#but it's the most benevolent that has ever existed and ever will. no society has ever been perfect and christian have still dealt with tons

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

I see that usage of the term "toxic masculinity" has waned in the last 3 years. Thanks God it's finally dying. People just aim that word at anything that isn't some super soft a$$ crap.

[thatsmybook]

From @/wilmonism on twitter: "what i love the most about wilmon getting a fairy tale-y ending is that young royals is an anti-fairy tale. the prince loves a boy, the commoner doesn’t become a prince, being part of the monarchy is not sold as the ideal life, yet they get to have their happily ever after"..."it adds to the message of the show, how monarchies oppress those inside and (especially) under it. if you want a happy ending, the last place where you’ll find it is there"

Fairytales sold to us as children about monarchies is what keeps us fascinated with them and their right to exist despite our logic telling us we should have evolved away from them. But there are real people in them, they don't disappear when we turn away from them.

(Edited to add): monarchies still perpetuate the idea of hierarchy, that some humans are superior to others. They are anti-equality. Though royal families themselves may be benevolent and serve the country, they set up underneath them an aristocracy that has no duty to the people, but all the privilege and innate values of supremacy. They have few checks and balances to their behaviour. These people become the heads of institutions in our societies and govern how people are treated. Vincent's character and everything he says in the show is an example of this.

[qqueenofhades]

Extremely stupid and contradictory question that I still want an answer to, but what is it that makes people want a dictatorship with progressive values?

For that matter, why is it that nearly all dictatorships are so fundamentally built on conservative/authoritarian ideals and values?

Why doesn't genuinely good values ever end up being the core value that gets enforced with ruthless brutality instead of people twisting themselves into knots to justify always sinking to the worst possible impulses built on hatred?

Is decency just fundamentally anathema to it?

This is one of those questions where you're actually asking several different things at once, and it will take a lot of work for me to explain and contextualize everything that you're looking for. However, I do think this is important to understand, so I'll give it a shot.

First, if I may point out, you've answered a bit of your own question when you ask "why don't genuinely good values ever end up being enforced with ruthless brutality?" I think it's fair to say that if your values were actually good or something that would broadly benefit the lives of most people, they would not need to be enforced with ruthless brutality. This is the case regardless of which ideology your totalitarian dictatorship is built on; i.e. conservative Christian fascism or left-wing old-school communism/People's Republics. Because a dictatorship, no matter which values it claims to use to justify itself, never exists to benefit people. A dictatorship exists to vest supreme power in one person or system and totally disenfranchise everyone else, and it is not, regardless of what some people on the internet in 2023 seem to think, a tool of social justice. Marginalized groups who have a hard time in a traditionally white/culturally Christian Western democracy will nonetheless have an orders of magnitude worse time under a dictatorship, as will everyone else. It is not something you should wish for under any circumstances, and also represents a naïve Western privilege where, having grown up with the unpleasant consequences of late-stage capitalism, people go for the fallacy that old-school communism must be better! Except it isn't, and when you totally blow over and ignore the objections of people who actually grew up under those regimes and warn you that they're not so great, you're just straight-up projecting and wishful thinking. It has nothing to do with reality or history or what anyone should aspire to.

The idea has existed in human society for thousands of years that if you can just get a "benevolent dictator" or "merciful autocrat," who can be trusted to rule with supreme power, do what's right for everyone, and get rid of the messy and flawed process of representative democracy that never seems to quite fix society's biggest problems. However: this doesn't work, it has never worked, there have been countless wars fought over this question, and it would certainly never, ever work in a setting as complex as the globalized twenty-first century. The Online Leftists who want Bernie Sanders, an old white man, to be their all-powerful dictator -- that is, uh, not the Social Justice Flex (tm) you think it is. And as noted, a dictator of any stripe is fundamentally anathema to actual progressivism or social justice, and anyone who loudly wants one (or thinks that the American president should act like one) is exposing both their profoundly immature understanding of the situation and a worrisome thirst for tyrannical despotism as long as it has "the right ideas." This has, again, caused countless wars and numberless deaths, because "the right ideas" will never be universal, universally agreed upon, or anything else, and if they're enforced with violence, you have -- again -- a dictatorship! It's not great!

In chaotic and uncertain times, people tend to want a "strong leader" who they can trust to just fix all their problems and relieve them from the burden of governance or worrying how things are going to work out. This was first articulated in modern Western political philosophy by Thomas Hobbes, who wrote his Leviathan in the mid-17th century during the English Civil War. Basically, his idea was that the people should democratically elect an absolute monarch/leader, who would then rule with an iron fist and retain supreme power, because they couldn't be trusted to govern themselves. (Hobbes is also where we get the pessimistic description of life being "nasty, brutish, and short.") Because things are bad right now, people likewise tend to want an absolute monarch of either right or left political persuasion, but these are both very bad options and should be equally resisted.

Democracy is flawed, imperfect, slow, cumbersome, and contradictory. It can be badly hijacked and corrupted (as we've seen in the last few years) by money, misinformation, bad-faith actors, and more. It is also still always, 100%, all-of-the-time preferable to a dictatorship. People still fall for the idea that having an absolute monarch who just "makes things happen" right away without the cumbersome apparatus of congresses or senates or supreme courts of judges would be "better," and totally ignore the massive and systemic disenfranchisement it would impose on everyone else. Especially in our current misogynist white-supremacist homophobic etc. system; the dictator WOULD be a rich white dude and let's not even pretend otherwise. Even if he made a play at being "progressive," it would not be true and it would not last. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. etc. I do not want a dictatorship. I do not want to live in a dictatorship. I don't care what Good Intentions (tm) anyone has, because I think that anyone who wants to be a dictator or to live under a dictatorship has a very different idea of Good Intentions than I, or indeed most sane people, do. The end.

Yes, America is a deeply flawed country. Yes, it is built on systemic and ongoing racial and cultural white-settler-colonial genocide. However, where modern leftists struggle the most is the idea that two things can be true, because they're so deeply sunk into black-and-white, zero-sum thinking where if one thing is true, it rejects all the others. If we have a flawed democracy, the solution is to fix that democracy, not to just throw it out the window and cavil for an absolute monarch. You can be fiercely critical of America's imperialist actions, unnecessary wars, racist violence, and everything else while also realizing that if the first and oldest presidential democratic republic in existence was dismantled or turned into a fascist autocracy, it would be absolutely terrible for many, many countries around the world, and humankind in general. You do not have to subscribe to the nonsensical, navel-gazing tankie "logic" that America is the only country with (evil) agency ever, and everyone else in the world is just its helpless pawns. You do not have to subscribe to the idea that any work within the system, or accepting basic political realities, makes you a "bootlicking neoliberal shill" or whatever they're using to insult anyone who doesn't just live in their distorted bubble of self-righteous ignorance. You don't!

