#of course you’re going to end up with a society that is culturally christian! because religion and culture are inherently intertwined!

[nope-body]

.

[coinandcandle]

De-Wiccanizing Witchcraft

This post is about Wicca and it's origins and how it has somehow become the poster child of witchcraft. My goal is not to destroy or eradicate Wicca, but rather to De-wiccanize witchcraft. I want to share the separation of the secular practice of Witchcraft from the religion Wicca.

I had to dig deep and read a lot of history and facts before I wrote this post. I don't ever want to purposefully spread false information. Sources and links for information at the bottom.

What is Wicca?

Wicca is defined as “a religion influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices of western Europe that affirms the existence of supernatural power (such as magic) and of both male and female deities who inhere in nature and that emphasizes ritual observance of seasonal and life cycles”

Wicca is a religion created in the mid 1900's by Gerald Gardner and is not, though some will incorrectly claim otherwise, an ancient religion.

What is Witchcraft?

The modern definition of witchcraft is “religious practice involving magic and affinity with nature, usually within a pagan tradition”.

Seems a bit confusing, you said it wasn’t religion?

You’re right, it’s not. It’s the practice and the magic that you do. The religion you subscribe to will probably affect the kind of witchcraft you choose to practice, though.

Why is it a Problem?

Gerald Gardner

Gerald Gardner, creator of Wicca, stole portions of his supposedly "inherited" rituals and based a lot of the rules off of various sources. One of his bigger inspirations was Aleister Crowley, a known bastard who was racist and sexualized POC women. You can see why this may be an issue.

Later in life Gardner became obsessed with publicity and ended up driving away some of his closest fellow Wiccans because of it. These folks ended up creating their own branches of the religion.

There is debate on whether or not these branches are also problematic, I won't be commenting on that.

Erasure

The problem with confusing them, in my opinion, is erasure. Erasure of the many beautiful and wonderful cultures that witchcraft and Paganism deal with.

Racism, white entitlement, and the erasure of other cultures runs very deep in western society.

Sadly Wicca is also full of the all too common practice of stealing from cultures, POC and Indigenous people especially.

Wiccan Creators/Authors

Various Wiccan authors write books claiming to be about Witchcraft (a practice) but after reading further they are actually about Wiccan ideology and beliefs. This has caused, and continues to cause, a lot of confusion for people who know nothing of witchcraft or are starting out.

This confusion is harmful because it makes Wicca out to be as if it's the ruling religion of witchcraft. But Witchcraft as a practice is full of many people with various theological and philosophical beliefs.

Acting as if Wicca is the go-to for practicing witchcraft is harmful and aids in the erasure of many other religions and cultures.

I am not claiming that Wiccan books or information about Wicca is bad in and of itself. I am saying that claiming to write about something as diverse and secular as witchcraft but then making it all about your particular religion is wrong. You are not an authority on a secular practice, Wiccan or otherwise.

Of course there are books by Wiccan authors who do not infuse their practice thoroughly with their religion and then act like it's the true way to practice witchcraft. These authors are wonderful, thank you for not spreading misinformation.

However, there are many Wiccan creators still out there spreading the misinformation, be careful who you learn from. Always research your sources.

A Note to Wiccans

If you do not practice anything in your religion that is stolen or appropriated then great! I am glad you've been able to tear away from the original religion.

I am not demonizing you or criticizing you for having a religion or belief system. That would be unfair and horrible to do. I am simply asking that you be careful about the information you share and the labels you give said information.

If you are writing about your particular religion, please mention that somewhere so beginner witches don't get confused. If you are Wiccan, but whatever information you're sharing is secular, then please label it as such.

To the Wiccans who believe that their way is the only way and actively try to push it on other witches. This is for the ones who don't care about the erasure or damage they are causing by spreading misinformation: You are foolish and rude. There is no benefit in the erasure of cultures and religions that do not fit into your Wiccan standards. Stealing what you please from these cultures and not crediting (or taking from closed practices) is harmful and if you truly believe in your three-folds law then I suggest you stop doing so now.

Your laws may bind you but they do not apply to secular witches or witches in other religions.

To the Wiccans actively breaking away from the origin of Wicca and who are trying to reform it into a helpful and accepting religion: Thank you for doing your research. Keep being wonderful and making sure you recognize the past, not erasing it. Allow your religion to evolve from bad to good and spread the correct information. <3

Sources

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312285051_Wicca_History_Belief_and_Community_in_Modern_Pagan_Witchcraft

Text A: Teasing Out the Influences on Early Gardnerian Witchcraft As Evidenced in the Personal Writings of Gerald Brosseau Gardner Lisa Crandall

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=honors

[dwellordream]

“…Now, if people are taught anything at all about medieval history it often is English medieval history. People with absolutely no other frame of reference can often tell you when the Norman Conquest of England took place, or the date of the signing of Magna Carta even if they don’t know exactly why these things are important. (TBH Magna Carta isn’t important unless you were a very rich dude at the time, sooooo.) If you ask people to name a medieval book they’ll probably say Beowulf even if they’ve never read it.

Here’s the thing though – England was a total backwater in terms of the way medieval people thought and was not particularly important at the time. How much of a backwater? Well, when Anne of Bohemia, daughter of my man Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (RIP, mate. Mourn ya til I join ya.) married King Richard II of England in the fourteenth century there was uproar in Prague. How could a Bohemian imperial princess be sent to London? How would she survive in the hinterlands? The answer was she was sent along with an entire cadre of Bohemian ladies in waiting to give her people with whom she could have a sophisticated conversation.

This ended up completely changing fashion in England. Anne is the girl who introduced those sweet horned headdresses you think of when you think of medieval ladies, riding side-saddle, and the word “coach” to England, (from the Hungairan Kocs, where the cart she arrived at court the first time came from). Sweetening her transition to English life was the fact that she didn’t have to pay a dowry to get married. Instead, the English were allowed to trade freely with Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire and allowed to be around a Czech lady. That was reward enough as far as the Empire was concerned. That’s how much England was not a thing. (The English took this insult very badly, and hated Anne at first, but since she was a G they got over it. Don’t worry.)

If England was unimportant why do we know about English medieval history and nothing else? Same reason you’re reading this blog in English right now, homes. I’m not sure if you know this, but in the modern period, the English got super super good at going around the world an enslaving anyone they met. When you’re busy not thinking about German imperial atrocities in the nineteenth century it’s because you’re busy thinking about British imperial atrocities, you feel me? So we all speak English now and if we harken back to historical things it gives us a grandiose idea of English history.

Say, then, you are trying to establish a curriculum for schools that bigs up English history, as is our want. Ask yourself – are you gonna want to dwell on an era where England was so unimportant that Czechs were flexing on it? Answer: no. You gonna gloss right over that and skip to the early modern era and the Tudors who I am absolutely sure you know all the fuck about. The second colonial-imperialist reason for not learning about medieval history is that medieval history doesn’t exactly aggrandise the colonial-imperialist system.

Yes, there are empires in medieval Europe. In addition to the Holy Roman Empire there’s the Eastern Roman Empire, aka the Byzantine Empire, whose downfall is often pointed to as one of several possible bookends to the medieval period. You also have opportunists like the Venetians who set up colonies around the Adriatic and Mediterranean, or the Normans who defo jump in boats and take over, well, anything they could get their hands on.

Notably, when these dudes got where they were going, they didn’t end up enslaving a bunch of people, committing genocide, and then funnelling all resources back to a theoretical homeland. The Normans settled down where they were eventually creating distinctive court cultures, and the Venetian colonies enjoyed a seriously high level of trade and quality of life without major disruption to local customs. Force was certainly used to take over at the outset, but it wasn’t something that resulted in the complete subjugation and deaths of millions halfway around the world from where the aggressors started.

No, the European middle ages are a lot more about local areas muddling along with smaller systems of rule. That’s why you have distinctive areas like say, Burgundy or Sicily calling their own shots and developing their own styles and fashions. Hell, even within imperial systems like the Holy Roman Empire Bavarians or Bohemians saw themselves as very much distinct peoples within an imperial system, not necessarily imperial subjects first and foremost.

You know where you would go to find some history that justifies huge imperial systems that require constant conquest and an army of slaves to keep them afloat? Ancient Rome. Remember how you got taught how great Rome was? How it was a democracy? How they had wonderful technology and underfloor heating, and oh isn’t that temple beautiful? Yeah, that’s because you were being inculcated to think that the ends of imperial violence justifies mass enslavement and disenfranchisement.

In reality, Rome wasn’t some sort of grand free democracy. Only a tiny percentage of Romans could actually vote. Women of any station certainly could not, and even men who were lucky enough to be free weren’t necessarily Roman citizens. Freedom here is particularly important because by the 1 century BCE 35 – 40% of the population of the Italian peninsula were slaves. Woo yeah democracy. I love it. And that’s not even taking into account all those times when an Emperor would suspend voting altogether.

Those slaves were busy building all the grand buildings your high school history teacher was dry jacking it about, stuffing the dormice that the rich people were reclining to eat, and basically keeping the joint running. Those slaves also necessitated the ridiculously huge army that Rome kept going because you had to get slaves from somewhere after all, so warfare had to be continuous. How uplifting.

Eagle-eyed readers will notice that this Roman nonsense is pretty much exactly what was going on during the modern colonial imperial age. You can say whatever the fuck you want about how free and revolutionary America was, for example. That doesn’t change the fact that only a handful of white property owning men could vote, and that the entire project required the mass enslavement of Africans and the genocide of Native Americans. That’s why you’ve been taught Rome is great. It helps you sleep well at night on stolen land because, really, haven’t all great societies done this? I mean without a forever war against anyone you can find, how will you keep a society going?

