. They all followed the rules, even if they did so under Light's direction as their self-proclaimed God. Light’s familiarity with these rules and his confidence with manipulating them is what ultimately makes his reign as Kira so effective. I think the act of writing a name down in the notebook itself is a form of commitment to belief – as a concept, the Death Note seems too absurd to a sceptic.

When the Shinigami begin arriving in the human world, it is obvious that they are not divine beings in the perfect, omnipotent manner that humans may expect. If anything, they are curiously quite human themselves – forgetting rules and acting as a result of emotional impulses. It is indeed Ryuk's boredom that sets the story into motion – everyone who died as a result of the Death Note did so because of him. The Shinigami pose no actual threat to the humans they follow, often noting how humans appear more competent at being Death Gods than they themselves are. While this is subjective, depending on interpretations of faith, the typical Grim Reaper figure is seen as a serious, all-knowing figure that is to be feared, while the Shinigami of Death Note are far less intimidating. I think this delivers a decent proposal that religion in Canon is not a matter of worshipping the supernatural, or suggesting that they are better than us. By having the Shinigami presented as being similar to ourselves, human characters have the ability to use their power without the fear of divine retribution. Light’s extensive knowledge of the Death Note rules and how to work around them, along with his strict work ethic, only further demonstrates his commitment to carving out his position as God when compared to the Shinigami.

Mu is explained quite simply – there is no heaven or hell. There is a notable lack of elaboration here for a reason, but I do wonder if Light might have been more reluctant in his pursuits had traditional heaven and hell been at stake. Would he have become Kira if his act of justice would damn him to hell? Would he be concerned that his victims might end up going to heaven? Mu is the Canon version for what happens when one dies in this universe, so, beyond proposing speculative questions, there is little to analyse here.

Now, there is one character who I want to delve deeper in relation to The Canon Explanation: Mikami.

Mikami -> Mikami is deeply devout. Of all the named characters in the series, Mikami is the only one who is expressly religious, particularly regarding the Canon Explanation. While I think it is interesting to consider Light Yagami's relationship to Godhood, it is only through Mikami that we understand Kira’s societal impact. Mikami is also the only character in Death Note to be granted a rather comprehensive backstory, so we are given an insight into what led him to become such an ardent Kira supporter. Light chose Mikami not just for these strongly held opinions but also because of his devotion to him specifically. Mikami is ritualistic in the way he worships the idea of Kira through his dedication to writing one page of names in the Death Note daily, following Light’s commands without question. The only other occasion where we see a similar act of religiosity towards Kira is at the very end of the manga when a group of Kira supporters take a pilgrimage to pay their respects. Yet even this does not quite encapsulate Mikami's religious fanaticism. His strong conviction that Kira is God demonstrates the societal inclination to view Kira as a religious figure to be worshipped.

I think because Death Note relies so strongly on Light's internal psychology as he encounters various forms of opposition, the external impact of Kira on the world is only provided to us through passing mentions of political support. It is absolutely crucial to interpret Kira in a political context, but again, this is not really explored in too much detail. What we do know is that Kira supporters, including Misa, Mikami and Takada, may politically be in favour of Light's moral judgement, but because he poses himself as a God rather than a political leader, we must assume that he wants to play into a deific persona because it affords him far more unconditional power than he would have as a mere mortal.

From the beginning, Light is able to present his power as originating from a divine source, and it is only until Lind L. Tailor’s death that it becomes apparent what limitations Light is working within. Before then, criminals dying of heart attacks across the world could not be considered to be within human capability, let alone performed by a singular perpetrator, so Light maintained the illusion of omnipotence. Distancing himself from his humanity not only gave Light the benefit of being undetectable for some time, but also encouraged people to support Kira through the belief that he was inherently above them. It was only L who managed to shatter this façade early on in the Kira investigation.

I will now move onto something slightly more tangible, as it reflects our world within the text – Death Note's use of Catholic imagery.

ii. Christianity

As if to make up for the lack of exploration into Kira's religious influence, Death Note heavily relies upon Christian imagery to highlight its desire for religion to be seen as a core component of the franchise. Realistically, I am aware that a lot of manga and Japanese culture from the 2000s was heavily inspired by Catholic imagery and that there was certainly an aesthetic trend being taken advantage of here. However, I am still going to consider it specifically in relation to Death Note. It gives me an excuse to move on from Ohba to Obata anyhow, which I am more than willing to do.

Let's have a look at some official art.

There's a lot to be discussed about these specific pieces of art, and there are plenty more examples that I am sure can be found and analysed over, but we can recognise what their general theme is – kitschy Catholicism. This is not intended as criticism, I love Obata's art and as unsubtle as these official pieces may be, they reinforce Death Note's desire to incorporate religion into its series as a strong motif, if not an effectively developed theme. It also somewhat exposes its superficiality. The imagery is explicit, bold and bright, without doing much work in considering what the actual religious belief might be able to bring to the series beyond the visual components (according to this post -> x the Latin on the last image isn't rendered properly, which proves my point further). There are instances in the anime where there are Biblical references, such as frames that foreshadow L’s death, but the manga does not engage in these same parallels.

This leads me nicely onto talking about Misa.

Misa -> Misa is shown throughout the series to lean heavily into fashion and interior design that reflects a very Gothic Christian aesthetic, which is undeniably iconic and an important visual aspect to her character.  Mirroring the series more generally, it does appear that this is the extent to her relationship with the Christian faith. Misa’s allegiance to Kira could suggest that the trauma of her parents’ death came to some kind of resolution when their murderer was himself killed. Again, we have no idea if she actually was a religious character to begin with and I need to stress, it does not matter, but it is still worth considering given how a lot of the Christian imagery in the series is associated with her character specifically. I don't think this feeds into any flat character analysis that might suggest she doesn't know the potential significance of the crosses she wears or decorates her home with. We could just say she has an aesthetic that is very well composed but doesn't carry much weight beyond its stylistic merit.