As I always say, the only people who really want a dictatorship are those who know that their ideas aren't popular enough to win a free and fair election, but think they "deserve" to be in power anyway, because etc. etc. My Ideas Are Better! (Spoiler alert: they are not.) This is the same whether it's the Republicans trying to outlaw elections or the Online Leftists who sanctimoniously refuse to engage with the civic process because it's "contaminating" for their Pure Ideas to make any compromise with reality. And yet those so-called progressives are utterly dependent on us Normie Liberals who actually vote against the rabid fascists, and are (just barely) holding the line. Because yes, in a liberal democracy, they do have the right to be sanctimonious, useless, toxic, holier-than-thou ideologues who sit on their asses and contribute nothing to the actual dirty process of change. But if the Normie Liberals haughtily refused to vote in the same way the Online Leftists do, the fascists WOULD be in complete control by now, and trust me, it would be grim.

To be frank, I think most, if not all, of what calls itself "Western leftism" has categorically and completely failed as a moral, political, or practical opposing force to right-wing fascism. Much of it is dependent on savagely backbiting even those people who already agree with you, refusing to take basic steps to enact change even incrementally (i.e. voting), and attacking the establishment liberal party, i.e. the Democrats in America, while vocally supporting foreign dictatorships as long as they're "anti-American" or ancestrally "socialist." We've seen the utter failure of Western leftists at developing a moral stance on Ukraine, a consistent opposition to Trump, or pretty much anything else that requires them to come down from their high horses and accept a more complex reality than their abstract purity tests or outright nonsensical clichés. And when you're attacking the Democrats nonstop and backing foreign dictatorships, that is, uh, pretty much the exact same thing that the fascist Republicans are doing. Which means both of these groups are profoundly and dangerously anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-intellectual, and anti-humanity. There's no way around it.

In short, so-called "progressives" want a dictatorship because they too have given up on democracy, don't believe that people at large are as "smart" as they are, and don't want actual praxis or the effort of making change within a flawed democracy. They subscribe instead to the magical thinking that an absolute monarch will instantly and benevolently fix everything, which has -- as noted -- been violently disproved over and over in human history, and they think that "leftism" consists of having the most "pure" views. They do not care about or actively deplore any idea of making compromises to put them into practice, they gain moral superiority by excluding more and more people to make a smaller and smaller in-group, they refuse to accept any information, history, or factual evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and they're just as angrily anti-intellectual as the worst Christian-fascist-nutjob-right-winger, because reality has a bad habit of being complicated and not fitting into neat boxes. And if you think, as I do, that it would be a very, very bad idea to trust these mean, vindictive, constantly-want-to-punish-everyone-who-is-not-exactly-like-them people with absolute power, then you'll have to move to the idea of accepting that for all its flaws, democracy is still the best and most just system we have yet invented for governing ourselves, and the idea is to fix ours, not get rid of it entirely. So yeah.

[sagelasters]

i wrote a little bit of my family's lore in my dr, wanted to share!

乾 - House Qian (refers to Heaven)

A powerful noble house that existed in the middle to late Qing dynasty, greatly favored by the Imperial family for their beauty and intelligences; hence why there’s been many generations of family members being royal advisors, and swordsmen. The Qians family crest is a qilin (a legendary hoved chimerical creature), the qilin soars the heavenly skies and is a symbol of benevolence, indicator of a virtuous ruler. 

The Qian follows a matriarch as baby girls are rare and is often the beacon of good omen. So far there has only been three women that ever existed before me in the lineage. I have yet to name them and to be honest, I’ll let my subconscious worry about that. The first Qian woman was so loved by the Emperor that he appointed her as Empress (even after his death), the common folks spoke kindly of her and she reigned for a long time. The Second Qian woman was ambitious and rebellious, daring to compete for a higher education in a patriarchal society, she was the pioneer of mathematics and science; greatly known for her intelligence and used her power and influence to build schools for younger girls. She was also considered a prophetess who foresaw the future and warned her father to move out of the country – months later the Cultural Revolution started in China. The Qian survived the purging while other noble houses who stayed faced severe persecutions and had their properties confiscated. The Third Qian woman became the first US female president who weeded out the corruption in all of the government classes. 

Traditionally, the oldest woman is appointed as heiress – if there’s no daughters, the most capable son of the family is allowed to take the throne. The Qian’s motto is ‘the sun shines for all’ and they normally name their daughters after the sun and stars too. Although The Qian is also generous, giving half of their wealth to charities and aid across the world. They greatly believed that the powerful are there to protect, and not to instill fear – money should be passed around and not be hoarded. 

[nataly-gt]

somethin that gets my g/t brain going is the idea of myths/fables about giants in a fantasy kingdom. legends of great monsters being told through the generations, instilling fear in the children but being mostly disregarded by the adults because - well - giants aren't actually real, right? ideally, it would be a world where there's a prominent line separating magic and human society, and most mythical creatures are thought to be extinct.

i imagine this kingdom/town is positioned near this great wilderness, and often hears of stories of monsters, but no one there has ever seen one for themselves in possibly centuries. so there's this consensus that these evil giants generally don't exist, or if they had, are long gone.

still, the youth of that community entertain the fables as truth. and then one day, one of them sets out to explore the wilderness. things go downhill fast, and they're attacked by all sorts of vicious monsters, maybe even injured. as they get cornered, they cry for someone to help them, and then... the monster is thrown aside by a great force, revealing the mountainous form of their worst nightmares: an actual giant!

i'm obsessed with the initial terror of that realization, that this powerful being that's been hyped up to be evil for so long is actually real, and the tiny is now completely at their mercy. all the preestablished fear from the rumors, stories, nightmares, is at the forefront of their mind!

but as it turns out, this giant is benevolent and so caring, and only wants to help the young human return to their home. they are patient beyond measure with the human and eventually establish trust. then the giant reveals they spend their time surveying the wilderness to prevent monsters from attacking the town, and have been doing so for decades. unfortunately, they've been labeled as a monster by those who've seen them, and avoid directly interacting with humans because of that :(

the human feels so guilty for being afraid, but is grateful to be provided with so much protection and reassurance. and then they return home and no one believes them! their days continue uneventfully, in peace, - until one day a wagon sized bootprint appears in the mud...

[maspers]

Bionicle is weird yall

Okay so let's talk Bionicle. The Lego action figures with surprisingly deep lore and themes, and basically one of the coolest things to ever exist. You either love Bionicle or have not read Bionicle.

Who's your favorite? Mine has got to be Kopaka. For various reasons, including his general competence throughout the whole story. He's just pretty rad.

Now, you might be surprised I like Kopaka, since all things considered he's kind of a prick. He snarks at basically everything that enters his line of sight, and largely acts kind of stuck up due to his (admittedly justified) belief that he's the smartest person around. He spends the entire story fed up with everything else. He is completely and utterly convinced that he is the only sane person in the entire universe, and that nothing in the entirety of Mata Nui is behaving in a logical and rational way.

But see, here's the thing: all of that bluster about being the only rational thing around is complete bullcrap and lies, and here's why:

Kopaka, like all the original six Toa, is an amnesiac. He popped out of a magic canister in the ground and basically has no backstory to speak of since before he woke up he essentially didn't exist. And we know he's not a possible exception to this since, unlike the other Toa, he's the one we actually see it happen to. He has legit no idea who he is until Nuju tells him. What this means is simple: KOPAKA HAS NO FRAME OF REFERENCE. You can't judge something to be insane if you have not experienced sanity. Nothing is "irrational" in the abstract, you need context. Most people have extremely well-developed context obtained by living, but since Kopaka had not yet lived until he woke up he has NONE OF THAT.