Our imperialist ideas about history lead to some weird historical takes. People love to tell you that no one bathed in the medieval period when medieval people had pretty much exactly the same sort of bathing culture as Romans. People laugh at medieval people believing in medical humoral theory despite the fact that Romans believed exactly the same thing and get a total pass on that front. The Roman ban on dissection is often taught as a medieval ban, shifting Roman superstition onto the shoulders of medieval people.

On-going Roman warfare is reported in glowing terms with emphasis on the “brilliance” of Roman military technique, while inter-kingdom warfare in the medieval period is portrayed as barbaric and ignorant. The Roman people who were encouraged to worship emperors as literal gods are used as an example of theoretical religion-free logical thinking, while medieval Christians are cast as ignorant for believing in God even when they are studiously working on the same philosophical queries as their predecessors. None of this makes any fucking sense.

But here’s the thing – it doesn’t need to. In a colonial imperialist society we have positioned Rome as a guiding light no matter what it’s actual practices and that’s not a mistake. It’s a design that helps to justify our own society. Further, this mindset requires us to castigate the medieval period when rule was more localised and systems of slavery had taken a precipitous dive. If only there had been more slavery, you know? Things might have been so much better.

Historical narratives and who controls them are always in flux. That old adage “history is written by the winners” comes to mind here, but that’s not exactly true. What the winners do is decide which histories are promoted, taught, and broadcasted. You can write all the history you want and if no one reads it, then it doesn’t really matter. That’s the gap that medieval history has fallen into. Colonial imperialism hasn’t figured out how to weaponise it yet, so it’s ignored. You could write this off as a “so what”, of course. Sure, maybe teaching the Roman Empire as a goal is a negative, but is ignoring medieval history really that bad a thing? You will be unsurprised to learn that I definitely think it is a bad thing, yes.

Ignorance about the medieval period is one of the things that is allowing the current swelling ranks of fascists to claim medieval Europe as some sort of “pure” white ideal. Spoiler: it was not. However, if you don’t know anything about medieval society how are you gonna argue with some chinless douche with a fake viking rune tattoo?History is always political. We use it to understand our world, but more than that we also use it to justify our world. Ignoring it helps us prop up our worst impulses, so let’s not.”

- Eleanor Janega, “On colonialism, imperialism, and ignoring medieval history.”

[feralphoenix]

SWEET DREAMS ARE MADE OF THIS: The Mechanics of the Infection

welcome back to feral’s essay tag where the hot takes don’t stop from keep being hot!

this particular meta has a Lot of citations from canon, and my plan is to have them as actual footnotes in the dreamwidth mirror when that goes up (as i always crosspost my meta there in case my layout text is too small for any folks accessing these from computer and not mobile).

CONTENT WARNING FOR TONIGHT’S PROGRAM: This essay contains discussion of body horror, cancer, and many of the darker aspects of Hallownest’s society.

ALSO, AS USUAL: I read Hollow Knight as anti-colonialist fiction and all of my meta approaches the text from that angle. This essay is strongly critical of the Pale King and Hallownest, and affords sympathy to pre-Hallownest societies & native characters, including Radiance. If you come from a Christian cultural background (regardless of whether you currently practice the religion or not), some of the concepts I am going to discuss may be challenging for you. Please be responsible in your choice whether to engage with this content, and also, be respectful here or wherever else you’re discussing this essay. Thanks.

SWEET DREAMS ARE MADE OF THIS: The Mechanics of the Infection

If you’ve ever looked through my Hollow Knight tags, you have probably seen me joke about the Infection like a lot, usually along the lines of Radiance casting Level 9 Inflict Tang on Hallownest, or “(radi voice) the End of EVA will continue until you Let My People Go” or some such. In addition to being some of the most beautiful body horror I’ve yet seen in fiction, its appearance also makes it a veritable meme factory.

It is also something that inspires a lot of very wild theorizing amongst fans, because canon tells us WHY the Infection exists but doesn’t ever directly explain WHAT it is. To name just a few of the guesses I’ve seen, people have posited that it could be some sort of pupa juice, or maybe some type of parasitic fungus.

I have my own guess, though, and it’s based on hints we can find in-game. I would like to share it with the class today, so let’s take a quick look through the sauce, starting with what we already know!

WHY

We learn why the Infection happened from Seer and Moss Prophet, and this is also summed up more directly in Team Cherry’s dev notes attached to Seer.

The Pale King wanted to be the only god of light in the crater,* so he tried to kill Radiance by thralling her children - attracting the moths with his light and making them forget about her,** assimilating them into Hallownest. Radiance survived because some moths still remembered and tried to preserve what they could of their original culture,*** and eventually she attempted to reassert her existence and communicate with the bugs of the crater by speaking to them through their dreams. However, the Pale King realized what was happening and ordered his worshippers to shut her out.****

Radiance did not give up, and continued to broadcast her message through dreams. This unstoppable force VS immovable object conflict could not last forever - something eventually had to give, and what gave was the mortals.***** The Infection was an accident that Radiance did not initially intend, but presumably chose to weaponize after the fact as a way to attempt to pressure TPK into releasing the moths and leaving her alone (or, barring that, a way to thoroughly destroy his kingdom at the very least).

SOURCES:

* “No blazing kin. Only one light shall shine against the dark.” - Lore tablet hidden beside the Pale King’s throne in the White Palace.

** “None of us can live forever, and so we ask those who survive to remember us. Hold something in your mind and it lives on with you, but forget it and you seal it away forever. That is the only death that matters.” - Seer’s 1200 Essence dialogue.

*** “But the memories of that ancient light still lingered, hush whispers of faith... Until all of Hallownest began to dream of that forgotten light.” - Seer’s 2400 Essence dialogue.

**** “The King and the bugs of hallownest resisted this memory/power and it started to manifest as the infection.” - from Team Cherry’s dev notes attached to Seer.

***** “Light is life, beaming, pure, brilliant. To stifle that light is to suppress nature. Nature suppressed distorts, plagues us.” - Moss Prophet's dialogue.

HOW

Now that we’ve recapped why the Infection exists, let’s examine the process of how the Infection works. We see some examples of this with various characters in-game, and the Hunter also shares his observations of the Infection’s mechanics in his commentary on the Infected Crossroads entries.

Since we’ll be bringing up the Hunter's Journal here, I want to first examine three entries to establish its dual authorship and how trustworthy it is: The Shade’s entry, the Lightseed’s, and Radiance’s.

We know that the bottom section of the Hunter’s Journal is the Hunter’s personal notes on each creature because the game itself tells us so. So who writes the notes on top that give a brief explanation of what each creature is? It’s a common fan theory that Ghost writes these, which I believe is indeed the case.

First let’s look at the Shade, which is automatically unlocked when we receive the Hunter's Journal in-game regardless of whether we have died and fought the Shade or not. Mechanically this is important because if the Shade weren’t unlocked by default it would be impossible to attain the Hunter achievements without dying at least once - this would REALLY suck for anybody who likes to suffer enough to try to complete the journal in Steel Soul mode.

The Shade’s entry reads:

Echo of a previous life. Defeat it to retake its power and become whole.

-

Each of us leaves an imprint of something when we die. A stain on the world. I don’t know how much longer this kingdom can bear the weight of so many past lives...

Notice that the top text knows exactly what the Shade is and how it works. In story terms, this would imply that Ghost has died and come back enough pre-game to understand the mechanics of how their revivals work.

The Lightseed’s entry reads:

A single-celled organism, completely infected. Scurries about simple-mindedly.

-

Strange air has been seeping down from above for years. Some of the air became liquid, and some of that liquid became flesh, and some of that flesh came to life. I don’t know what to make of it.

In this entry, the top text assumes that Lightseeds are a Lifeseed-like creature that has been infected, and the Hunter’s notes reveal that this is incorrect and the Lightseeds were actually born from the Infection itself. From this we learn that the top text isn’t omniscient and can be mistaken: It’s written from a limited perspective.

And here’s Radi’s entry:

The light,* forgotten.

-

The plague, the infection, the madness that haunts the corpses of Hallownest... the light that screams out from the eyes of this dead Kingdom. What is the source? I suppose mere mortals like myself will never understand.

Here, the top text has information that the Hunter doesn’t, and which only a handful of bugs are privy to anymore.

From these three examples, I believe it is safe to say that Ghost is in fact the author of the journal entries’ top segments.

It’s important to remember that the observations these characters make can be not wholly correct, and I’ll bring that up when I believe it to be relevant, but for now let’s build a picture of how a case of the Infection generally progresses by looking at the Hunter’s commentary on Infected Crossroads enemies, and at a handful of characters whose Infection we directly observe: Bretta, Sly, Myla, and Moss Prophet.

The Hunter describes the broad arc of Infection progression in the Violent Husk's entry: “First [the bugs of Hallownest] fell into deep slumber, then they awoke with broken minds, and then their bodies started to deform...”

The two NPCs who we can save from becoming Infected, Bretta and Sly, are initially found emitting orange fog and mumbling to themselves. In Bretta’s case, when listened to, she initially talks about being left behind and forgotten** as she assumes that all people will treat her this way even though she craves affection and attention; Dream Nailed either before or after being listened to, she mentions a “shining figure”.***

Meanwhile, Sly speaks about his pupil Oro and someone named Esmy, and when his symptoms subside he identifies that he was led to the Crossroads village ruins by a dream.****

Listening to Bretta and Sly completely brings them back to reality, after which they leave the underground area entirely to return to Dirtmouth. However, when the player encounters Myla after defeating Soul Master and obtaining Descending Dive, listening to her does not cause any change in her condition despite that she is not yet hostile.

During these encounters, Bretta is surrounded by orange fog, Sly is surrounded by orange fog and his eyes have also begun to turn orange, and Myla's eyes are glowing but there is no fog around her. So, we can deduce that for as long as the orange fog is present, a bug may still be awoken and cured (Bretta and Sly both show no signs of relapse over the course of the game), but once the fog disappears the bug can no longer be saved by external means.