Derailing slightly, but I do wish they had maintained this style throughout the entire series. Alas, as soon as she met Light, she lost this cool Goth look pretty quickly. Rem would never have let this happen. 💔

One more character analysis before we wrap this up. The quite honest reason as to why I decided to write up this essay was so that I could discuss Mello in relation to religion in Death Note.

Mello → Much of what I discussed about Misa's style could be applied to Mello, the only other character who visually demonstrates any religious tendency. However, I think there are some differences here that could suggest Mello is actually religious, which then allows us to consider his character in the context of the Canon Explanation. Firstly, one of the main signifiers Mello wears is his rosary, and while it is unlikely you will experience any adverse effects from wearing one as a non believer, I think those who wear a rosary are aware of the deeper connection to Catholicism than someone who wears a simple cross necklace (see Misa above, right). Secondly, narratively, I think there is more opportunity for Mello to be religious. Wammy's House, from their gates, actually appears to be a Christian organisation, and while I do not actually believe that they were, I find it interesting nonetheless. I also would be surprised if they were denominationally Catholic, if we are following this line of logic, presumably they would be CofE, but who knows. Regardless, even if Mello was not religious as a child, I think his arrival into the Mafia would certainly have introduced him to Catholicism. Of course it seems antithetical, but I would not be all that surprised if a teenage boy who is expected to do some horrendous things to rise to the top of a criminal organisation might turn to God in the process.

Following on from the prior point, Mello is a completely contradictory character, so I do not think it is all that necessary to consider his moral code from an entirely rational perspective. I think the fact his Beretta has a small cross charm on it in itself is very symbolic of the kind of character we are dealing with here (see below). Interestingly, it looks to be a Celtic cross, rather than a traditional crucifix.

What does this actually mean? Mello represents a good integration of the two religious influences I've discussed – he appears to have faith in a religion that we as readers contextually understand, and yet he interacts easily with Shinigami and the Death Note. While the two do not contradict one another exactly, I think The Canon Explanation certainly does not lend much credence to Catholic interpretations within the text. Like the others who have encountered a Death Note, Mello is initially shocked by the arrival of the Shinigami attached to his notebook, but quickly recovers. He interrogates Sidoh with such evident effectiveness that he ends up frightening him.

I think this is where I begin to get a little frustrated with the depiction of religion in Death Note because we have such a fascinating premise here. Does Mello's faith waver as his beliefs are evidently challenged by Sidoh? Does he consider Kira as a force of evil from a moral perspective informed by Wammy's, or his understanding of God? Does he believe in heaven and hell? None of these questions are answered, and I do appreciate I am being fussy because I am very fond of Mello, but I think there was a rather unique opportunity present in the series that was completely neglected. I have already explained how Death Note relies so heavily on Catholic imagery and clearly wishes to present itself as a series that deals with religious themes, so I think there is a failure here to consider the nuances that have already been set up.

How interesting do you suppose it would be to see how Kira's influence begins to impact the other established religions, as people see criminals dying en masse? Remember that ordinary people would be likely predisposed to consider this as an act of God. Society would certainly be more scared, especially as it would simply be inevitable that Kira killed innocent people who had been deemed criminals by their legal systems. There is a lot to go analyse about that topic alone, but another time!

I suppose with a lot of the questions I have posed, they could be answered through fanfiction or headcanons. I could decide that Misa believed in God until she met Light, or that Mello chose to ignore the implications of Mu given that he follows a religion that sets itself up on the premise of eternal reward or damnation. I just want to facilitate further conversation, because I do think this topic is fascinating.

Thank you @saturniiids, @vengeflies and @stylooooo for giving this a read for me! ♡

[spacenoirdetective]

I'm unimpressed

Whenever any leftist interacts with me, it's always the same. They posture and laugh at me for being a conservative. They look down on me. They cite false statistics or allegations fed to them by propaganda networks. They exhibit arrogance, smug superiority and overwhelming condescension without any knowledge, understanding or moral fortitude to back it up. When everything else fails, they resort to the New Communist slogan of "racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic".

To which I respond: My best friends include a black man from Trinidad, a Latina woman who immigrated to the US at the age of five, a man with Aspergers and severe anxiety disorder, a black lesbian, an Indian South African, a Chinese American woman, an octogenarian gay man, a Cameroonian man and a Saudi Arabian man who describes himself as pansexual. And a whole bunch of really awesome white people who are not racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic.

I'm gay. I voted for Trump because i don't believe the Democrats love me. I don't need them to love me. I don't want their love. They love sin and the embrace of dark triad behavior as their paragon for leadership skills, totalitarian thought control, the destruction of society, and they seek to make atheism the norm. They love the denigration of any individual that defies them, disagrees with their tactics, calls out their lies...they hate truthtellers. They hate anyone that places God as an imperative and sacred texts as crucial to their ethical conduct. They hate anyone that threatens their power and they believe in encouraging public vitriol to meet their needs. They believe in the destruction of the nuclear family. They encourage the worship of and dependence on the state to replace the family. They believe in a direct pipeline between the White House and newly established propaganda networks that cater only to the Democrat Party and the CIA. They believe in reputation destruction using those propaganda networks. They believe they have the right to assassinate Trump and anyone else who they deem a threat to their power. They have initiated the single worst attack on children in the history of our country via human trafficking and institutionalized rape ordered by the CIA. They normalized embezzlement, money laundering and inflationary tax on an unheard of scale to further demoralize the populace and inflate their own bank accounts. They conduct constant psychological war against their own people, which extends to perverting the minds of their children without their knowledge via the trans cult, the gender theory cult, and the DEI/Critical Race Theory cult.