And even if he did, he'd still be a massive hypocrite. Sure, the Matoran society and the Makuta are kind of weird, but Kopaka is a TOA, and Toa are a whole new kettle of craziness. Kopaka is a magic space warrior robot with the power to control the very concept of THIS STUFF IS COLD. His face is a magic mask that grants him X-ray vision and then gets even more powers later on. He can physically combine with other Toa to create a weird mega fusion Toa. Heck, after his first upgrade his primary weapon was skis. SKIS. He basically shapeshifts into a new body every time he goes somewhere else. And, as noted before, he legit just popped out of the ground one day, which makes him and his sibling Toa objectively weirder than all other Toa ever, since all the rest are transformed Matoran. Kopaka's entire existence is really freaking weird. He has no legs to stand on in his "I am the only rational being in the universe" belief. So where the heck did he get it from?

The simple answer: Mata Nui himself. When designing the Toa to act as a sort of internal anti-virus for all the weird garbage in his system, Mata Nui decided "You know what let's make the Ice one a prick who thinks he's sane" and somehow that idea perpetuated to the very end of the design process. The only reason Kopaka has to deal with everything else seeming completely bonkers to him is because Mata Nui, massive benevolent Troll that he is, *made him that way*. I bet when Kopaka finally made it to Bara Magna he was probably internally extremely relieved, because now he could judge the Agori by comparing them to the Matoran and vice versa instead of judging the Matoran on no actual justification whatsoever.

TLDR Kopaka is my favorite Bionicle because the entire premise of his personality is absurd and he probably spent the entire plot trying to internally justify it. Also ice powers go brrrrr

[mask131]

Greek mythology talk... About the incompatibility of modern sensibilities with Ancient Greek mentality.

Don't worry no rape or sexual talk. We'll do something more joyful... DEATH!

I want to talk about Thanatos, and about how the treatment of this personification in modern media reflects a fundamental fracture between modern mindset (well... modern American mindset let's be honest) and Greek mythology.

There has been a recent streak of interpretations of Thanatos as a fair deity, in all the senses of the term. Beautiful, needed, just, benevolent or neutral. And that Thanatos would be interpreted in such a way is very logical and... yeah kind of needed. We are currently living (or we have lived) a strong cultural shift when it comes to Death - where fiction has done its best efforts to destroy our fear of death, make us accept or embrace it in various way. We have gone through a lot of Death personifications that are all about being respectable or charming or funny or honorable entities: Pratchett's Reaper, Gaiman's Death of the Endless, Guillermo del Toro's Angel of Death, etc, etc... We are living in a culture that works to make Death a neutral principle, a force of nature beyond morality, or a benevolent and pleasant though grim and sad thing. Again, it is something we do need after millenia of us mortals being taught to fear and escape our own mortality, and this same fear or disgust of death causing us to do all sort of horrible things.

That being said... While it makes sense that such a way of thinking would be reverberated onto the Greek Thanatos, it poses a big problem. Thanatos was never meant to be a benevolent, fair or even just entity. That's actually a counter-interpretation of the Ancient character. And that's what I mean by how modern mindset has a hard time grasping the ideologies and philosophies behind the Greek myths.

Ancient Greek society was one of the main reasons behind Europe's fear of death. It is one of the roots of the "death is evil" mindset. And not accepting this is not just denying a reality, but also completely misreading the ancient myths. The Greeks feared death - and as such Thanatos is considered and called a "dreaded" deity, because all the gods associated with mortality were supposed to be terrifying. The same thing goes with Hades: he who must not be named, he who must not be seen. And unlike Thanatos Hades is actually a fair and honorable god - but still he was feared and avoided precisely because he is associated with and rules over death, which itself is a negative principle. Talk about death, you attract death (out of a superstitious mindset) and the Greeks would avoid that at all costs - for their main goal and ideal in life was to live. Remember: eternal life, immortality, was the purest and most perfect form of existence ever (hence why the gods are superiors to mortals). Death was never seen as pleasant or seducing in any way.

More than that: Death was filth. It is something typical of many Ancient societies, but the Greeks had it going VERY strongly. When someone died, it soiled the place and the people. Hence why there was a need for purification. Hence why murderers were more likely to be cursed and banished than rapists for example. Death was filth, a disease, a stain, something foul and vile, which needed to be cleansed. And the mere idea of the dead returning to the world of the living was one of the worst case scenarios ever - which is why Hades' threat in the Persephone myth was taken so seriously. It would not just be an "upset of the balance", it would be the end of humanity because the mere SIGHT of the dead returned would cause the living to go crazy of fright or die of terror or be broken out of shere repulsion. And it would soil the living world forever...

All of that to say: Thanatos, the embodiment of death, was not in Greek mentalities a good guy. There has been a long talk about "Let's un-demonize Hades", I myself participated in this talk, and I couldn't agree more. We cannot ignore that Hades was a feared, dreaded god that was avoided and recognized as a sinister force - but he was not evil, not a bad guy, not a Greek equivalent of the devil. He was just a neutral force of nature, someone performing a dirty but needed task, and someone who we feared because of what he could unleash and thanked for not unleashing this. He was feared and avoided, but the same way a prison warden or an executioner tends to be treated - we don't want to hang out with those people, but when they do their job by the law we thank them for being here. (Well for the executioner, it's debated depending on if you are for or against death penalty but that's another story)

Thanatos on the other hand... Its bad. Thanatos is not fair. Thanatos is not neutral. Thanatos is not just "acting by the law". Thanatos is a deity that is dreaded by all living beings and that terrifies them - and for a good measure! Thanatos is supposed to be all the darkness and horror and ugliness and violence and filfth of death combined into one person. It is Hades that maintains the order and the balance: not Thanatos. In several texts we have Thanatos described as an enemy of humankind, as an entity who delights in ending lives, as a god who enjoys more his job when he gets to kill young people, as an entity who sees his job as a privilege and will never let a mortal escape him without a good fight. Why does Zeus, when he wants to offer a peaceful and glorious end to his son Sarpedon, seds both Hypnos and Thanatos to him, not just Thanatos? Because, the text precises it as such - Hypnos is the one who is "painless". Aka, Thanatos is the pain. Death is a suffering in the Ancient Greek mindset, and this suffering is named Thanatos. Without Hypnos by his side to soothe his evil and veil his brutality, Thanatos only brings horrible diseases and brutal murders and vicious disasters. To die peacefully "in one's sleep"... That's Hypnos, not Thanatos.

And it isn't just Thanatos - he is affiliated with the Keres. And everybody forgets the poor Keres... Thanatos is sometimes described as drinking the blood of funeral sacrifices, making him look like a gruesome vampires. This is because the idea of a death as a bloodthirsty-vampire was typical of Ancient Greece - and can be found back within the Keres. These female spirits were in charge of death on battlefields and during wars - they were the female counterparts of Thanatos, the embodiment of brutal murders and death by weapons and manslaughter. And they were depicted as Erynies-like entities, a mix of vampires, frightening ghosts and corpse-eating birds, with an horrifying appearance, who terrified all those that saw them, and who spent their time ripping away bodies and drinking the blood of the living.

All of that to say, the embodiments of Death in Ancient Greece were deeply unpleasant. It was horror entities, and the "rehabiliation" of Thanatos does not answer the same questions and needs as the rehabiliation of Hades in modern perception of Greek mythology.