The "deformation" that the Hunter mentions in the Violent Husk entry refers to the large blobs of Infection that develop on the bodies of creatures that have been infected for a long period of time. We observe these upon the Infected Crossroads enemies, as well as on Hollow and the Moss Prophet. We also see that these Infection tumors can eventually kill bugs once they grow too large and impede bodily functions, just like real cancer: The Moss Prophet and Mossy Vagabonds are all discovered in this state after the Crossroads become infected, as are the Husk Guards in the Crossroads.

So, the progression we can see here is that bugs become infected through their dreams, and while they can initially be woken, if left alone they will fall into too deep a sleep to wake up. Some time after this they will start to move around again but will be hostile to any creatures that are not infected. And, if left in this state for a very long period of time, they will develop tumorous growths which are potentially fatal.

Potentially fatal. This is an interesting contradiction to a basic assumption that most players - and even Ghost and the Hunter - seem to hold about the Infection: That is, that the Infection functions like a pop-culture zombie plague, and infected creatures are all undead (reanimated dead things that can't be killed); thus that the enemies that respawn after resting or going offscreen are the same ones that Ghost just murdered, and have simply been reanimated by the Infection once again.

But infected creatures can die of the Infection. What’s more, bosses and unique instances of generic enemies (such as Myla and the Moss Knight at the pier of Unn’s lake) do not respawn once killed. And it’s definitely not that Ghost killed them that counts: Traitor Lord dies whether Ghost fights him solo or whether Cloth is brought along, in which case she always gets the final blow. This creates the argument that the respawning generics are NOT in fact the same individuals reanimated over and over, but different individuals of the same enemy class, and that their different respawn rates speak to how plentiful those creatures are - small animals respawning faster because a new one will arrive in the recently killed one’s territory sooner, for instance.

Ghost and the Hunter both seem to assume that infected enemies are all undead - many creatures are identified as “husks” or “the remains of [whatever specific bug]” in the Hunter's Journal. But we’ve already established that sometimes Ghost and the Hunter are wrong.

So, if infected creatures aren’t undead, then what are they?

SOURCES:

* I find it a very interesting tidbit of characterization for Ghost that they refer to Radiance as the Light, as native bugs do, rather than calling her the Old Light, as Hallownest bugs did. This has some fascinating implications for where Ghost feels their allegiances to be, but that's neither here nor there right now lol.

** “Ohhh... please... don’t leave me behind! You... forgot about me...? I knew you would... everyone always forgets about me...” - Bretta’s dialogue, Fungal Wastes encounter

*** “...Shining figure...So bright...” - Bretta’s Dream Nail dialogue, Fungal Wastes encounter

**** “...ugghh, Oro you oaf.... You wield your nail... like a club... ...Esmy... how much deeper do we have to go... Oh! What?! Who are you?! ...I see. This old village. What a strange dream, to have led me down here! If you hadn’t found me, I don’t think I would’ve ever woken.” - Sly’s dialogue, Crossroads village encounter

WHAT

In a move very on-brand for Hollow Knight, there’s actually a line from Seer that gives the whole game away - and I mean this incredibly literally, she declares her loyalty to Radiance and says Fuck Hallownest and also hints at what she hopes for from Ghost all in two breaths!! - except that most players are never going to see this line because Seer only says this if you screw up platforming in the Forgotten Dream and yeet yourself off a platform before picking up the Dream Nail.

I do not doubt that I could wring a whole essay out of this one line by itself (and Seer deserves an essay from me so maybe I will), but today the part we’re concerned with is the third line of this dialogue, i.e. how she describes the Dream Nail to Ghost: “The power to wake this world from its slumber[.]”

Its slumber.

The Infection doesn’t only spread through dreams. It is a dream.

To put it in a more meta/video game mechanics sort of way, the Infection is a status ailment. Sleep exists as a common status ailment in RPGs, strategy games, and even some adventure games and platformers. Usually the status ailment of sleep is a mild nuisance that wears off after time, when a character is struck, or if the requisite curative is used; in comparison the Infection is Sleep But Bass Boosted. Appropriate, for a glorified status ailment that’s inflicted by the literal actual god of dreams.

The Infection can only be cured in the very early stages. Once an infected creature has fallen into a coma, there’s no longer any hope of a third party breaking the curse... and also, infected creatures sleepwalk. Violently.

This may also provide an explanation for why mummified bugs in the catacombs have been infected, too: If they were freshly dead and their lingering spirit was still attached enough to their corpses, and that lingering spirit retained enough of a mind to dream...

Aside from those mummified bugs, though, I believe it likely that most if not all of the infected enemies in-game are very, very much alive.

Beyond all the dialogue and lore crumbs pointing to the Infection simply being a cursed sleep, this explanation makes the most sense when thinking about Radiance as a character. She is the literal embodiment of dreams as well as the sun, so inflicting eternal slumber with bonus malignant sleepwalking is a natural extension of her power and a way to use it offensively without being directly violent.

(I've written about this at length elsewhere, but signs point to Radiance having been a pacifist prior to the Pale King’s invasion. Short version: The Moth Tribe were pacifists and Radiance was the center of their culture so it would be odd if she were an exception; she is incapable of inflicting any physical harm whatsoever in a game where lack of contact damage from an active enemy indicates helplessness and such enemies always flee from Ghost unless they have a tool they can use to fight with; her behavior in her boss battles indicates a lack of combat experience, and her nail-generating spells seem to be based on Hollow’s abilities. Real-life adult moths cannot fight - they defend themselves with flight, camouflage, mimicry, and I’m Poisonous So Fuck Off coloring.)

Now, I don’t want to downplay the harm the Infection causes - it doesn’t have to turn bugs into literal undead zombies to be devastating. What we can glean of Hallownest’s ruins suggests that as a state it was heavily dependent on labor to run its industry, so incapacitating the laborers would have turned the whole country on its head, especially because those laborers cannot be woken. The Infection also created an intense atmosphere of terror throughout Hallownest as bugs tried to discover ways to cure it or at least protect themselves. And as the Hunter observes,* because of how the Infection is caused, the harder you try to block Radiance out, the worse the Infection will get.

(A sidebar: Interestingly, the Infection's progress seems to be very slow when a creature willingly accepts it; Moss Prophet has Infection tumors when met but doesn’t die of them until the Crossroads is infected, though many Crossroads bugs are found dead of tumors immediately. Traitor Lord and his followers opted in to the Infection long ago, but Traitor Lord is still at the “orange fog” stage and could theoretically be cured, if he wanted to be. Both Traitor Lord and Moss Prophet are still completely lucid, too.)

Radiance may not have committed any direct violence against Hallownest, but the Infection does incite violence: infected creatures become hostile to and will attack the uninfected. And as we’ve discussed, the Infection itself can become fatal once it’s progressed far enough for tumorous growths to form.

A god smiting the shit out of her people’s oppressors by nonviolently but thoroughly disrupting their kingdom, Especially if that kingdom is a genocidal colonialist slave state,** as a Let My People Go And Leave Me Alone :) ultimatum is not unreasonable. (And Moss Prophet tells us point-blank that literally just listening to Radiance in the first place would have prevented the Infection before it began!) But despite that Hallownest as an institution is unambiguously awful, Hallownest bugs victimized by their own state (such as the maggot slaves and other menial workers) probably saw much less benefit from Hallownest’s genocides than the rich and nobility, and likely deserved the smiting way less than said rich and nobility.

Meanwhile Hallownest’s neighbors - all native nations who are just as much victims of TPK’s bullshit as the Moth Tribe - did not deserve to get caught up in the smiting at all.

Lateral harm in Hollow Knight is another topic that deserves its own essay - and more than that, lots of in-depth conversation! - but, again, that’s not the topic we want to focus on today. I do want to make it clear, though, that infected creatures being alive and theoretically wakeable if the curse should end doesn’t suddenly mean the Infection was actually no big deal. If you want your jimmies rustled, try Dream Nailing enemies that pull from the generic Dream Nail dialogue pool: They are on some level aware that they’re dreaming and can’t wake.***

Clues that the Infection is literally a dream are littered all over the game, from Elderbug’s initial dialogue**** to the name of ending 3, Dream No More - not only named that because that’s the ending where Ghost sacrifices Radiance’s life as well as their own to end Hollow’s suffering rather than only sacrificing their freedom.

Some of what Bardoon and Moss Prophet have to say about the Infection is suggestive of the nature of this dream, though. Moss Prophet appeals to their audience to find unity through the Infection,***** and Bardoon also remarks on this, though he cautions that this comes at the cost of being reduced to instinct.****** Dreaming does tend to come hand in hand with lack of inhibition and suggestibility, but I’m more interested in what Moss Prophet and Bardoon mean by unity, since infected creatures’ thoughts are different depending on what they are and what they were already doing while awake.

There's less specific hard evidence for this aside from how we can observe that Infection blobs are connected to Radiance, transmitting her heartbeat and birthing the Lightseeds, her unintended creations. But given that those blobs do originate from Infection fluid according to the Hunter... Radiance is not just the embodiment of dreams but the heart of THE Dream. So could the Infection be a forcible pseudo-immersion into that capital-D Dream, the Dream Realm itself?

Whether my hunch here is right or not, I can’t in good faith end this essay without bringing all y’all’s attention to absolutely my favorite bit of The Infection Is A Dream foreshadowing: The way multiple parties mention the fact that the Infection smells and tastes sweet.*******

You know... it’s sweet... it’s a sweet dream... get it.........

And now that you can no longer unsee that brilliantly awful pun, I think I'll see myself out!