On the issue of transphobia, I certainly don't endorse violence. But it is not violence to state that all trans people are mentally ill and they must be stopped from mutilation of children and sterilizing minors with puberty blockers, from demanding forced speech regarding their delusions, from using public funds to procure trans surgeries and from public attaining positions of power such as the Secretary of Health where they may spread their perverse cult directives causing psychological and physiological arm to adults and children alike.

They believe in these things because they want to secure a future for an elite minority that takes everything for itself, enslaves the rest of the populace, and convinces the populace that their astronomical greed is justifiable and that their destructive policies that result in totalitarian hell should be embraced as godly, necessary, and protective measures. They mockingly wear a mask of sympathy, compassion and the moniker of "social justice" which is nothing more than a code for "thought police" whose sole purpose is to implant hatred for political opponents and self hatred amongst whites, any minorities with religious sensibilities, and the intelligentia at large.

The future that they desire is a constant hell of pervasive misery and support of a one party state, supported by thoughtless government worship, slogan repetition, dehumanization of political opposition, desensitization to violence to meet the ends of the party's plans, mentacide, hatred of the past and all the accomplishments of Western Civilization, physical degradation and obesity from technological addiction and slow chemical poisoning from tainted food and lastly lowering testosterone via pbthalates.

I'm a gay white male and that doesn't play into my vote. It shouldn't. The body you're born with shouldn't determine your vote. Your party has done absolutely nothing for me. You have never done anything to help me. I am happy to fight you to the bitter end in any way I can to stop you from the communist genocide you so lovingly long for.

[kayleightarot]

The week of April 28 We start the week with Balance, Fairness, & Equality Overall, Justice is about adjusting a situation in order to create balance. Weigh the situation with logic & a cool head then, remove what no longer serves you &/or others. If you feel there is an area of your life in which you have been unbalanced or unfair, take responsibility & rectify it as soon as possible. If you have been kind & generous with others, or have been treated unfairly, that will come back to you. You may receive good news in a legal matter.

💚 Maintain a fair balance between work & home, logic & emotion, focus & relaxation; too much emphasis on one will throw the other off balance. 💙 The time for “it’s complicated” relationships is over. Take a clear look at your relationships & their issues, ensure you are being fair, & move away from the ones that are unbalanced/unhealthy 🧡 Be objective, honest, & logical, then make the decision that is necessary, even if it’s uncomfortable. Strive for the fair & ethical treatment of all people- including yourself

MIDWEEK we have Introspection, Enlightenment & 'Self' Whether regarding the truth of a person, or situation, the Hermit embodies “To thine own self, be true”, & speaks to wisdom & growth. Connect with your inner 'wise one' to ensure your path is still aligned with your ethics, spiritual values, & highest good If you’re involved with a bank, a religious order, or some other institution or tradition, wait & review before you commit. Where it's not possible to wait, seek trusted advice. 💚 The time for your success & recognition is approaching. Be ethical & genuine in your work & your opinions, even if no one is watching, & the energy will return to you 💙 If you are considering re-investing in, or rekindling a relationship, ensure you aren’t re-enacting an old cycle out of habit, hope, or ego. Ensure your choice aligns with your ethics, & future plans 🧡 Connect with your inner truth & light your path with it. Move through today ensuring you are genuine, ethical, & doing what is right for your highest good Go, Do, Be…

We approach the WEEKEND with Change, Healing, Moving Forward The 6 of Swords represents a physical or metaphysical journey. Whatever issue has you stressed or upset, is coming to a close so, it will now be easier to focus on how to deal with the issue itself. Take this time to breathe, & decide where you want to be & how to get there from here.

A picnic in a park or a walk somewhere you haven't yet explored, it will trigger a "Eureka!" moment. The time is ripe for healing, building bridges, & moving forward. Deal with all the issues you can & move forward with as little “baggage” as possible.

💚 You may be feeling that your job no longer works for you; perhaps you are already in the process of leaving. Trust that the Universe is directing you to the place you are meant to be 💙 You may be stuck in a relationship pattern that has stopped working for you. Try something new; get outside of the daily routine & you are likely to find new people, places, & adventures 🧡 The bumpy patch is nearly over. Relax, commit to your decision. What you are leaving behind you is the residue of things that are no longer for your highest good. Enjoy discovering your new path.

Gus an ath thuras (Until next time), darlings Go, Do, Be Peace out

[etz-ashashiyot]

So what’s the modern interpretation of the laws about keeping slaves? I’ve heard that said laws where a lot more kind to slaves then the surrounding nations but, like, it’s still slavery?

Hi anon,

With Pesach coming up, I'm sure that this question is on a lot of people's minds. It's a good question and many rabbanim throughout history have attempted to tackle it. Especially today, with slavery being seen as a moral anathema in most societies (obviously this despite the fact that unfortunately slavery is still a very real human rights crisis all over the world), addressing the parts of the Torah that on the surface seem to condone it becomes a moral imperative.

It's worth noting that the Jewish world overall condemns slavery. In my research for this question, I came across zero modern sources arguing that slavery is totally fine. I'm sure that if you dug deep enough there's some fringe wacko somewhere arguing this, but every group has its batshit fringe.

Here are some sources across the political and religious observance spectrum that explain it better than I could:

Chabad (this article is written by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, a wonderful rabbi whose words I have learned deeply over the years. He is one of my favorite rabbis despite not seeing eye to eye with a lot of the Chabad movement)

Conservative (to be clear: this is my movement; it's not actually politically conservative in most shuls, just poorly named. We desperately need to bully them into calling themselves Masorti Olami like the rest of the world. It's [essentially] a liberal traditional egalitarian movement.)