I want to insist that I do understand, and I accept and I can agree with a reading of Thanatos as a beautiful, fair, just or benevolent entity. Either as a subversion of Ancient Greek mythology (and it is not because we need to be better taught about the source material that we can't do subversions fit to modern days), either as a simple continuation of our own modern culture. Because we do have an entire aesthetic of the "beautiful Angel of Death" (or the "beautiful Lady Death"), AND we do live in a world where the arts and the philosophies rely on a multi-continental idea that Eros and Thanatos are a couple, a duo, twins. As such, making Thanatos a "dark Eros" is defendable, logical, expected.

But the problem still stays that the idea of Eros and Thanatos as a couple could NOT have existed within Ancient Greece, and this is something that needs to be understood. Eros and Thanatos had nothing to do in Ancient Greece. Aphrodite did not belong to the Underworld. The twins were Hypnos and Thanatos, sons of Nyx the Night. As such, if you want to do something truly faithful to the Ancient Greek mythology, you will need to do Thanatos as a petty, stubborn, evil, wicked, ugly, terrifying, horrifying thing - on various degrees and nuances.

It does not mean one needs to stick to this idea, of course, people can do anything they want in the end cause if we were bound by millenia-old tales when it comes to modern retellings we wouldn't have anything new or creative today... However I do strongly believe that people should be aware and recognize that having a "fair Thanatos" is in itself a subversion and reinvention of the Ancient Greek myths, and is not at all faithful to the Ancient Greek worldview in any way. "Fair Thanatos" can exist, and has existed for a very long time... But to pass it off as the "real" or "original" Thanatos of the Ancient Greeks is a misinformation and a lie. The Ancient Greeks hated and feared death. They thought it was filthy and ugly and disgusting and repulsive. And it might be hard to accept for us today, since we know that death is just a neutral thing and unescapable part of the cycle of life and how the world works... But that was the Greek mindset and the Greek worldview essential to understing Greek mythology - the same way we have to accept that the Greeks believed all waters came from the Ocean which was not an ocean but a gigantic river surrounding the world, or that we have to accept that the Greeks believed Black people were black because they lived in lands devoid of night and thus had their skin burned by the endless sun.

It clashes with our modern knowledge and sensibilities and morals, but if we do not know and inform ourselves about these fact that were basics and fundamentals for Ancient Greek poetry and culture, we will completely misread the Ancient Greek myths.

[silverloreleysfanfics]

Yet another idea for a TTEOTM fanfic I'll never come around to write.

Roleswap fic!

Cang Jiumin is a cultivator, the adopted son of Master Zhaoyou. His world has been on literal fire because of the Phoenix Demoness Li Susu, daughter of the Ancient Devil God's Lieutenant Di Mian who managed to snatch the Evil Bone along with the Sky-Slashing Sword when the Devil God fell. Even if Di Mian was trapped in the Barren Abyss, he managed to free himself and found his daughter's egg, powering her with the Evil Bone's power he corrupted Li Susu's original pure nature, turning her into the Phoenix demoness who brought destruction upon the world ever since she hatched.

When Li Susu decides to attack the Immortal Sects to obtain their artifacts, she and Cang Jiumin clash for the first time, and she seems to recognize him somehow, much to his confusion. She attacks him anyway, but he's protected by Ming Ye's dragon scale and able to access to the Mirror of the Past's power.

This leads the elder Immortals to believe he must have some godly ancestry or protection and can use the relic. As such, Zhaoyou entrusts Cang Jiumin with the task of going back in time to make sure Li Susu won't be corrupted by demonic power.

Now, he finds himself in the body of Tantai Jin, Ye Xiwu's husband, and here I have two routes:

The past background is the same: Tantai Jin is the hostage prince of Jing who managed to marry the favourite daughter of the Pillar General of Sheng, Ye Xiwu is vicious and shows every possible bad trait that will lead to her easy demonization, so he has to try to awaken her best feelings so she can learn to love the world and respect others.

Tantai Jin is the favourite prince of Jing, even though he was born the son of a concubine. When he brought an end to the long-time war against Sheng thanks to his wit, he was ordered to marry Ye Xiwu, daughter of the Pillar General of Sheng, to consolidate his power in the foreign land where he's staying as regent (basically, his father let him have Sheng to compensate the fact he can't get the throne of Jing due to existence of his older, legitimate brothers). Obviously, Ye Xiwu hates him, is spoiled, and all the drill.

which is actually 2.1: Tantai Jin is the favourite prince of Jing who is friend with Xiao Lin and his marriage to Ye Xiwu was wanted to ensure a more lasting peace (like in his dream in ep 4). Ye Xiwu, who thinks Tantai Jin will never get the throne due to the existence of his older and legitimate brothers other than the fact he has a reputation of being weak and meek, despises him and the marriage.

Plot 1 would retrace some steps from canon, with Cang Jiumin having to try to elicit pity and affection from the tyrannical Ye Xiwu from his disadvantaged place as a hostage prince and unwanted husband. The moment he transmigrates is when he dies kneeling on the frozen lake, he's "saved" by the benevolence of Grandmother Ye.

Plot 2 would require some more imagination and delve into palace matters and politics (which are not my expertise) but would make a more novel plot.

In any case, they should come around to discover a few things about each other:

Ye Xiwu's life was not as nice as it looked, despite being the only legitimate daughter and most spoiled, in fact, she was always overshadowed by Ye Bingchang ever since she stole Pian Ran's Love threads. Ye Xiwu genuinely loved Xiao Lin and had her heart broken by his indifference, other than the fact Ye Bingchang used her newfound influence to push her sister out of society.

Tantai Jin is a tribulation of Cang Jiumin (like YXW was LSS), but he's not the Devil Fetus here. Instead, he's the lost son of Ming Ye and Sang Jiu, who she lost without even knowing she was pregnant when she saved Ming Ye the last time in the Ruo River (hence why he was born from Concubine Ruo)

Ming Ye drags them into the Bo're Life to show YXW who her father really is like (Di Mian did kill Chu Huang after all, which he lied to LSS about), and also the risk of allowing herself to demonize like Sang Jiu did. For his son, he wanted him to know the real story and see his mother, but also apologize and warn him not to make his same mistakes of being too cold and distant with the woman he loves, along with the hint to the presence of the Evil Bone in LSS and the need to replace it with an Immortal Marrow.

After their deaths (which will depend on how the plot develops) Cang Jiumin comes back to his life in Xiaoyao sect and is surprised to find that Li Susu is now a new disciple of Qu Xuanzi, leader of Hengyang sect.

This could be the end... or not.

[serialreblogger]

the thing about the joker

is that - well, even canonically, he’s not actually “insane.” in the most canonical version of his backstory (bc there are many conflicting incarnations, but this one is the touchstone for a lot of later canon), he was part of a street gang before falling into a vat of Nondescript Toxic Waste that damaged his melanin production and That’s It. he supposedly “lost his mind” after seeing his reflection, which is absurd on many levels. no. he’s not “insane.” what he is, is an angry white boy.

the thing about the joker is that he exults in his own uncontainability. He laughs, because all of gotham - all the world - is built to be his playground. the only lunatic thing about him is the lunacy of ~Society~, to borrow from the joker’s own playbook; the lunacy of the joker lies in the world that grants him power: in the inheritance of loss: in white privilege, and what it means for everyone else.