SOURCES:

* “The infection that swept through Hallownest so long ago... they say that the harder you struggled against it, the more it consumed you.” - Hunter’s commentary, Slobbering Husk Hunter’s Journal entry.

** I’m referring, of course, to the maggots. See: “Weakest members of the kingdom of Hallownest. Generally looked down upon and forced to do menial labour.” (Ghost’s commentary) and “If they try to bargain for their life, just ignore them. They have nothing to offer.” (Hunter’s commentary) from the Maggot Hunter's Journal entry as well as False Knight/Failed Champion’s backstory. Remember also that maggots are the larval form of flies like Sly (you’ll see the resemblance if you compare Sly’s features to the maggot siblings’), meaning Hallownest employs child slavery. In more cheerful news Sly’s backstory must be absolutely goddamn wild.

*** “I’m not...Dead..” “Am I...Sleeping?” “I can’t....Wake up...” - Dream Nail dialogue from generic Hallownest bugs (Wandering Husk, Leaping Husk, Horned Husk, Husk Bully, Husk Warrior) and from God Tamer for some reason

**** “Perhaps dreams aren't such great things after all...” - Elderbug’s initial dialogue

***** “Embrace light! Achieve union!” - Moss Prophet’s dialogue

****** “Theirs is a different kind of unity. Rejection of the Wyrm’s attempt at order. I resist the light’s allure. Union it may offer, but also a mind bereft of thought... To instinct alone a bug is reduced...Hrrm...” - Bardoon’s dialogue (Listen four times, not counting other dialogue flags)

******* “A thick orange mist fills these walking corpses. It has a sweet, sickly taste to it. I find it foul. After you kill these creatures, I suggest you do not eat them.” - Hunter’s commentary, Husk Bully Hunter’s Journal entry, just for one example.

[learningnewways]

Where, When, What and Why? - Part One

Questions I have been getting a lot recently, and rightly so, are all around where I’m going, when, what for and why. Well, let me try to explain! But get comfortable, it’s a long story… If you just want to skip to me actually telling you where I’m going, feel free to skip to part three. (Yes, there are many parts as this is a loooong story!) Part one is the background of how God worked on my heart and challenged me to the point of going overseas and part two is more on why The Gambia. Here we go!

At the end of 2020, my life fell apart and everything I’d hoped and planned for my future collapsed. I had to lean into God and trust He was holding me safely in His arms, and that He still loved me and had a plan for my life. Ever since then, I have been going on a massive trust journey with the Lord. He has been asking me gently, “What are you willing to give up for me?” “Do you really believe I can do what I say I can do?” “Do you really believe I have the best for you?” All of these questions boil down to one ultimate question: “Do you really trust Me?” The answer is complicated… Yes and no!

2021 was a year full of pain, growth and facing my fears head on. I learnt so much about God’s love, grace and forgiveness. I learnt to be truly vulnerable and open with God, putting everything on the table. All my fears, hurts and desires. It was both terrifying and the best thing ever. He brought people into my life at the perfect time and proved time and time again that He’s got me. And I need reminding, as I easily forget…

Jump to the start of 2022 and I was feeling very settled in Nelson and had a sense of peace and comfort in my life here. Things overall were going pretty good in my friendships, ministries, jobs, home life…etc. Things were looking good. I started to ask God to speak to me more and I really pressed into Him and His Word. One of my incredible best friends Carla moved in as my flat-mate and we began having many deep chats about God and what He asks us to do. We read the words of Jesus and felt confused that we were not living a life that fully reflects His teaching, frustrated that our society and culture allows us to be too comfortable and miss out on a lot of what God has for us. We started reading a book together called Radical by David Platt, given to me by her equally incredible brother Mike. Before we started reading it and knowing that it changed Mike's life when he read it, Carla said cautiously, “Are you sure you want to read this book? Are you sure you’re ready for what might happen?” To which I replied, “Of course, what’s the worst that can happen?” ...Oh poor naïve Kimberly… Lots of things can happen!

This book might just be the most powerful, life changing book I’ve ever read. It spoke directly to my heart, the right book at exactly the right time. A time when I was actually open to hearing what it said and actioning it. It talked about all the topics I had been wrestling with for a long time, concepts I had pushed away over the years or made excuses for. I’d been restless for quite awhile with the way Christianity looked and how it was or wasn’t being lived out by myself and those around me. This book was one of the first times I’d heard stories of ordinary people living radical lives for Jesus, but in a way that was so relatable. These were people who also struggled with letting go of their desires, people who didn’t feel “called” to overseas ministries but went anyway out of obedience, people who sold their possessions despite people calling them crazy, because that’s what God asked them to do. Story after story, page after page, my heart was so stirred. Countless times I remember lying on my carpet with the book resting on my chest, crying my little heart out because I knew that my life needed to change. I wanted to read more, but I also really didn’t! The more I read, the more convicted I got. I knew that if I wanted to really live a life sold out for Jesus, that my life would need to radically change.

I spent the next few months wrestling with God over what this would look like. I could sense the things He was asking me to do and they were terrifying! Close the business, sell my house, say goodbye to my friends and family, leave my comfort of Nelson, go overseas, give away my money, cast aside my desires to be in a relationship, forget about my plans for ministry… Everywhere I looked, God was asking me to give something up. I couldn’t believe it! I couldn’t handle it. But God, these are good things! Why would you ask me to give up things in my life that are good, that I can use to bring you glory? Why would you place people and circumstances into my life, just to ask me to give them up again? How could leaving everything in my life be a good thing?!

Man, did I wrestle! So many times I laid on that carpet and said no to God. No, I can’t sell my house and give away all my money, that is not the wise thing to do because I’ve worked hard to get here and You tell us to be wise with our money! No, I can’t close my business, because You opened doors for it to open and I’m making a positive difference in the lives of so many children and providing jobs for young people! No, I can’t give up the guy I like because he’s obviously perfect for me, even if he can’t see it! No, I can’t give up that! No, I won’t give up that! No no no!

But then slowly and gently God showed me that He is trustworthy. I read countless stories in the Bible where God had asked people to do crazy, ridiculous things that made absolutely no sense, and people obeyed and God was glorified. I read stories of people sacrificing everything but gaining true relationship and intimacy with God. People who followed God, left everything, not knowing where they were going. People who were used by God, who never saw the fruits of how they were being used, but trusted He would use them anyway. Then of course I saw Jesus Christ, laying down His life for me. For ME! I realised that everything I have, it’s not things that I have earnt, it’s all just things He has graciously given me. Everything is His. My money, my friends, my family, my job, my house, my health, my country, my skills, my ministry… None of it is mine. God allows me to have these beautiful gifts because He is a God that cares. He is a good Father. Once I realised that, giving everything up to Him that is already His didn’t seem so bad! 

…Okay, it still did… Let’s be real… In theory it made sense, but in reality it was hard. It still is hard. And I’m not there yet. Yes I closed my business to follow God’s call into the unknown, yes I am leaving my friends and family for a few months, yes I have loosened my grip slightly on my money and possessions, but I haven’t given Him everything. Sometimes I think I’ve given Him everything, I lay it all at His feet and say He can use me however He wants, then a day later I go back to His feet and scoop it all back up again and run away as fast as I can! Ahhhh life… 

I was also struck by my selfish yet blessed life that I have been given. Who am I to even have these good gifts? Who am I, that I am so blessed to have such a good life that I get to actively choose to walk away from and be sad about? There are people in this world who have nothing, literally nothing! No family, no money, no safety… People flee their homes as refugees to save their lives, with no thought of going home. And here I am sad to leave an incredible life, but I have all the resources in the world to book a plane ticket home whenever I want… These thoughts definitely humble me before God and bring me back to the fact that I don’t know anything and that all I have is God’s anyway. These thoughts make me feel equally selfish and grateful! What are those quotes… “How lucky am I to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard?” “Better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all?” That’s how I feel…

Luckily, God knows our fears and that we are just human. God has been so gentle and gracious with me in this giant game of tug of war we have been playing my whole life, but particularly these last few years.  I have a huge fear of the unknown, in stepping out of the comfortable life into what God has for me. I’m a total control freak who’s top strength on Strengthsfinder is futuristic, so giving over my life plans and desires to God is veeeeeeery hard for me! Going with the flow is veeeeeeeery hard for me! But in all of this, I also learnt that God is a gracious God, full of compassion, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. Even if what He was asking me to do was too hard and I couldn’t do it and I said no, He would still love me just the same. Wow. He would still love me just the same even if I said no? Wow! But somehow that freed me to actually say yes to Him, knowing that He loves me and wants the best for me, but isn’t pushy or forceful about it. He opens His arms out wide, tells me what’s best for me, but lets me make my own choices and loves me still. That kind of love makes me want to follow Him.

[zukkacore]

Whitewashing in AtlaLok: the Western & Christian Influence on s2 of LoK

Ok, so i’m not a big brained expert on all things indigenous or even all things asian but I do think bryke's christian & western worldview seeps so far into season 2 of LoK that i think out of every season it’s by far the most unsalvageable out of everything they’ve ever done in the Atlaverse and is a very insidious kind of whitewashing. I know that sounds hefty but here’s what I mean

For the record, I’m a mixed filipino person & while there is religious diversity among filipinos, more than i think ppl realize or that the catholic majority is willing to let on, when we were colonized a large percent of the population was indeed forced to convert to catholicism so that’s my background, & i don’t know everything about taoism or the what the tai chi symbol represents but the way Bryke westernize the concept of Yin and Yang is honestly… kinda bewildering. They get so many details about yin & yang wrong?? & Yes, it’s possible they could’ve been trying to create their own lore that differentiates itself from the traditional depictions of Yin & Yang, but in the end i think it doesn’t matter b/c the lore they invent is a very obviously western interpretation of the concept of “balance”.