Conservative pt. 2 (different rabbi's take)

Reform (note that this is from the Haberman Institute, which was founded by a Reform rabbi. Link is to a YouTube recording of a recent lecture on the topic.)

Chareidi (this rabbi is an official rabbi of the Western Wall in Israel, so in a word, very frum)

Modern Orthodox

I want to highlight this last one, because it is written by the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chovevei, which is a progressive Modern Orthodox rabbinical school. They work very hard to read Torah through an authentically Orthodox lens while also maintaining deeply humanist values. As someone who walks a similar (if not identical) balancing act, this particular drash (sermon) spoke very deeply to me, and so I'm reposting it in its entirety**

[Edit: tumblr.hell seems real intent on not letting me do this in my original answer, so I will repost it in the reblogs. Please reblog that version if you're going to. Thanks!]

Something you will probably notice as you work your way through these sources, you'll note that there are substantially more traditional leaning responses. This is because of a major divide in how the different movements view Torah, especially as it pertains to changing ethics over time and modernity. I'm oversimplifying for space, but the differences are as follows:

The liberal movements (Reform, Renewal, Reconstructionist, etc.) view halacha as non-binding and the Torah as a human document that is, nevertheless, a sacred document. I've seen it described as the spiritual diary of our people throughout history. Others view it as divinely inspired, but still essentially and indelibly human.

The Orthodox and other traditional movements view halacha as binding and Torah as the direct word of G-d given to the Jewish people through Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses) on Mt. Sinai. (Or, at a minimum, as a divinely inspired text written and compiled by people that still represents the word of G-d. This latter view is mostly limited to the Conservative and Modern Orthodox movements.)

Because of these differences, the liberal movements are able to address most of these problematic passages by situating them in their proper historical context. It is only the Orthodox and traditional movements that must fully reckon with the texts as they are, and seek to understand how they speak to us in a contemporary context.

As for me? I'm part of a narrow band of traditional egalitarian progressive Jews that really ride that line between viewing halacha as binding and the Torah as divinely given, despite recognizing the human component of its authorship - more a partnership in its creation than either fully human invention or divine fiat. That said, I am personally less interested in who wrote it literally speaking and much more interested in the question of: How can we read Torah using the divinely given process of traditional Torah scholarship while applying deeply humanist values?

Yeshivat Chovevei does a really excellent job of approaching Torah scholarship this way, as does Hadar. Therefore, I'm not surprised that this article captures something I have struggled to articulate: an authentically orthodox argument for change.

[housemdork]

house md rewatch: 1x05, "damned if you do"

this is going to be a long one, so apologies in advance!

i'm putting this at the top of the recap because it's funny and i don't want to forget to mention it: hugh laurie cannot say "percent" in an american accent. it's the single word that he's fumbled so far, and i love it every time.

very solid episode overall with a lot more character-specific development. i feel like 1x04 was more overall thematic development, whereas 1x05 featured more individual traits among the ducklings, house, and cuddy (with some fleeting bonus wilson at the end). for organization's sake, i'll list those here:

cuddy remains the keeper of order, but her sense of duty comes increasingly from her strong-willed responsibility and patient advocacy rather than any petulance. i love how house as an individual pushes us to dislike her/find her annoying, but cuddy herself makes compelling ethical arguments for refuting house every time. not to be hostile here, but i think viewers who have a strong dislike for cuddy are fundamentally missing the intent and brilliance of her character.

cameron is a strong agnostic who doesn't quite see the irony in her absolutist devotion to house. she craves order in the world - she doesn't reject a universal keeper-of-order, just an "anthropomorphic" being - and finds that within her job and within the realm of house. i love that her naivety isn't just her being Young And Impressionable, but comes from her need to make sense of the loss in her life and in that of her patients'.

foreman was giving judas throughout this episode, giving us the most direct character trait of his yet - clear, unwavering convictions. and i think it's misguided to qualify these convictions are selfish or inherently anti-house (i see that take a lot on twitter). he doesn't take the decision to oust house to cuddy lightly, yet even when he's rejected by cameron and chase for his choice, he stays firm. and he's paradoxically rewarded by house for it.

robert chase. i'm already getting weepy about where his story is headed. this is the show's first mentioning of chase's history with catholicism - his time in seminary school, his distaste for his father, the fact that he's held onto the religious know-how instilled in him, and that his doubt and dejection stems from fear. retrospective knowledge about his father also shows how he's already transferring his ideal of fatherhood to house, however subliminally. one of my favorite interactions in this episode was when house insists to chase that religion is enforced via fear of god and divine retribution passed down by fathers to their sons. not only do we know this to be true of chase's childhood, but chase has already shown us a fear of failing house.

a note about me for context - i'm an atheist (i promise on my life that i'm not edgy and exclusionary like house!) who grew up catholic until i was about 15. i also recently taught at a catholic university, so catholic themes and practices are fresh on my mind. this episode is rife with direct allusions to the religion.

over-ambitious though this comparison may be, i viewed cuddy and house as competing religious dogmas in 1x05, very in line with a church (PPTH) schism. the patient's moral code, her being a nun, is textually compared to cuddy's rule over the hospital (in a funny house-hates-authority-because-he-finds-it-suffocating way). house objects to the nuns' belief system and, in the same breath, objects to cuddy's taking control of the case because he's violating established codes of hospital conduct, i.e., putting the patient in the hyperbaric chamber without enough evidence that it will help her.

so when house is taken off the case, he's basically being thrown out of a metaphorical church and treated like an outcast. maybe a pariah, if we take the comparison even further, which sparks a very unexpected patch of guilt within him. also very catholic (ask my irish catholic family). more on this later!

i also think the emphasis on house's potential misery bears some investigating since this is the first time the show tugs at this thread. at the very start of the episode, wilson and house are comparing clinic duties to dante's circles of hell. house eventually equivocates the task of charting to having "melancholy without hope." it's a fleeting and funny remark at first, but one of the patient's fellow nuns resurrects this conversation later on in the hospital chapel.

the nun addresses house's facade, saying that "you make jokes because you're afraid to take anything seriously because, if you take things seriously, they matter."

house refutes this instantly, of course, which she's prepared for. in the face of his obstinance, she says, "i barely know you, and i don't know if i'm right. i just hope i am, because the alternative is you really are as miserable as you seem to be."