“to prove a point.” those were the joker’s exact words, when he shot and paralyzed Barbara Gordon. she asked why: he laughed. “to prove a point.”

because that’s all he ever does. he hurts people because he can. and because all the power in the world can’t save him from getting hurt - and isn’t that just peachy?

because the thing about the joker is that he can get hurt. he has been hurt. but he has so much more capacity to harm than to be harmed. he is immortal. he and he alone will never have to face the consequences of the hurt that he inflicts on other people.

so then: why not hurt them? misery loves company, after all.

the joker is the embodiment and end result of our own social system: the madness of the exception: the laughter of the white man: the imprecation to smile, as he kills you.

(no one ever says it, i find, but it’s still true: barbara deserves to kill him.)

and who, then, is the batman? if the joker is the yin to his yang? if they’re two sides of one irredeemable coin, if they represent the “balance” of an unjustifiable system - who is he if not another white man?

because he is. Bruce Wayne is a white boy born into unspeakable privilege and forced to endure suffering anyway; who copes with his suffering by taking it out on others; who copes with his suffering, not by taking advantage of the world as it is, but by attempting to reshape it. to make it in his own image - as if it isn’t already his, as if claiming it further will crush out the pain.

the batman is the benevolent oppressor to the joker’s malevolent one. he changes nothing, in the end. two privileged white boys with their own respective navel-gazing grudges - where, after all, lies the difference between benevolence and malevolence?

because they are not “chaos” and “order.” not really. They are laissez-faire laughter and law. Joker exults in the disease of the system, Batman seeks to treat its symptoms, but neither of them will ever change anything about the root cause. because they may have suffered the faults of this system, but they still benefit so much more from it as it exists. Uphold it or break it, neither of them wants to change the law.

but the law is only as good as the people it’s made to protect. and who does that law protect, really?

waylon jones is, in one issue, explicitly depicted as Black. between that and his skin disorder, there has never once been room for his character to be any more than a monster: king croc is, always, a character to be violated and brutalized, over and over and over and still - always - written as the villain. (he tried so hard to scrape out a place for himself, so many times, in so many incarnations, and each and every time he finds himself relegated once more to the sewers. he will never be anyone’s king. there is no place under the sun for people like him.)

victor fries only ever wanted to save his wife, and a capitalist mogul decided a few extra numbers on his eight-digit paycheck were more important than the people whose lives depended on that money. fries’ body was damaged to disability by that choice, left without the resources to find a cure for his wife, and he robbed banks because there was no other option available to him. we seem to have forgotten, or maybe never really understood, why that matters. why a desperate man trying to save his life and that of his loved ones under the crushing gears of capitalism is a villain, and the one who stops him is our hero. why, under the law batman upholds, a bank vault and a CEO’s hoard is worth more than a life.

poison ivy just wants to live, too. wants a life not defined by the devastation of her body, of the beings that exist as extensions of her, a life where green and growing things are not commodities to be plowed up and poisoned and destroyed for the sake of another man’s profit. these are villains; they are written as such. these are their motives.

who does batman fight for, really? who is our hero, this emblem of our law?

is he our hero? ours, the broken and bleeding members of the world he claims to protect?

who does the law protect, except him - him, and the joker?

[karagin22]

Europe has gone, and Asia - surrendered to authoritarianism, nonsense like the 'leader principle', totalitarianism, all the bonds placed on liberty which treat men as so many economic and political units with no importance as individuals. No dignity - do what you're told, believe what you are told, and shut your mouth! Workers, soldiers, breeding units... A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and _nowhere_ else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world... aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure." From politics I have come to believe the following: (1) Most people are basically honest, kind and decent. (2) The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. The do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator. (3) Americans have a compatible community of ambitions. Most of them don't want to be rich but do want enough economic security to permit them to raise families in decent comfort without fear of the future. They want the least government necessary to this purpose and don't greatly mind what the other fellow does as long as it does not interfere with them living their own lives. As a people we are neither money mad nor prying. We are easy-going and anarchistic. We may want to keep up with the Joneses -- but not with the Vanderbilts. We don't like cops. (4) Democracy, or a Republic, is not an automatic condition resulting from laws and constitutions. It is a living, dynamic process, which must be worked at by you yourself -- or it ceases to be democracy, even if the shell and form remains. (5) One way or another, any government that remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way -- prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs. Hitler's government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their franchise. (6) Representative Democracy is the most efficient form of government ever invented by the human race. On the record, it has worked better in peace and in war than fascism, communism, or any other form of dictatorship. As for the mythical yardstick of 'benevolent' monarchy or dictatorship -- there ain't no such animal! (7) A single citizen, with no political connections and no money, can be extremely effective in politics. From Take Back Your Government - A Practical Handbook for the private citizen who wants democracy to work. By Robert A. Heinlein.

[stevensaus]

Godzilla Has A Cthulhu Problem (Review of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters)

Kaiju -- including Godzilla -- have a Cthulhu problem. At least, when it comes to Legendary's film "MonsterVerse" franchise. FYI: No spoilers that you can't get from seeing the trailers for "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters", "Godzilla vs. Kong," and "Godzilla x Kong: New Empire."

The early form of what became the Cthulhu Mythos {1} was, at its best, pure nihilistic cosmic horror. The Great Old Ones and Outer Gods penned by Lovecraft, Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, et al -- Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, and the rest -- are not merely big monsters, but effectively forces of nature that are not malevolent so much as completely indifferent to humanity. Rather like the way humanity regards, say, ants. And then came along August Derleth. Derleth's efforts were absolutely instrumental in preserving and maintaining these works. Derleth even coined the name "Cthulhu Mythos"! However, Derleth also added in his own stories, which altered the entire tone so much that his works are sometimes called the "Derleth Mythos" to emphasize the distinction. Derleth's Christian world-view muddied the cosmic horror elements, even going to far as to add quasi-benevolent entities that could oppose the existing amoral Great Old Ones.

This impulse is completely understandable -- nihilistic cosmic horror is intended to be deeply uncomfortable -- and has more than continued since Derleth's death. I'm just as guilty of this as anyone; right now, I have a crocheted Cthulhu plushie, wreath, and finger puppet all within my sight. That said, there is a CTHULHU SQUISHMALLOW, for crying out loud. By making the Great Old Ones into simply "the big bad guy" or something cute, it makes that horror comprehendable and manageable. Which completely undermines the entire point of the Mythos. Cosmic horror is not "there's a big critter out there that can eat me." Cosmic horror is the inescapable realization that the universe is a place so large, so vast, that we cannot possibly comprehend it. So large, so vast, that all of our mighty struggles and triumphs and defeats, every act of valor and courage and triumph and defeat, are as utterly unimportant as the fate of a single bacterium on a drop of water somewhere in the sea. That space beyond human understanding is also the space that Godzilla -- and other kaiju -- inhabit. Godzilla's roots are in Japan's trauma from nuclear weapons and a society trying to come to grips with this force that is so indiscriminately destructive. That trauma is a clear parallel to the horror that the Cthulhu Mythos conveys. Godzilla is a force of nature, fundamentally unknowable. You cannot reason with Godzilla; merely get out of its way and hope it does not notice you. The single best line in Godzilla (2014) knows this.