The most important and honestly worst change they make is that concepts of “light” and “dark” are completely oversimplified and flattened to represent basically “good” and “evil” (which, the light and dark side are a bit more complex than representing just “peace/order vs. Chaos” like the show might imply but we don’t even have time for that, but is funny how they get the genders wrong. Like. Traditionally, light is usually coded masculine and dark is usually coded feminine, but never mind that, that’s just a tangent). This really simplifies the nuance of the s2 conflict and makes it a lot less interesting, not to mention just—misrepresents a very real religious philosophy?

And for the record, a piece of media going out of its way to do "the show, don’t tell" thing of stating in the text that “oh, light and dark are not the same thing as good vs. evil” without actually displaying that difference through the writing is just lip service, and its poor writing. A lot of pieces of media do this, but i think s2 of LoK is particularly egregious. The point of this philosophy of balance is that you aren’t supposed to moralize about which side is “good” or “bad”, or even really which one is “better” or “worse”. Even if the show states the concepts are not interchangeable, if the media in question continually frames one side (and almost always its “chaos/darkness”) as the “evil” side, then the supposed distinction between “light vs. dark” and “good vs. evil” is made moot. And besides the occasional offhand remark that implies more nuance without actually delivering, Vaatu is basically stock evil incarnate.

This depiction of conflict as “defeating a singular representation of total evil” isn’t solely christian, but it is definitely present in christian beliefs. And I think those kinds of stories can be done well, but in this case, in a world filled entirely of asian, Pacific Islander & inuit poc, to me it feels like a form of subtle whitewashing? B/c you’re taking characters that probably wouldn’t have christian beliefs, and imposing a christian worldview onto them. Not to mention removes what could have been an interesting conflict of any nuance and intrigue… and honestly, sucks, because I do think s2 has the bones of an interesting idea, mostly b/c there are potential themes that could’ve been explored—I know this b/c they were already explored in a movie that exists, and it’s name is Princess Mononoke! It has a lot of the same elements—tension between spirits and humanity, destruction of nature in the face of rapid industrialization, moral ambiguity where there are no easy or fast answers and both sides have sympathetic and understandable points of view. (Unsurprising b/c Miyazaki is Japanese & Japanese culture has a lot of influence from Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, etc)

Bryke’s western & christian worldview also totally seeps into the characterization of Unalaq, the antagonist of the season which is a real problem. I’m in the middle of rewatching s2 right now and what struck me is that….. Unalaq comes across kinda ecofash AND fundamentalist which is 1) seems like an odd combination but maybe it really isn’t? 2) i think is a really tacky choice considering that the water tribes take the majority of its inspiration from inuit and polynesian indigenous cultures.

I honestly forgot abt this but Unalaq gives this whole lame speech abt how the SWT & humans as a whole suck b/c of their lack of spiritual connection & it was really eerie to me b/c "humans are morally bankrupt and they must be wiped out/punished for their destruction of the environment" is total ecofash logic bc it blames all of humanity for damage caused by those in power—be they capitalists or whoever. It’s a worldview that blames the poor and powerless for something they have no say in, and has real eugenics undertones bc with every implication of culling, there has to be someone who appoints themself the job of culling—of who is and isn’t worthy of death.

This belief also struck me as......... kinda christian in it's logic as well which is WEIRD b/c once again........ their cultural inspirations are DEFINITELY not christian...... The whole "man is inherently evil and must spend their whole lifetime repenting/must face punishment for it’s wickedness" thing and the way that christianity treats humanity as born with original sin or inherently corrupt—as well as above or separate from nature are really stronger undertones in Unalaqs worldview....... which isn't really an indigenous way or thinking.

I'm generalizing of course but from what I have seen from the indigenous people who speak on this is that (feel free to point out or correct me if i’m mostly generalizing abt Native Americans and not other indigenous cultures & there are some differences here) is that while native tribes are not monolithic and do vary wildly, there are a lot of common threads and that reverence and respect toward nature and your surroundings is an important tenant of indigenous beliefs. (I specifically remember the hosts on All My Relations saying essentially that we humans are a part of nature, we are not separate from it, and humans are not superior to animals—I’m paraphrasing but that is the gist of it)

So, yeah, I think it’s just really distasteful to write an indigenous character who is characterized in a way that’s way more in line with a christian fundamentalist & wants to bring about a ragnarok style apocalypse end of the world when that isn’t really a tenant of our beliefs? (btw, the way the end of the world is framed is also kinda fucked up? If i were being charitable, I could say that maybe s2’s storyline is a corruption of the hindu depiction of the end of the world, but even that sounds mildly insulting for reasons I won’t get into b/c i am Not The Expert On Hinduism. I will say that once again, the framing of the concept is all wrong, the show views the idea of apocalypse through a very western lense)

To wrap this up, I think the depiction of Unalaq could *maybe* work b/c he is the antagonist, so someone who strays from the NWT cultural tradition in a way that makes his view of morality more black and white wouldn’t be a *horrible* idea for the bad guy of the season. Especially because the introduction of capitalism to the A:TLA universe could probably cause a substantial shifts to… idk, everything i guess, b/c capitalism is so corrosive. Like. Sometimes people are just traitors. I do think it would be interesting to portray the way capitalism manifests in a society without white christians. Like… I do think there are a lot of ways secular christianity and capitalism are interlinked. But Unalaq is not portrayed as an outsider, he’s portrayed as hyper-traditionalist in a way that’s vilified? I guess rightly so, he does suck, but it’s just hard to conceptualize how a person like Unalaq comes to exist in the first place. In the end, I don’t really think it makes sense, in a world without white people, I don’t really know where this introduction of black and white christian morality would even come from in the avatar world?

TL;DR, Bryke applying western christian morality & world views to non-white characters in a world where white people have NEVER existed to affect our beliefs is a subtle form of white-washing. It imposes simplified “good vs. evil” world-views & cultural beliefs onto its characters. Any attempt to represent or even just integrate our actual beliefs into the A:tla lore are twisted and misrepresented is a way that is disrespectful and saps out any nuance or intrigue from the story, and alienates the people its supposed to represent from recognizing themselves within the final product. And Finally, on a more superficial story level, these writing choices clashe with the already existing world of ATLA--and is honestly just poor world-building.

[qqueenofhades]

Some additional points about that grave find in Finland that you may or may not find interesting. And that may or may not be dated, because I studied history 20 years ago. That said, I'm not sure if 1000 years ago is firmly middle-ages in this context? At least back in my uni days, they told us that here middle ages got going slowly during 1100's and 1200's when Sweden started converting the population to Christianity and the prehistorical era gradually ended. Maybe they teach differently now.

More about the grave. I don't know why The Guardian would talk about Vikings in this context at all, because the erstwhile population of current day Finland is not considered to have been Vikings, afaik. They were similarly warlike, and the graves from that era have a lot of weapons, and they certainly encountered Vikings, but they never participated in the raiding, and isn't that what makes Vikings Vikings? Their language and religion was also different. But anyway. I don't mean to correct you because the larger point stands. When I saw the headline in a Finnish news paper about that grave and traditional gender roles my first thought was, well, maybe the gender roles hadn't become traditional then yet. Just some additional context, which could be illuminating or could be totally dated.

I did the stupid thing and sent you asks about the Suontaka burial before reading the Cambridge article about it: I'm reading it now, and my comments seem fairly useless. Feel free to ignore with extreme prejudice. We're in agreement on the guardian article.

Aha, well, we all make mistakes from time to time, so no worries! However, since you do touch on a few points that I would like to discuss, I'm going to go ahead and answer, whether for you or anyone else who might find it useful. (It's the teacher in me, I'm afraid.)

First, I have to say that I had a definite "eeegh" moment at the idea that the eleventh/twelfth century isn't "medieval" in Finland just because it (at least prior to the Baltic/Northern crusades, if we're considering them to begin with the Wendish Crusade in 1147) wasn't yet fully Christianized. Scholars pretty universally accept "medieval history" as referring to the time period between 500--1500 CE (the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance). These, of course, are horribly Eurocentric frames of reference, but there you have it. Any event or culture taking place within that span of dates, no matter where in the world it is or what its socio-political circumstances may be, is medieval. We have to call out the pernicious equivalence of "medieval" with "Western Christian European," since that seems to be the underlying assumption. This is also what makes people mistakenly think that the medieval world (which, y'know, was just as big as it is now) is exclusively about white Christian Europe, and that no other global regions have a medieval history. Either way, the eleventh/twelfth century is actually closer to the end of the medieval era than it is to the start. I'm certainly not suggesting that you were consciously implying this; I have no trouble believing that that is indeed how they taught it twenty years ago. But yeah, the idea that still-largely-pagan eleventh-century Finland couldn't be "medieval" until it's Christian is definitely not the case as understood now.

The idea that anywhere in eleventh-century Europe is still "prehistorical" in any sense of the word is likewise a little baffling, tbh. Once more, it associates "history" only with "Christianity," and that would get quite a bit of pushback if included in a paper on medieval studies today. That is what also annoys me deeply when I see people describing the pre-Columbian Americas as "prehistoric" (read: pre-white-people-historic). If the chief marker of "history" is "written history," sure, there is a very narrow pedagogical argument to be made that these societies don't have narratives or chronicles in the standard historiographical sense. But also, uh, European colonialism and conquest destroyed vast swathes of records that we have never been able to read, understand, or even access, because they're just not there anymore. There is ample evidence that the ancient (and I do mean ANCIENT, up to thousands of years BCE) and early-to-late-medieval Mesoamerican societies had complex systems of writing, astronomy, calendar-keeping, and other history-recording practices, right up until 1492. There are something like four (FOUR) pre-Columbian Mayan scrolls still in existence, out of probably thousands and thousands, because the Spanish destroyed the rest. So "prehistoric," unless you're literally referring to the Stone Age, is never a politically neutral word or a word to use uncritically...