THIS IS THE GOOD STUFF! not only does 1x05 offer up a woman of faith as a suitable opponent for house's wry cynicism, but we've been unsure thus far about the depths of house's misery, nor how far down his front goes. this episode shows us the absolute top of the iceberg. in the following scene, cuddy kicks him off the case, and the next time we see house, he's searching through the epinephrine drawer in the clinic room to see if he really did make a mistake and make his patient sick. guilt has struck, and guilt is scary because it also proves that house himself believes that he can be fallible.

so it's only fitting that the angel on house's shoulder appears during the throes of his guilt to probe a little further into his thoughts and feelings. wilson circumvents the several conversational traps that house lays for him like he's paid to do it, and lands on the fact that house feels guilty for potentially failing his patient, but wilson phrases it in a very nonsecular way: "guilt does a lot of damage...you're here because you're having doubts."

in a trend that will be repeated well into the future, it's only wilson who can permeate the deific walls house erects around himself. how crazy it is to psychoanalyze the show's symbolic god figure, let alone do it successfully?

and that all sounds a whole lot like a conversation that could take place inside a confessional.

this exchange helps inspire what i think is the episode's most profound conversation - when house and the patient speak to one another about her god and her faith as she denies treatment. house permits belief in the afterlife, but rejects any and all belief that insists that a god can affect the Here And Now. subliminally, he's struggling with the idea that suffering and illness could be caused by a being people are supposed to love and worship because he sees suffering and illness as puzzles that need to be solved and corrected. how can anyone, then, find bliss in unsolved suffering?

the patient then says this in response: "i don't believe that He is inside me and is going to save me. i believe He is inside me whether i live or die."

house: "then you might as well live. you got a better shot betting on me than Him."

in an incredibly odd twist, 1x05 highlights a deep, barely detectable kindness in house that the show posits is not accessible via the catholic nun's faith (controversial, i know, but i'm calling it like i see it). house does not operate like their god. if he is a symbolic god figure, his penchant for puzzle solving isn't so far removed from humanity. it comes from the belief that life is good and suffering is bad. not that he would ever really admit that, though.

finally (and i'm scaling back a lot of my thoughts here because this post is already way too long), i want to circle back on confession and guilt. the relationship between the 2 is everywhere in 1x05. foreman, though he was in the right to "betray" house, feels guilty for confessing to cuddy. chase confesses to the patient that he left seminary school because he failed the faith/fear test, and he exhibits conflicted guilt throughout the episode. his specific brand of catholic guilt becomes a huge component of his character moving forward. house feels guilt on-screen for the first time. and cuddy even feels guilt for, first, letting one of her doctors potentially harm a patient due to negligence and, later, almost sabotaging house's diagnosis.

you know who doesn't feel guilty this episode, though? despite having the most blatant reason for it?

"maybe i'll come to your place." "your wife doesn't mind being alone on christmas?" "i'm a doctor. she's used to being alone. i don't want to talk about it."

i can think of very few conversations that reveal so much about a character so quickly:

hanging out together outside of work is normal for these 2.

wilson is married and the relationship is rocky.

he's clearly to blame, at least in part, for that rockiness.

he doesn't seem to mind being to blame for it. he'd much rather prioritize his other relationships.

despite being the one to draw out the truth being house's thoughts and feelings about guilt and self-honesty throughout the episode, wilson refuses to engage in this himself. he flagrantly shuts down the opportunity for confession, despite having demanded it of house earlier on.

this marks a clear shift from wilson existing just to define/prop up house into wilson as a slowly burgeoning foil. he's characterized by our lack of knowledge about him; by now, cameron, foreman, chase, and house are pretty illuminated, and 1x05 did a lot of work with cuddy, too. even the slightest tease of info deconstructs a lot of our assumptions about wilson so far. he's only been the kind oncologist who sees the good in house - what do you mean he's shitty?

this episode had some visuals to imply house/wilson as foils, too:

and, much like how he can bring out the painful honesty in house, he can also bring out house's most organic (unmasked, some might say) side, too. spending christmas eve together lets us know that domesticity is common between them, while also confirming that house does not, in fact, have much to come home to.

that one tumblr post that says "nothing prepares you for james wilson" is so right. he's the lynchpin for so much of this show yet approaches so slowly.

i could keep going. i forgot how much i like this episode. there's even one line from wilson to house where he says "you do realize that if you're wrong about the big picture, you're going to burn" and like. okay. whatever.

[windvexer]

What are your thoughts on magical ethics and morals? Do you feel they help or hinder the magic? And do you follow any?

Many small thoughts all amounting to nothing:

They're the same as 'regular' ethics and morals. There are things you find to be morally acceptable and unacceptable and lots of things that could go in any direction. What difference does magic make? Witchcraft is remarkably mundane.

Being that magic can be done behind closed doors and you often can't be caught or judged for your intent doesn't make it a separate set of morals, it's just the morals for what you'd do if you think you're safe from many social consequences.

"You are who you are when no one is watching." (Sadly a limp phrase for spirit workers)

If you mean magical consequences, I don't find that to be morals: "Threefold Law" as it's often presented isn't morality, it's a threat of punishment or promise of reward from the universe. (I'm not sure how the phrase in its original context is meant to be taken)

Plenty of taboos in Witchcraft but they're not morals, either. They can piss you off but the consequences for breaking them may be severe. So you don't do it because you think it's ethical; you do it because you'd be fucked if you don't.