There is no way that humans can manage -- let alone defeat -- the kaiju. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe's character) knows this. The best he and humanity can hope for is that the kaiju that is least problematic for humanity wins. Not the one that is on humanity's side. The one that is least problematic. The distinction is vital. This is their world; we just happen to live on it.

This sensibility is perfectly done in the Apple TV series "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters". I initially approached it skeptically, but in ten episodes it manages to hit all of these notes perfectly well, solve most of the plot problems in the Legendary Godzilla franchise {2}, and got me to care about Monarch, the characters, the story, and even Godzilla itself. The plot is clever, the characters believable, and it is perhaps the best Godzilla story I have ever seen on screen. {3} "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters" is so good it even got me to forget the train wreck of "Godzilla vs. Kong" for a while. Then the day after the series finished, I saw the trailer for "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire". I have problems with counting Kong as a kaiju, even though Legendary seems hellbent on doing so. Kong -- unlike Godzilla or Cthulhu -- is not unknowable. While Kong is not able to be tamed or controlled, Kong is understandable. He -- like us -- is an ape. Even in the original, Kong is moved by empathy towards Fay Wray, though humanity (in the film) does not return the favor. But place him alongside Godzilla, and suddenly Kong is a stand in for humanity. Kong suddenly represents understanding and empathy and compassion and struggle and, eventually, triumph in the face of a nihilistic universe that does not care. By including Kong as a peer of Godzilla, the tone immediately shifts from cosmic horror toward action movie. "Godzilla vs. Kong" -- aside from not understanding either of these themes -- was overstuffed and underwritten, fumbling plot point after plot point in service of "oh, that'd look cool" without thinking about what would make it cool. I guess the difference is here: In the last episode of "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters," the plot builds in such a way that a final reveal hits, even though I knew it was coming. I knew it was coming early enough that I stood up and turned off the overhead light (it was glaring on the TV). My amour started to ask why, but I just said, "Wait." The reveal was glorious. It was fulfilling and satisfying while simultaneously evoking a sense of horrified awe. Nearly every episode of "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters" pulled that off. I did not get that feeling -- not once -- from "Godzilla vs. Kong." Regardless, the first minute of the trailer for "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" seemed to tack back toward that cosmic uncertainty, with a voice-over emphasizing the limits of human understanding. But then there is a shot of a cute mini-Kong, followed quickly by these lines of dialogue: "Kong can't face this on his own." "He won't be alone." And then this image of Godzilla and Kong doing the "superhero team-up dramatic run" toward an enemy.

The second trailer is worse, doubling down on dumb discredited ideas about "alphas", ignoring the work that "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters" did to make the Hollow Earth idea less stupid (largely by still calling it the "Hollow Earth"), and then giving us THESE lines: "Kong is going to need some help." "Godzilla is on its way."

Look, I get it. My inner five-year-old went "OOOH," because that's exactly the sort of thing I would have done with my toys when I was a kid. I understand the impulse that made Legendary want to pit two big critters against each other. I like seeing really cool visuals and effects. But it completely fails in the way that "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters" succeeds. Legendary's kaiju franchise -- at least, in films -- is a stuffed plush Cthulhu, filing all the uncomfortable and disquieting edges off in order to sell something more palatable. They are big, dumb movies that turn cosmic horror into action figures. Literally. Yes, it looks pretty. And the trailers use swelling, rising music to great effect to try to make these absolutely dumb things seem inspiring by confusing our limbic systems. Normally, I wouldn't care. I would just continue to not particularly worry about it the same way I've not worried about the live-action Transformers franchise for ... well, all of them since the first one. I'm not just out to yuck someone else's yum here. But damn "Monarch: Legacy of Monsters" for showing us how much better it could be. For being so damn good that it made me care just in time to be disappointed again. {1} Obligatory acknowledgement of the straight-up xenophobia and racism of Lovecraft, which is not the point here. {2} I've yet to see "Godzilla Minus One"; however, "Shin Godzilla" produced such a ludicrously funny-looking version of Godzilla that I cannot take that film seriously.

{3} John Scalzi's The Kaiju Preservation Society is near the top for non-filmed kaiju stories overall. HIGHLY recommended. Featured photo by Fabian Reus on Flickr under a CC-BY-SA license. Read the full article

[reborn-kaijuverse]

Baragon

Portrayed by Israel Juarbe

Of all the places on Earth, Skull Island seems to be the worst possible place for humanity to end up. This land of chaos and utter carnage is ruled by the most terrifying creatures Earth has ever wrought and would therefore wipe out any trace of humanity's existence on its surface within days of settlement. But the Skull Islands have been colonized by humanity at least twice, first with the ancient Paleolithic civilization known as Tagu and a second millennium later with the ancestors of the Atu, whose descendants are the Iwi and Kawa; all these tribes continue to this day. While the Tagu are fairly advanced societies that could probably defend their empire well enough from the horrors that lurked on the island, the Atu live a simple hunter-gatherer life, with hardly any weapons in their possession capable of warding off even predators. low level. The only reason why the Atus did not have to be wiped out from the island's surface is due to the intervention of some Kaiju who were worshiped as gods. The most prominent of these is Kong, whose mountain looms over Atu's village like the central outpost of a guardian deity, watching the Island for any sign of a threat to his home and his reign. But the titanic primate is not the only defender of the Atu, and in fact is considered one of the four monsters the Atu consider benevolent. Kong himself is considered "The Overseer", watching the lands and skies for threats to his home. The other three overlords are in charge of some other environmental region of the Skull Isles. There is "The Flooder", a beast of the waterways that protects the island against all aquatic threats. However, more relevant to this part of the story are the other two Titans, known as "The Guardians". It is their duty to rule over the underworld of the Island where they drive back the hordes of terrifying subterranean fauna, especially the voracious Skull Crawlers. His handiwork could be seen all over the Island in the form of winding tunnels below the surface and the great chasms and craters left in various geological features as if an extremely hot and powerful force cut through solid stone like paper. These two armored borrowers, along with the beast of the waterways and Kong, are considered the guardians of Atu (although Kong seems to have a larger presence in Atu culture) and have established territories over which they rule, just like everyone else. Alpha Titans that dwell in the depths of the Skull Islands. But while most of these forces of nature are content to live out their lives on this unique landmass, it seems one of the Guardians isn't comfortable doing the same. He has made forays far beyond the island limits before and has been seen on rare occasions on other human-inhabited landmasses. Outsiders know him by many epithets, but the Atu knows his true name. The youngest of the Guardians, the Prince of the Underworld: Baragon...

A prehistoric dinocephalian species, BARAGON belonged to a diverse group of clad, capable of many things, like one can form a protective frill around its neck to shield its head, and another can gather electricity and can turn invisible to the naked eye, but they are all known for what's best, digging. Like Rodan, the Baragon have a bio-volcanic physiology. They live underground, where they feed off of geothermal energy. They uses their large paws and red hot horn to burrow through the earth. Due to their high internal body temperature, they can breathe fire. Baragon are mostly docile, only attacking if provoked. Along with their gentle nature, many people find Baragon appealing due to their cute features. The species that he belongs are ambush predators, lurking below under the Earth, waiting to pounce at any unsuspecting prey, but they are also good parents and will defend their turf with any means necessary. Baragon is one of the earliest monsters that burst from the grounds of the earth.