...and speaking of the Stone Age, we actually have histories for that too! Or rather (iirc) the Ice Age, because for example, Aboriginal Australians transmit their history orally and require each new generation to memorize it, word for word, exactly as taught to them. Some of these histories stretch back over ten thousand years, which means that we actually have first-person accounts of life during the end of the Ice Age, and scientists recently discovered that these traditional narratives accurately reflected the archaeological and geological record of Australia during the time period in question. (Indigenous people know what they're talking about and should be listened to, example number 85,000.) Of course, the Western-white-supremacist model of historiography calls these just "legends" or "myths" or "folktales" rather than history, because I guess not writing it down in a chronicle as a monk in a European Christian monastery in the year 1015 or whatever doesn't qualify as history for some people. (I don't have strong opinions about this or anything. Welp.)

I likewise don't know why the Guardian article brought up the Vikings, aside from the fact that they were quoting someone who explicitly used the Vikings in a hypothetical scenario about "traditional gender roles." This person expressed surprise that an intersex person living in a medieval Scandinavian society could rise to a high social role, by citing the widespread belief that "Vikings" were all dedicated to being very manly at all times and nobody with feminine qualities/feminine-coded social power could rule over them. I don't know if this was just a bad phrasing (plus, it obviously overlooks the often-egalitarian nature of medieval Scandinavian societies and plays into the favored white supremacist stereotype of the Vikings as some Master Aryan Race Where Men Were Men, etc) or what, but yeah, it's wrong across the board. Viking is the name of an occupation, not an ethnicity. It comes from the word wicing, meaning "seafarer" or "sea raider," and referred only to those guys who went out on their longships and stole a lot of stuff from their neighbors, most notably in the eighth to eleventh centuries. Their families back at home were part of the exact same society and benefited from those raids, but strictly speaking, they weren't vikings. We use the word "Viking" to describe any member of a medieval Scandinavian society, but it's similar to describing everyone living in the eighteenth-century Caribbean, no matter who they were or their social status or ethnic background, as "pirates," which is obviously inaccurate.

As you correctly point out, the Finns aren't considered quite the same as the Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes (as anyone can tell from looking at their written language; N/D/S are mutually intelligible and derive from the same linguistic family, while Finnish is COMPLETELY different and comes from an altogether separate branch of the tree) and therefore it's even more baffling that the person quoted in the Guardian article would cite them as an example of a "Viking" society. Likewise as you note, the whole phrase "traditional gender roles" is intensely problematic in most contexts, and especially here. It assumes that modern Western ideals of sex and gender have been static and unchanging throughout history, and that means that we tend to read our own (biased) assumptions onto the historical record and then get surprised when, shock of shock, they don't fit. The burial at Suontaka seems to have been of a biologically intersex person (i.e. someone with Klinefelter syndrome), but this is also the case when it comes to people assigned the usual male or female at birth, without any complicating genetic conditions. I'm working on a book review for an entire edited volume that discusses the intense gender-fluidity and proto-transgenderism in some medieval saints' lives, and how obviously the fact that they have been held up as a holy example, while explicitly subverting the so-called Traditional Gender Roles of the Middle Ages, means that it was (and is) a lot more complicated than shallow stereotypes and Bad Medievalism would have it.

Anyway, this is long enough (especially considering that you graciously offered me the chance to ignore it) so I think we'll stop here for now. But yes, there you have it. :)

[modlisznik]

let’s talk about taboo

so in today’s eisode of “Mo Overthinks Everything” - this quote:

because it opens up some fascinating concepts about the Kin’s lore and how colonisation screwed them over

What I think is important to realize is that the right to cut bodies - of animals (for butchers) and of humans (for menkhu [does this word have a plural form?]) - isn’t a caste-given prviledge, as Clara calls it at the cementary. It’s an act of a cosmic-level importance, interaction with the sacrum, and it can’t be done without tainting oneself or ir; you better know what you’re doing or you’re screwing your whole community, your whole world over. Menkhu and butchers are allowed, yes, but they are on thin fuckin ice and even then it is stated that the butchers just have to deal with the fact that they are, let’s call this, ritualistically impure. They aren’t as much people who can break the taboo as the people who took on themself to break the taboo for the good of the community, so the others won’t have to. It is not a desirable state, but a form of self-sacrifice.

now we don’t know if that state of ritualistic impurity of butchers is constant or not - but I think we can assume that there are (were) ways and rituals for them to be cleansed and allowed to reintegrate into the community. We can imagine that in the old days, slaughtering the bulls was a rare event, in which the whole group participated in choosing the animals and processing their meat, and they wouldn’t kill more animals that they could reasonably partake in, so, after all of this was done there could be period for the butchers to be cleaned from the weight of their transgression.

(sth similar could be available for menkhu, ofc, but on a smaller scale, as they are trusted, due to their knowledge, to be more able to deal safely with the sacrum. Besides, as shamans, they are generally living on the borders of society already)

((I also love that the emphasis on the menkhu’s ability and duty to “listening to the body” and cutting where it wants to give emplies that the Kin would probably be 100% pro gender confirmation surgery))

now -

Knock Knock, it's the United States

-not really, but it’s the imperial Russia and collonialism and Christianity and the Bull Enterprise - and the Kin are being forced by economic violence to partake in the system that brands them *all* as butchers. That make them breed their cattle on the scale unimaginable before only to be slaughtered, en masse, daily and the meat to be shipped away. There’s no escape from this system, from the horror and humiliation, because that’s how capitalism works. So to survive in this world where they are forced to break the taboo constantly, where they are valued for it, where it becomes their whole identity - the only way is to let go of their beliefs. Of course not all of them, not instantly, not for everyone - but surely and steadily, their culture starts to erode and in the cracks some parts of the town culture bleeds in. Cutting a body turns into “a sin”.

and they all believe they are doomed already; that they are all impure and all that’s left for them is hope that their self-sacrifice would help their community survive - like these two Worms who bring to Haruspex human organs, willingly sacrificing their life.

(also to end on a lighter note, the fact that for it to be sacrificed at Ragi Barrow, the Kin brought a bull from the steppe, because he didn’t live in the shadow of the abattoir and doesn’t fear death. We could assume it’s just poetic speech, but not only we know that the Worms are able to speak with bulls, we saw, as Artemy, that the bulls indeed talk. Therefore we can conclude that, for the rite to be complete, the Kin need to have consent from the bull)

[nightswithkookmin]

Dear new friend,

I just finished reading your messages. First of all, thank you. I think I would have been less traumatized out here if a lot of people took to sharing their thoughts on matters such as these in the manner in which you do.

I think I set myself up too because I be wanting to participate in certain topics and discussions and so often I find myself trying to sieve through the vitriol and pejoratives.

The gender of the word is feminine not masculine. I don’t see how that is misinformation.

"Sorry, the misinformation bit was because I was thinking about that tweet that went viral about this word being used only for woman. The person said it was an adjective, and you said it was an adjective, so I thought you were basing this information on that tweet. That day was crazy, some people spread this, wanted to change his pronouns, trend a hashtag and were saying he had came out... This was too much. And the "debunked" thing was about this tweet, as well. Not about the words being feminine and masculine. That's a fact, you're right."

I had no idea a tweet went viral like that claiming he wanted to change his pronouns. That's wild and I disagree. Lol. I think I've always maintained he uses He/him pronouns and said time and again I do not think he wants to be emasculated at all. As I said, that would have made him transgender not bigender and thus defeat the purpose. To be bigender he has to be two genders at the same time not one.

But I have been following the discussions on this topic on the bird app and I try my best to bring nuance to certain discussions. I try. Lol.

I take note of the differences between your language and Latin as you rightly pointed out. But I also do see the similarities and I think the explanation you gave and the examples you provided gives me a better understanding of the language structure.

"Yeah, totally fine hahah We tend to interpret things according to our own experiences; for me, a gendered word is part of my daily life, normal, and I don't bat an eye about it. Is just a word, the importance is in its meaning ─ and it suits filter SOOO well. For you, it's something more. At the end of the day, art is here to be interpreted, and if Jimin doesn't explicitly explain the filter performance, tattoos, set, outfits... It's open for interpretation. (And I'm not a person that tries to find hidden meanings. I simply enjoy what I enjoy. I have this thing about being as accurate as possible, so I try to stick to facts (like: I don't feel comfortable saying he chose these words, because I don't know if HE was the person that chose it (in the sense that he was the one that bring it up to the staff/company). Maybe someone else showed it to him and he was like: "Nice! I want it!". But I feel okay saying he's had a tattoo with these words (A fact). Also I don't make a big deal of most things ─ for me Jimin is Jimin and I'm supporting him regardless, he's precious)

(But Memories 2020 is coming and I'm almost sure they are going to show filter behind the scenes!!!! So we're going to understand better this masterpiece (I HOPE SO))

I understand what you mean. Some people are inclined towards taking the literal meaning of texts or in this case art and not read much into situations beyond what is presented at face value- not me🤣🤣🤣🤣

I do the magnifying glass and errthang👁

I think humans are complex and there's always a possibility of a psychological and or pathological stimulus underscoring their behaviors, choices and actions in most cases.

But that aside, I think it's easier to take a heteronormative view on things sometimes because cis straight has always been the norm even in appreciating art- but truth is, coding and co opting codified expressions is almost always part of queer culture and behavior too. If any other queer celebrity had used that expression, I would be reading much into it too beyond its semantics.

For me it's simple, would I be reading too too much into the language and art choice of someone I thought was cis straight? Hell No. Straight is boring and blunt as fuck.

Unless of course they were being intentionally witty or secretive about something, I'd assume and expect their expressions to be pretty much straight forward- generally. I went home to be would mean just that.