Besides taboos, plenty of rules, which I think have more wiggle room. Still not morality, though. (LOTS of rules in Witchcraft)

Do I follow any magical morals? If you mean, do I have any moral center which helps govern my magical actions, the answer is yes.

Does it help or hinder my magic? Irrelevant - power of magic isn't dependent on personal moral center.

Does it help or hinder my life? I personally believe my center of morality is a huge help for making decisions which better and safeguard my life. This is based on my religious and spiritual beliefs. My faith teaches me that taking actions anchored in respect, reciprocity, and love leads to having things like deep friendships, healthy community, and unconditional support. These are good things to strive for.

Do I ever find myself wishing I could fix a situation with magic, but I can't because of stupid limiting morals?

No.

Many paths up the mountain, as they say, although that phrase as it was meant was wrong. Better maybe to say, many footpaths through the thicket. Ask Aphrodite if respect and love never leads to war. There is enough love in me to die on many hills.

[panic-point-blank]

🌌 PART I: The Arab Astrologers—Names You Must Know

📝Abū Maʿshar al-Balkhī-known in Latin as Albumasar

Born in Balkh (modern Afghanistan) in 787, a former hadith scholar who turned to the stars in midlife.

His Kitāb al-Madkhal al-Kabīr (The Great Introduction) became the bedrock of European astrology when translated into Latin.

He systematized planetary natures, zodiac signs, houses, aspects, and the elements.

His “conjunction theory” argued that history moves in great cycles, marked by rare celestial alignments—especially Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, which he claimed heralded the rise of prophets and empires.

"All change under heaven is written first in the sky."

📜 Al-Kindi – The Philosopher of the Arabs

A polymath in the Abbasid court, blending Greek philosophy with Islamic theology and celestial theory.

In De Radiis Stellarum (On the Stellar Rays), he proposed a theory of stellar influence—not superstition, but a natural force, like light or magnetism.

He laid early groundwork for what would become natural philosophy (proto-science), suggesting stars transmit influence through rays affecting Earthly matter and human temperament.

🌍 Al-Biruni – The Observer from Khwarezm

Though more astronomer than astrologer, he cataloged astrology in full without ever endorsing its claims outright.

His Kitāb al-Tafhīm contains precise definitions of astrological terms, planetary motions, and how horoscopes are calculated.

A master of cultural synthesis: he compared Greek, Indian, and Persian systems, noting their commonalities and contradictions.

🕊 Abū al-Rayḥān al-Sijzī & Al-Zarqālī – Instruments of the Sky

Developed the astrolabe, armillary spheres, and zij tables—astronomical charts used by astrologers to pinpoint planetary positions with astonishing accuracy.

🪐 PART II: What the Arabs Contributed to Astrology

🧠 1. A Philosophical Foundation

Arabs didn’t just practice astrology—they thought about it. They debated whether the stars compel or merely incline.

Al-Farabi and later Avicenna argued the stars could only affect the body, not the soul—a blend of Neoplatonism and Islamic ethics.

The stars whisper, they do not command.

📊 2. Horoscopic Techniques Refined

Arabs inherited and enhanced horoscopic astrology from the Greeks:

Twelve Houses (Bayūt): Places in the chart signifying career, love, health, death.

Lots (Arabic Parts): Points calculated from planetary positions, like the Lot of Fortune and Lot of Spirit, used to fine-tune predictions.

Triplicities and Dignities: Systems to assess planetary strength.

Interrogations (Horary Astrology): Divining answers to specific questions, such as “Will I marry?” or “Will the king win this war?”

⚔️ 3. Political and Historical Astrology

Astrologers like Abū Maʿshar claimed that world events—plagues, conquests, religious shifts—were written in planetary cycles.

Used to time coronations, launch battles, found cities.

Caliphs would sometimes delay decisions until the astrologers said the heavens were "favorable."

🏥 4. Medical Astrology

Used zodiac signs to diagnose and treat illness—Aries rules the head, Pisces the feet, and so on.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) himself, though skeptical of predictive astrology, used astrological charts for medical diagnoses, especially in fevers and crisis periods.

🌠 PART III: Astrology in Islamic Society

🌗 Religious Debate

The Qur’an warns against claims to know the unseen:

"Say: None in the heavens or on the earth knows the unseen except Allah." (Qur’an 27:65)

So Islamic scholars:

Allowed astronomy (for timekeeping, Qibla direction).

Permitted astrology only if used to understand natural rhythms—not fate.

Condemned fortune-telling or attributing independent power to stars.

Yet astrology persisted—not as dogma, but as courtly art, folk belief, and scientific curiosity.

🕯 PART IV: The Transmission to Europe

Translations of Arabic astrological texts into Latin via Toledo and Sicily reawakened Europe’s interest in the stars.

Terms like zenith, nadir, azimuth, almanac, and even algorithm come from Arabic.

Albumasar, Albohali, Messahala—all Arabic astrologers Latinized into the canon of European learning.

The Renaissance astrologers (like Ficino and Agrippa) drank deeply from Arab wells.

🌌 In Closing: A Legacy Like the Night Sky

The Arabs did not merely gaze at the stars—they listened to them, charted them, debated them, and passed on their wisdom in tomes that still echo today. Astrology, as they practiced it, was never just fortune-telling—it was philosophy, poetry, medicine, and mathematics entwined in a cosmic dance.

[4rrenstep]

A chunk from my essay on LotF that I wrote for english

- P.S. I really think the religious allegories in lotf are super interesting, so I decided to base my argumentative on them.