In old legends, there were the Yamato Guardians, three benevolent Kaiju who protected Japan in ancient times. With special affinity for the terrestrial crust we walk upon, Baragon is physically one of the smallest Kaiju on record, but his connection to the rocks and magma beneath us empower him to achieve greatness on a par with his larger allies.  His small size makes him a tremendous leaper, with graceful aerial combat maneuvers and techniques. When not in the air, Baragon constantly replenishes his energy so long as contact is maintained with the earth. Baragon emits streams of fire from his mouth, and can cause eruptions and earthquakes beneath his feet.  When firmly planted with all four legs upon the ground, Baragon is almost impossible to push, despite his small stature.

1971: After being questioned by Monarch agents, American soldier Frank Wilson was being escorted to a different room when suddenly, rumble vibrations started to occur. Turns out to be caused by yet another monster, Baragon, wrecking havoc around the facility. Fortunetly, Monarch managed to subdue him and contained him along with Kamacuras, but for how long?

Baragon is a biolithic kaiju superbly adapted for a fossorial existence. His hide incorporates various strands of metamorphic and volcanic elements, making him extremely durable and heat-resistant. He is coated in a series of interlocking scales which may be derived from hair-like structures, similar to a pangolin, which allow for a greater degree of flexibility. They are also easily shed and replaced by new growths.

Baragon makes his way through solid stone and bedrock with the aid of his immensely powerful foreclaws and horn-like protrusion on his head. These are also wielded as effective weapons during fights with other kaiju, especially while charging. One of his only softer parts, his ears, seem to play a role in thermoregulation, and are normally folded tightly upon his face beneath his horn for protection. This does not impair his senses, as his eyesight is poor. Instead, he relies on heat-sensing pits along his snout as well as a form of echolocation generated from the horn, which may be akin to a cetacean’s melon. By sending infrasonic pulses through the ground, as well as passively detecting vibrations, Baragon is able to pinpoint targets and locations from many kilometers away.

Baragon is also able to generate large amounts of heat when agitated, and can transfer this heat across his body. This can manifest as a full-body aura of intense heat, which can be used to shake off and immolate smaller opponents and can be maintained for several minutes. A more precise variant of this ability channels the heat specifically into his claws and horn to inflict more damage to larger enemies. He also generates lava-like bile within his body, which burns with napalm-like intensity when vomited forth.

[elfwreck]

It’s so awful how bullying has come back in fashion especially on the internet and with young people like I can remember when I was being bullied growing up just for being in fandom or caring too much or being weird or whatever and for one second we thought that was over and now I have friends even just a year younger than me bullying entire groups of people like furries or older people in fandom or whatever and when I ask for an explanation they just go “oh it’s because some members of (1/2)

(2/2) the community are cringe or weird or creepy or whatever” and it’s like when did this become an excuse when did we regress so far in our society that it becomes okay to treat people like this and I went off social media maybe six months ago or something and I return every now and again just to check up on friends and I have no idea how I was ever on there people are just so mean anyways sorry this is just me rambling but yeah

Bullying has, unfortunately, always been in fashion. Harassing people who are different has always been a mainstream activity. What's come back is that it's easy - and the internet has become a "mainstream" place, instead of being mostly managed by outcasts who had sympathy for other outcasts.

Social platform providers have given up on preventing it - and often decided to penalize the targets if they complain.

It's an easy rut to get stuck in - there's something very validating about saying "X is fucked-up" and hearing a chorus of replies saying "yeah, it sure is!" And it can be hard to notice that the entire community is built around that dynamic, that they have no foundation of support or mutual appreciation or creative exchange; it's all just "sharing" memes about who they hate most right now.

It's a high-energy ride... until you find yourself sympathizing with one of the targets. Or until you realize you might be one of the targets, if anyone knew you well.

In communities that try to get away from that, they can wind up leaning too far into the "everyone be nice" goal and forbid criticism of anything, even the things that really are problems.

Sometimes they have a short list: It's okay to criticize people with some list of specific traits. But that winds up in the same place, eventually... because there is no list of traits or specific actions that make people Irredeemably Evil Forever, and eventually, someone notices that the "friendly" community is not morally superior to the hatefest; it just has fewer acceptable targets.

…I get along better with the "toxic hatefest" communities than the "we will be NICE TO EVERYONE except for THOSE SPECIFIC PEOPLE" communities. I've seen toxic hatefest communities get bored and start having serious discussions; I've never seen one of the others grow more benevolent over time.

"Each of us from the moment of his or her birth exists in an environment in which it is easy to do evil and hard to do good.... If I know somebody very well, in ten minutes, if I set my mind to it, I could perhaps say to them things so cruel, so destructive, that they would never forget them for the rest of their life. But could I in ten minutes say things so beautiful, so creative, that they would never forget them?"

[Bishop Kallistos Ware, in "Image and Likeness: An Interview with Bishop Kallistos Ware," ParaboaT, Spring 1985, pp. 62-71; on pp. 66-67.]

A community can't hate its way into being supportive and compassionate to the people who deserve care.

[the-framed-maelstrom]

We who have a different faith –, we who consider the democratic movement to be not merely an abased form of political organization, but rather an abased (more specifically a diminished) form of humanity, a mediocritization and depreciation of humanity in value: where do we need to reach with our hopes? – Towards new philosophers, there is no alternative; towards spirits who are strong and original enough to give impetus to opposed valuations and initiate a revaluation and reversal of “eternal values”; towards those sent out ahead; towards the men of the future who in the present tie the knots and gather the force that compels the will of millennia into new channels. To teach humanity its future as its will, as dependent on a human will, to prepare for the great risk and wholesale attempt at breeding and cultivation and so to put an end to the gruesome rule of chance and nonsense that has passed for “history” so far (the nonsense of the “greatest number” is only its latest form): a new type of philosopher and commander will be needed for this some day, and whatever hidden, dreadful, or benevolent spirits have existed on earth will pale into insignificance beside the image of this type. The image of such leaders hovers before our eyes: – may I say this out loud, you free spirits? The conditions that would have to be partly created and partly exploited for them to come into being; the probable paths and trials that would enable a soul to grow tall and strong enough to feel the compulsion for these tasks; a revaluation of values whose new pressure and hammer will steel a conscience and transform a heart into bronze to bear the weight of a responsibility like this; and, on the other hand, the necessity of such leaders, the terrible danger that they could fail to appear or simply fail and degenerate – these are our real worries and dark clouds, do you know this, you free spirits? These are the heavy, distant thoughts and storms that traverse the sky of our lives. There are few pains as intense as ever having seen, guessed, or sympathized while an extraordinary person ran off course and degenerated: but someone with an uncommon eye for the overall danger that “humanity” itself will degenerate, someone like us, who has recognized the outrageous contingency that has been playing games with the future of humanity so far – games in which no hand and not even a “finger of God” has taken part! – someone who has sensed the disaster that lies hidden in the idiotic guilelessness and credulity of “modern ideas,” and still more in the whole of Christian-European morality: someone like this will suffer from an unparalleled sense of alarm. In a single glance he will comprehend everything that could be bred from humanity, given a favorable accumulation and intensification of forces and tasks; he will know with all the prescience of his conscience how humanity has still not exhausted its greatest possibilities, and how often the type man has already faced mysterious decisions and new paths: – he will know even better, from his most painful memories, the sorts of miserable things that generally shatter, crush, sink, and turn a development of the highest rank into a miserable affair. The total degeneration of humanity down to what today’s socialist fools and nitwits see as their “man of the future” – as their ideal! – this degeneration and diminution of humanity into the perfect herd animal (or, as they say, into man in a “free society”), this brutalizing process of turning humanity into stunted little animals with equal rights and equal claims is no doubt possible! Anyone who has ever thought this possibility through to the end knows one more disgust than other men, – and perhaps a new task as well! …”

— Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

[myhomeiswriting]

Goddess Flora the Fae of the Forest

Imagine: a young woman in a flowing white dress dashing through a forest. Is she a spirit you wonder? A ghost? Maybe a witch, running from her latest kill. If you believe such horrible stereotypes about witches who really were healers more than child-eaters, but don’t tell the villagers that. They told their children those awful stories to keep them safe in their beds at night and keep them from wandering in the woods. So why, then, has my spirit always longed to go wandering at night when I know it is most dangerous, but not because of witches, but because of the night creatures who can see you better in the dark than you will ever be able to see them. Or because of the ravine behind town that would be easy to walk and fall into at night due to a lack of visibility. We’ve always been most afraid of what we couldn’t see because without our eyes to tell us the truth, we must trust that the thing we don’t understand will have empathy for us, and children have always been told never to trust strangers. It’s no wonder that we live in a world that fears everything we can’t see, or that doesn’t look exactly like us. You grow up with ghost stories, you’re going to believe in ghosts. Same goes for racism and prejudice. I sought out ghost stories because I liked the idea of living on even in a corporeal form after death. The thing I feared the most as a child was death, because none of the adults could explain it to me. All they could tell me was that Jesus loved me and that if I believed in him with all my heart I would go to heaven when I died, but that never brought me any comfort, because what if I didn’t believe enough? What if I didn’t know how? No one could answer that question. To be honest, I’m not sure I ever asked it. Pretty sure I kept that one to myself because I knew there was never going to be a satisfying answer. So, I gave up on Jesus and his magical heaven around 14 years old and never really went back. I am still a heathen who prays when someone I know is in trouble with something I can’t help them with, because I need to do something, and I can’t say for certain if prayer doesn’t work. All I know is that I don’t believe in it myself, but that doesn’t mean anything really. Maybe it would really work better if I did believe in it, but I’ll never know because I’ll never believe. I believe in ghosts and demons, however, regardless of a lack of interest in God. I can believe in evil, what I cannot fathom is a benevolent god who sits on the sidelines and lets people suffer. That’s not a new idea, and I know that. I am not the first to struggle with accepting faith in a god who just let’s people die and be condemned to hell because they didn’t believe the right amount. I can accept belief in a healing power that exists in the rocks and stones and living flora. I can believe the world in which we live was made with certain magic meant to heal us and keep us alive, because I want to believe in that, because that speaks of active benevolence; the earth is a god I can believe in because it’s natural and kind and there for everyone whether they are believers or not. One does not have to believe a crystal can have healing properties and still be positively affected by its power without even knowing it. That belief is harmless, but believing God told you homosexuality is wrong is dangerous and detrimental to society at large, and specifically a select group of that society then has to live in fear that you’ll come for them in the night to burn them at the stake or stone them to death. What did you imagine when I asked you to imagine a woman in a white dress running through the woods? Was she white? In her 20s? a crystal-loving hippie? What stereotypes did you assign her? Because that’s my point: Look at your prejudice; you have them even if you don’t think you do.

[anasraza25]

The Impact of Surah Al-Mulk on Believers: Lessons in Faith, Reflection, and Accountability

Surah Al-Mulk, the 67th chapter of the Quran, holds a special place in the hearts of believers worldwide. Its verses are not only imbued with profound wisdom and guidance but also offer a unique perspective on the relationship between the Creator and His creation. Through its teachings, Surah Al-Mulk leaves a lasting impact on the hearts and minds of believers, shaping their faith, worldview, and sense of accountability. Let's delve deeper into the lessons it imparts and the transformative impact it has on believers.

At the heart of Surah Al-Mulk lies a powerful reminder of the sovereignty of Allah. It opens with the assertion that Allah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, emphasizing His absolute authority and control over all aspects of existence. This fundamental belief in the oneness and supremacy of Allah serves as the cornerstone of faith for believers, instilling in them a profound sense of humility, reverence, and gratitude towards their Creator.

One of the key teachings of Surah Al-Mulk is the importance of reflection and contemplation on the signs of Allah's creation. The Surah invites believers to ponder upon the beauty, intricacy, and purpose embedded in the universe, from the celestial bodies adorning the night sky to the intricate ecosystems thriving on earth. By reflecting on the magnificence of Allah's creation, believers deepen their appreciation for His power and wisdom, strengthening their connection with Him and reinforcing their faith.

Moreover, Surah Al-Mulk underscores the transient nature of worldly life and the inevitability of the Hereafter. It reminds believers of the fleeting nature of their existence in this world and the ultimate reality of death and resurrection. This profound reflection on mortality and the afterlife serves as a catalyst for believers to prioritize their deeds and strive for righteousness in the pursuit of eternal success.

Central to the teachings of Surah Al-Mulk is the concept of accountability before Allah. The Surah vividly describes the Day of Judgment, portraying the scene of reckoning when every soul will be held to account for its deeds. This portrayal of accountability instills a sense of responsibility and consciousness in believers, motivating them to live a life of piety, righteousness, and adherence to the divine commandments.

Furthermore, Surah Al-Mulk emphasizes the significance of seeking refuge in Allah from the punishment of Hellfire. It serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of disobedience and neglecting one's spiritual obligations. By seeking protection from the torment of Hellfire, believers are inspired to seek forgiveness, repentance, and strive for moral rectitude in their actions.

Surah Al-Mulk also highlights the mercy and compassion of Allah towards His creation. Despite His absolute authority and power, Allah is portrayed as the Most Merciful and Compassionate, ever ready to forgive those who turn to Him in sincere repentance. This depiction of divine mercy instills hope and comfort in the hearts of believers, reassuring them of Allah's benevolence and forgiveness.

Moreover, Surah Al-Mulk encourages believers to share its teachings with others and invite them to the path of righteousness. By spreading the message of the Quran, believers fulfill their duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil, contributing to the betterment of society and the propagation of divine guidance.

In conclusion, Surah Al-Mulk holds a profound significance in the lives of believers, shaping their faith, worldview, and sense of accountability. Through its timeless teachings, the Surah instills in believers a deep reverence for Allah, a profound appreciation for His creation, and a steadfast commitment to righteousness. As believers reflect on the verses of Surah Al-Mulk and internalize its lessons, they are empowered to lead lives of purpose, piety, and spiritual fulfillment, thereby attaining success in this world and the Hereafter.