If I sensed the author were queer coding Home would mean something else entirely to be. Home becomes a symbol not a word. And if he chose to write that in Latin and not the language they spoke naturally, I'd assume there's something about that language that he likes and perhaps uses to code a queer message.

For closeted queer people who live in a world where they are constantly coerced to take on a duality and have an expressional alter egos- two identical identities with one being the facade and pretense through which they openly and largely perform normalcy of self, the other being their real self which they tuck away because it is inconsistent with the acceptable norms- I'd a take a very different approach to their art. But that's me.

If a straight person said they needed escape, it would mean something totally different to me than say if a queer person said they needed escape. Because those two are escaping two very different things.

For example, the words Moon and moonlight used by a straight person means nothing to me- perhaps because I just don't care much to look for its deeper meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words as presented. If it appears in a queer person's parlance, even if in passing, I assume immediately they are referencing something much more deeper, meaningful and coded.

Queer coding is a thing you know? And it's born out of necessity not choice sometimes.

Take for instance BTS's proclivity to 'queer codify' their music. Moon and moonlight has become symbolic of the inner struggles of a queer person amongst black 'educated' queer men and women. It's come to symbolize cultural norms and expectations and how those affect queer people- perhaps of all race.

In the Movie Moonlight, which has become the epitome of queer black struggles and desires for liberation, this motif was used to represent the struggles of a black boy dealing with the pressures of a hyper masculine society.

When RM references this in 4 Oclock, 'the whole world is blue under the moonlight' is he queer coding or just appropraiting queer parlance as buzz word? That expression takes on a whole new meaning were he queer. Blue symbolizes queerness- a theory popularized of course by the Film. When V who once wrote an allegedly 'queer coded song' Stigma says he is blue- what does he mean now? On the surface blue means blue. Would you take a straightforward view on this or assume its symbolic? And what is it symbolic of?? Sadness?? Gayness?

If RM had an accompanying tattoo as compliment to the song in his performance that evoked similar sentiments or hinted at a possible second meaning I wouldn't assume that that tattoo meant nothing or that it didn't have a deeper meaning behind it.

It's just as how Lil Nas X posted a city of rainbows and people said 'rainbows are rainbows. Y'all shouldn't read much into it.' But for queer people that was pretty much a declaration of his sexuality.

Later he had to post again and reiterate that that rainbow post was his coming out moment. 'I thought I made it obvious.'

Somethings are pretty much obvious.

For JM who don't speak Latin- unless he is secretly fluent in which case my bad- I don't think he cares so much about the grammar of the language beyond it's meaning. And perhaps gender? Grammatical gender I mean. That's just because the first thing you learn about Latin is that all the nouns are gendered?

I won't lie. When I first learned that I was supper fascinated about grammatical gender and why speakers of the language felt a need to gender every word of the language.

In the end, we all don't know. I'm out here convinced two Asian men are so gay they can't straight to save their asses. I have a tendency to view everything they do through queer lens. If they are not gay I'm pretty much gaslighting them you know?

I'm always fascinated by different point of views on a myriad of subjects. Just as you said, our diverse experiences inform our experiences and perspectives. I just hope people acknowledge how their straightness informs their understanding of queerness too and how that has a tendency to be invalidating and dismissive of queer issues and experiences.

But to me it's like, if Jikook are gay why do you have to interpret what they do through straight lens?

Personally, I wouldn't interpret straight through queer lens and force that view on to straight people. That would be homonormative? Assuming rainbow means straight people are gay when they are not, moon means feminine to straight men, that the use of the word God makes one a Christian- that's just silly and bizarre.

I use Namaste often and suddenly some people here think I'm Indian. I wish. They have one hell of a culture.

When I was reading through your messages, all that kept playing in my head was- that's a very 'straight' view on the matter. Lol. Please tell me you got the pun. Lol.

I think my opinion will remain the same on the matter if you placed any queer person in Jimin's stead. Any queer person that I believed was queer and had hinted a few times at exploring a dual identity or going through that phase at least.

I think I'd enjoy your blog if you had one.

I love love the lesson on Italian or is it Spanish?

Also, I would love your take on V and Stigma. A lot of queer stans have a queer reading of the lyrics- I see the appeal however I don't have a queer reading of it at all. Thoughts??

Namaste.

Signed,

GOLDY

[colorisbyshe]

(1/2) Most of the asexual community is cishet white people, that's fact. But I think there's a subset that nobody wants to talk about. Like, I remember a poll about people who self-identified as asexual in the UK (or just England, can't recall) and an 80 or so % also identified as deeply religious. I think there's a level of religious indoctrination/religious sex repulsion related to asexuality that people don't want to admit because asexuals of all races still try to claim religious persecution

(2/2) while the truth is that barring specific cases (like "women must always be available to their husbands and pop a bunch of kids" which is misogyny, not aphobia) all religions are very much pro-asexuality/pro-celibacy. So sorry for bringing The Discourse back again into your askbox lmao feel free not to reply, I just thought it was curious and you’re the undisputed queen of sources&citations 

A. I’m only answering this because this ask is saying something a little bit new, any more redundant asks will be ignored

and B. I think there needs to be a little bit of pushback here.

Firstly, I’m gonna come at this from a largely western, white culturally christian view point. These are not statements on any other religion because I don’t want to come off as punching down or speaking out of line on shit I do not know anything about.

I don’t think religion is necessarily pro celibacy. Like you said, Christianity is really for getting married and squirting out biological children. And, yeah, that is based in misogyny, that’s the crux of it, isn’t it? Misogyny is ubiquitous and exists in and outside of religion.

And misogyny says two things about people (women and even other genders): you must have sex and you must never have sex. A contradiction of sorts!

So, the sex you can have must be good enough sex to justify you going against not having sex. It must be for reproduction, it must be heterosexual, it must not be lustful, it can’t be deviant, it must be monogamous and under marriage, blah blah blah. Of course, within Western White Christianity, these rules matter more, and as you get more and more outside those confines, your adherence to those rules might matter less to you.

But the culture of White Christianity is society wide, even when you aren’t a part of the religion, so the taint is still there. Which is why I think you have a lot of people trying to jump through hopes to find ways that THEIR sex (and sexual desires, whether or not they call them that) are “good” enough to not be sinful, tainted, deviant, wrong.

Just like this contradiction of “You must fuck except for you should never suck” can be exacerbated by certain religions, it can be exacerbated by more generalized misogyny, internalized racism/homophobia/transphobia/fatphobia/ableism, racism/homophobia/transphobia/fatphobia/ableism from outside sources, and other things like low self confidence.

“I’m gay and like to fuck men but in a more pure way” can come from someone dealing with homophobia.  To avoid confronting “slut shaming” (hate that term), women might find ways to deal with their libidos and desires by framing them as less sexual.

Of course, White Western Christianity has a LARGE hand in a lot of these -ism and phobias existing, but it has seeped so significantly into culture at large that even people who aren’t deeply religious might end up doing the same things for ismilar reasons.

Sex is demanded and shamed in turn. Sometimes, the easiest way to deal with the shame for wanting it is to pretend you don’t really want it. That’s not just a deeply religious thing. That’s just a trauma via zeitgeist thing.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I love your blog it’s definitely one of the most smartest and cultured ones around. Since you are a super chilled out military vet (flying combat helicopters, how cool is that?!) and also a very thoughtful and devout Christian (I think you talked about being an Anglican) I know this is a cheeky question but I’ll ask it anyway. Would you rather live in a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship?

Now this is an interesting question you play at 2am and the wine is dangerously low.

I have to correct you on a couple of things. Yes, it was ‘cool’ to fly combat helicopters especially in a battlefield setting but it was just a job, like any other. And it’s never about the pilot it’s about the rest of the team behind you, especially your ground crew who make sure you go up and come back in one piece. As for being super chilled you clearly have never seen how sweaty one gets flying in high stress situations. Oh and the stink! A skunk wouldn’t last 5 minutes in my cockpit.

As for my Christian beliefs, I’ll settle for being a believing one. My faith, such as it is, is about living - and failing - by grace day by day than being fervently devout. Faith is a struggle to not rely upon one’s own strength but on divine mercy and grace.

Anyway....

Would I rather live in a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship?

History has shown there's not a lot of difference between the two...

No, wait. On second thoughts maybe I would rather live in a military dictatorship as the lesser evil.

As an ex-officer in her HM armed forces, I know things will be run pretty efficiently with no dilly-dallying. So there’s that.

I suppose even if one does say it’s preferable to live under military rule rather than a theocratic one there is still the question of what kind of military rule? Every nation that has been under military rule came to power and sustained their hold under different dynamics. And of course it also depends on how mature civil society and the rule of law as well as the democratic culture really was in the first place. A lot is tied up with the brutal nature of the personality of the regime leader too. There are simply too many variables.

So one is forced to generalise. So l can’t get too serious in answering this question.

Rather than focus on the negative side let’s look on the bright side.

Just off the top of my head I can think of these reasons why I would choose to ‘live’ under military rule than a theocratic one. There are in no real order:

Beds will be made properly subject to inspection.

Families will be run like military units with the man at the head of the table.

Family meals will be taken at set times.

Public civility will make a return (e.g. no public spitting, drunken, or loutish behaviour).

Freedom of speech will more likely be censored than abolished (better than nothing I suppose)

Elections would be rigged rather than banned (but who really votes anyway these days?)


They will most likely make the trains run on time (unless you’re British or Italian).

Military leaders often enjoy genuine popularity - albeit after eliminating plausible rivals - that is based on “performance legitimacy,” a perceived competence at securing prosperity and defending the nation against external or internal threats. The new autocrats of today are more surgical: they aim only to convince citizens of their competence to govern.

Maintaining power, for military dictators and their court, is less a matter of terrorising and persecuting victims than of manipulating beliefs about the world. But of course they can do both if backed into a corner to survive.