In Hebrew, the direct translation of the term ‘lord of the flies’ is Baal Zebub. In Greek, Beelzebub. Regarding Christian Mythology and the New Testament, Beezlebub is referred to as the prince of demons and a figure of Gluttony, chaos, and destruction; moreover, Beezlebub is even considered another name for Satan himself. William Golding’s choice of title for his novel Lord of the Flies–considering the derivation and linking of it to the themes Golding presents–steers and allows readers to observe the book through a religious lense that reveals more parables than they would get analyzing it at face value. The plot may appear very straightforward, but the descent to entropy and its catalysts aren’t simply just developing conflicts. Rather, it’s a combination–that of the circumstances interweaved with religious ideologies and the “ancient, inescapable” nature of mankind. The veridical reason the boys’ island falls apart is because of the human sin inherent in man (Golding 138).

Lord of the Flies explores the defects of humanity within society and the ethics of morality by forcing mankind (the boys) to start completely from scratch–strip it of everything it knows and allow a renew. When given this chance, marooned on a deserted island, man reverts back to his instincts, what he essentially was born with. He commits violence, incentifies fear, and justifies his evilness. During an assembly when the boys are trying to determine the actuality of the ‘Beast’, Simon proposes the idea that there is one, but it is only them. Golding primarily foreshadows the theme of his book with Simon’s hypothesis, in addition to confirming it later on when Simon encounters the pig head that Jack and his hunters speared on a stick as an offering for the 'Beast’. The head speaks to Simon during his hallucination, “Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! … You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s a no go? Why things are what they are?” (Golding 143). The ‘Beast’ isn’t the pig head, the Lord of the Flies, or even the Devil–it’s the manifestation of humankind’s wickedness, which is ineliminable . The ‘Beast’ is simply just an entity on the island, a rationale for the sins the boys enact on, much like the same way the adults and soldiers–the very reason the boys end up on the island in the first place–justify their violence by stamping ‘war’ on it.

In an attempt to fully illustrate the fall of a unified civilization and its cause, Golding writes Lord of the Flies as a catalog of human sin, checking off each of the Seven Deadly Sins by exhibiting them through the boys. The children demonstrate Sloth when they refuse to be responsible (e.g. build huts, keep the fire lit, use the restroom properly). Jack experiences Envy for Ralph because he’s chief and he isn’t. The use of terms relative to sexual intercourse during the graphic scene of the mother pig enduring death brought upon by Jack and his hunters depicts Lust. Jack’s Tribe, in a downward tumble of unprincipled ideals, portrays Gluttony–willing to sacrifice anyone and everything. Greed is characterized when Jack, despite already being chief, sends his group out on a manhunt to kill Ralph. Wrath is identified when the forest is set wholly ablaze to flush Ralph out and trap him like a pig. Pride when, without thinking about the consequences of achieving their pursuit, what would happen if they murdered Ralph and never got rescued by the naval officers. All chances of survival would’ve been obsolete and, besides water, the trees that were abundant in fruit and the pigs that were a source of protein would’ve been ash.

Contrasting to the showcase of the Seven Deadly Sins and man’s sin as a whole, Golding additionally displays his ‘hero’–notably more amiable–cast as the Four Cardinal Virtues, including an indisputably Christ-like character.

Simon, while also representing Prudence among the Four Cardinal Virtues, is primarily the only character in the novel–not accounting for the littluns–that doesn’t conduct any immoral acts in any of his appearings. He is benevolent, kind, and wise–giving his own food to Piggy when everyone is okay with letting him not eat, reassuring Ralph that he would get back home, and trying to tell everyone that the ‘Beast’ on the mountain is just a dead parachuter whilst they are too afraid to get a closer look. Tom Gaman, the actor for Simon in the 1963 film adaptation, had even said in the documentary Living Lord of the Flies that later in his life he realized he’d had “the best role,” having been “the good guy,” and therefore he “never carried any baggage into the world that directly related to Simon.” The way Simon dies is also very symbolic of Christ’s crucifixion, as he was speared to death as retribution for trying to do good. Simon can even be viewed as a sacrificial lamb, the doing away with bad–Jack stating that the ‘Beast’ had taken the form of Simon after he was killed–similar to how worshippers of God sacrificed animals as repentance in the Old Testament.

After Piggy is killed, Samneric join Jack’s tribe by force, and later on in the book, they as well rat out Ralph’s hiding space-although if they hadn’t, it would’ve been at the expense of their own lives. Samneric’s “betrayals” can be seen as deeds that contradict their entitlement to representing one of the Cardinal Virtues, but when Ralph is essentially exiled and they are on guard duty at Castle Rock, they feed Ralph and warn him of the manhunt to come the following morning. Samneric demonstrate Fortitude–show that despite all, they stand firm in the face of adversity.

Throughout the novel, many of the boys view Piggy as the whiner–and granted he is a bit of a complainer, most of his gripes are justified and rather intelligent. While he may not be physically nifty, Piggy assists in practical, logical problems, takes care of the littluns, and serves as an advisor for Ralph. Even though Piggy’s not afraid to speak his mind, he still displays great patience–representing Temperance–all the way up to his death.

Ralph, the evident protagonist of the book, is a very strong character with a strong sense of righteousness. He is picked as chief in the first assembly, empowers the idea of civilization and order, and never truly loses sight of the idea of rescue. After Simon is murdered and Ralph speaks to Piggy, he says “that was murder,” and when Piggy tries to rationalize Simon’s death with the mass terror, Ralph argues that he “wasn’t scared” (Golding 156). At the very end of the novel Ralph mourns for “the end of innocence, the darkness of a man’s heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy” (Golding 202). Because Ralph experiences these feelings–because he acts the way he acts, he embodies Justice.

[carrotstache]

{ Note: I am not Christian/Catholic, and my knowledge is limited. This is not meant to be a well written analysis, but merely to make connections and my own interpretations. }

There's a lot of religious imagery in GSGW, and I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what they allude to or represent. Particularly what prophet Soleum is. I won’t go into untranslated chapters, because mtl can be quite confusing and I am very slow at reading raws... I will talk about things up to chapter 144 though.

Contains spoilers for the novel below.

Let’s begin with the most direct connections, in Hell Surcharge Taxi each driver represent one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse with their different conversational interests:

Conquest: Olympics, elections, pets, games, social media.

War: War, mafia, action movies, vampire legends, firearms.

Famine: Fine dining, farming, economic recessions, slum tourism, luxury goods.

Death: The afterlife, religious experiences, pandemics, mass murders, ☐☐☐.

They serve as symbols of the end times in apostle John’s revelation.

In The Story Usurper, the Church of the Luminous Unknown also notably works towards the apocalypse and believe that by, “[cultivating] and becom[ing] a meaningful existence in the world, they [will] be chosen by ‘Ireum-nim’”. Similarly to the sacrificial lamb in the book of Revelation, cultists are willing to sacrifice themselves to be pure, worshipped and honourable.

Now, Kim Soleum is symbolically and literally said to be a prophet in canon. Even if Soleum acted a false one in the Tamra Express (which happens consecutively after Story Usurper), when compared to prophet Daniel from the bible he shares stark similarities. Prophet Daniel had the ability to interpret dreams and visions. In Soleum’s case, the wiki entries are his visions. Through his sparse prior knowledge of darknesses, he's able to save many from dying. When Daniel was young he was taken captive and formed to leave his home to a foreign land, likewise Soleum was transported to another world not out of his own volition. Furthermore, we know very little about both Daniel and Soleum’s family.

When comparing characteristic attributes, Daniel was known to use his unique divine insight to wisely guide policy and governance as kings’ advisor. He was the moral and ethical standard, and reminded kings of their accountability to a higher authority (God). Additionally, his crisis management skills and clear communication underscored the imminent fall of Babylon and the king’s consequences, as well as the kingdom’s upheavals and threats. Daniel was also described as calm, rational and upheld integrity in the face of danger.

Doesn’t that all sound a little familiar? Soleum’s calmness, leadership skills, was integral to everyone’s safety and thinks logically with knowledge of what others can’t see. Moreso, Daniel was distressed when he witnessed the visions, much like Soleum’s fear of what darknesses are capable of.

In Daniel 1:8-16, Daniel was to be offered royal food and wine by the king yet he refused. To prove that he wouldn’t look worse than other young men his age, Daniel told the guard to test the king’s servants for 10 days and see if he could still look fine and healthy with just vegetables and water. After 10 days, he was described to look more nourished and healthy than the young men who ate the royal food. The reason he refused such an offer however, was because eating food sacrificed to idols beforehand would be an insult to God.

I personally think this story is similar to Braun’s Late Night Talk Show, where Braun offered food and wine to Soleum who had not eaten for a month. While he did consume food and drink, the food felt no different from nostalgia candy. Yet, after eating the churros and throwing up black water, Soleum felt much better and was no longer contaminated. Like Daniel, Soleum no matter what maintained his beliefs whilst trying not to offend someone of a higher power like Braun. Furthermore, it was important to hold a good relationship with Braun as his ‘advisor’ of sorts.

Moving on to a couple of visions Daniel had (need to wait for translations to make more connections), the first one was of four beasts (Daniel 7) who would wage war against the holy representing different nations. While not exactly four the amusement park had three mascots warring against each other, and with their land physically divided. Moreover, there are three organisations in the darkness records who have very different missions.

In Daniel 8, the vision of a rampaging ram with two horns was attacked and defeated by a goat who then grew four horns. One grew exceedingly greater than the rest, representing a future king who would desecrate the sanctuary and persecute the faithful. In the context of the story, it underlines the destructiveness of oppressive regimes. For GSGW, Viper certainly fits the description of someone who grew more dangerous after he let many die, as well being a goat. I think having thwarted Saheon’s ability to kill anyone with his own two hands, Soleum continuously delayed Viper’s development to destruction. Whether it was in conflict with the Church of the Luminous Unknown or himself, we do not know as of yet because his final exploration’s conclusion is not unrevealed. Also to note that in the bible snakes symbolise deception, danger and evil.

Matthew 25:31-46 represents goats as sinful and face judgement for failing to live according to God’s commandments, thus cursed to eternal fire and damnation. Additionally, it connected to Tamra Express wherein people were to atone for their sins, and face searing pain. However in chapter 91, it was implied that the surfing Daydream Inc. employee was Viper who (probably) lied about losing the mental defense ring that helped them survive the Tamra Express Disaster. Furthermore chapter 92 noted that the ring Soleum bought was placed on top of a, “cushion embossed with an intricate snake design.” I interpret this as Viper’s incredible stubbornness to survive, and refusal to become a sacrifice so others can atone their sins. As in the bible, goat sacrifices are something used in that manner.

Speaking of sacrifices, the final point I have is how Baek Saheon retorted Go Youngeon’s remark on how goats represent the devil, with how lambs are a symbol of sacrifice in chapter 42. While gorals are closer to goats actually, I think Youngeun’s strong desire to live and work at Daydream metaphorically says that she does not want to be relegated to a mere sacrifice for someone else. Sacrificing lambs was a gesture of appeasing God, to ensure that the one who presented it is seen as faithful. However, if the sacrifice had thoughts and feelings, what would they think?

Anyways, that’s all I have for now. There are more I could connect to Daniel’s revelation, but I need something more coherent than mtl haha. Thank you for reading all the way to the end, I’m grateful to those who read all the way. I most definitely missed some things, so if you have anything to add feel free.

Also, if you want to read my thoughts on Saheon as a #Saheonist, I made a long post about him too.