State propaganda aims not to re-engineer human souls but to boost the military regime leader’s ratings.

The military tend to stay out of personal lives. They have a political police but not necessarily a moral police.

Economic growth is more likely to be stable than under a theocratic state.

Military dictatorships are more likely to build vast bureaucracies to run the state - more jobs for everyone

The military put on great events. Their parades are more colourful and spectacular.

Having a sense of humour is more likely to get you imprisoned than executed for telling an anti-regime joke. It’s no joke to say that people develop a more refinery subversive sense of humour when oppressed. Take for example a famous comedian in Myanmar, Zarganar, for whom comedy is a shield and a weapon. During the time of the military dictatorship (1962-2010) he would make jokes like, “The American says, 'We have a one-legged guy who climbed Mount Everest.' The Brit says, 'We recently had a guy with no arms who swam the Atlantic Ocean. But the Burmese guy says, 'That's nothing! We had a leader who ruled for 18 years without a brain!" It was for jokes like this that Zarganar received a prison sentence in 2008 - for up to 59 years.

Military dictatorships don’t last long. They are more unstable. They tend to fall from the weight of their own contradictions.

One of the problems of living in a theocracy is how absolutist it would be in looking at life in terms of clear cut black and white according to those who rule over you. I strongly suspect in a theocratic state the morality secret police will be all over you looking for any social or moral infraction. In a Christian Theocracy, you'll never be Christian enough - the same would be for states that were Islamic, Judaic or Hindu etc. There's always going to be some pious asshole there with another version of Christianity that is more Christian than you and you're going to lose the freedom to make your own choices.

Under theocracies, unlike other authoritarian regimes, the rulers are the moral authorities that legitimises and fuels their political legitimacy to govern. It assumes its own moral correctness married to its political destiny to rule over others. As C.S Lewis memorably puts it, “Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.”

Finally, I’ll go with the military dictatorship with the hope that there might be some way of bringing the system down with a bit of logic and rationality. Hell knows that wouldn't be possible in a theocratic system!

I agree with Margaret Atwood when she said, “If you disagree with your government, that's political. If you disagree with your government that is approaching theocracy, then you're evil.” There’s more wriggle room with fighting against a military dictatorship because it’s usually against an asshole tyrant - or a ruling oligarchy of a military junta - and not a pernicious idea soaked in theological bullshit or an entire ideology divinely santificated by God himself.

A more interesting question is not to ask is why many people are so readily drawn to be ruled under a military rule or a theocratic one and especially a benevolent dictatorship (like Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore or Paul Kagame in Rwanda) but why increasingly more people in the Western world look to authoritarian figures to rule and shape their lives?

Why do Silicon Valley titans like Peter Thiel and others like him think fondly of ditching democracy in the name of some utopian hyper-capitalist vision of ‘freedom’?

I hear murmurs of the same talk when I interact with corporate colleagues and high net worth individuals I hear it around dinner tables about how democracy is bad for business and profit. Often it’s accompanied by praise for China's ability to "get things done." I just roll my eyes and smile politely. 

I think - outside of the legitimate concern of the decay of civil discourse, the corruption of politicians, and corrosiveness of crony capitalism - it’s because democratic politics is hard. Damn hard.

Moreover democratic politics does not have a "right" answer. There never is.

In our Western societies it is the playing field (or market place?) where our values compete. Surely, you say, there is a right way to get the job done: to fill in the potholes, build the roads, keep our streets safe, get our kids to learn reading and math. Ah, but look how quickly those issues get contentious.

Whose potholes should get filled first? Do we try to keep our streets safe through community policing or long prison sentences? Should teachers be given merit pay, are small classrooms better, or should we lengthen the school day? These issues engender deep political fights, all - even in the few debates where research provides clear, technocratic answers. That is because the area of politics is an area for values disputes, not technical solutions.

One person's "right" is not another's because people prioritise different values: equity versus excellence, efficiency versus voice and participation, security versus social justice, short-term versus long-term gains.

Democratic politics allows many ideas of "right" to flourish. It is less efficient than dictatorship. It also makes fewer tremendous mistakes.

The longing for a leader who knows what is in her people's best interests, who rules with care and guides the nation on a wise path, was Plato's idea of a philosopher-king. It's a tempting picture, but it's asking the wrong question.

In political history, philosophers moved from a preference for such benevolent dictators to the ugly realities of democracy when they switched the question from "who could best rule?" to "what system prevents the worst rule?"

But clearly democracy is buckling under pressure in our torrid times. Populism - the logical end consequence of a purer democracy - is chipping away at the edifice of democratic norms and conventions. Increasingly inward looking nativism and nationalism fuel passions beyond the control of reason.

Perhaps it is time we went back to the tried and tested example of a monarchy, a constitutional one that is. 

A revitalised monarchy in Britain needs a Head of State that can provide a personal identity to an impersonal State, and a collective sense of itself. A Head of State who does not owe his or her position to either patronage or a vote can more properly represent all the people. Consider that a President who has been elected, often by a minority of a minority of the electorate, cannot adequately speak for the people who did not vote for him or her. It is even worse if the President has been appointed, because then he owes his position to a small clique.So, the accident of birth is the best means of appointing a Head of State. Someone who has no party political axe to grind, or special favours to repay to a vested interest. Someone whose allegiance is to the people. Not just allegiance to the people who voted for him or his political party, but allegiance to all the people of the country equally. Far from being "incompatible" with democracy, a Monarchy can thereby enhance the government of the land.

The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad.

When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she took the throne, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. Someone who embodies in her person a history which extends back through time, back through the Victorian era, back into the Stuart era and beyond. You see the national history of all parts of our islands, together, going right back in time.

As Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton and Michael Oakeshott would say, the monarchy is a living continuity between the past, the present and the future.

With its traditions, its history, its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.

If you value national distinctiveness, you should be a Monarchist.

If you are anti-globalist you should be a Monarchist because Monarchies represent the different national traditions and distinctions among the nations.

The desire to secure, strengthen and promote your own distinct national icons, whether your Monarch, or your own unique national identity, should be your concern, whether you live here in St Andrews, or whether you live in St Petersburg, or whether you live in St Paulo.

As the global financial system rushes us all towards a world intended to eradicate all local and national distinctions, the Monarchy stands out as different, distinct and valuable. Constitutionally, practically, spiritually and symbolically the Monarchy is a national treasure, the continued erosion of which would change the character of Britain, and not in a good way!

I’m speaking as a High Tory now, sorry.  And so of course I only see it working for the United Kingdom....and the Commonwealth (slip that discreetly in there for you India, Australia, Canada, and Africa).

Still, if you want egalitarianism then look at Norway and the Netherlands - both highly "egalitarian" societies, and both monarchies.

Everyone else will just have to jolly well do without or ask us politely to come back (I’m looking at you my dear American colonial cousins, all will be forgiven).

The best of all worlds? Time will tell.

At your service, Ma’am....

Thanks for your question.

[welcome-to-green-hills]

I am a 12 year old boy, and christian. But lately I've been pretending that i'm a girl, and whenever my parents leave, i put a blanket around my legs and pretend it's like a princess dress. Are these habits normal? I personally don't believe that boys wearing dresses is a sin or anything, but I don't even know if I'm right about that

Hello, buddy!

I’m very sorry that this took so long. Please know that I was not trying to ignore you at all. I have been thinking of the best mature answer to give you. I wanted to take the time to carefully evaluate my words and string them together comfortably. This post was revised a few times due to my opinion being expressed rather than the opposite. What was asked of me was if this was a normal behavior, not my opinion. For this post, I strive to only share logical evaluations and concepts before arriving to a conclusion.

(There will be articles and research data referenced as well, but I’ll put a hyperlink in it as a source and reference it at the end).

I think that what should matter is that what feels the best to you. What matters is how you feel in your heart and mind. If that is what feels comfortable to you, then that is what works best for you. Viewing this as an anthropologist, clothes are not defined with a binary—humans define it by a binary. Meaning that when clothes are made, there isn’t a strict rule as to who and what should wear it. A dress doesn’t come with instructions saying, “dresses are for girls/women only.” Humans, the cultural and social norms that they were raised in, advertise articles of clothing as a norm. In short: yes! It’s becoming normal, especially now (Ipsos 2019, #3-6). Even back when Christianity was just beginning, many wore animal skins, tunics, wool, and a special unisex skirt called a “stola” or similar to. (Wikipedia 2020).

I’ve shared a long time ago that there are at least 52--and counting--genders in the world and 6 different types of biological sex that a person can have (Joshua Kennon 2018). There is no reason, or excuse, to have clothes catered to only two options. We, as a society, hear more about people of multiple genders use clothing as a form of expression. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It seems weird now because we’re becoming, what you youngings say, “woke.” There is nothing wrong with a person who identifies as a male and wears a skirt. Nor is there anything wrong with a person who identifies as a female and wears bow ties. (Weak example, I know, but it’s the most “male” item I can think of for Western Culture). Normalizing a binary as a “non binary” is a bit odd for a hardcore culture to understand, but overtime it can be taught and woven into cultural morals later on.

Here’s an example:

One thing that came to mind while writing this was Schitt’s Creek star, Daniel Levy. In the show, he played a role (David Rose) where his character wore skirts and skorts as a norm. The character also wore a skirt equivalent to his wedding when he wedded his husband.

Recently, the show’s actor and creator wore a skirt while receiving his nineth Emmy award in 2020 (Fernandez, 2020).

I’ve been trying to find my notes and PDF files shared through previous anthropological courses through each semester to share. I don’t want to make any claims without sharing proof... plus it gives you something to read if you’re interested in it. However, in ever class I’ve attended and talked with professionals of specific archaeological and cultural fields, the use of gendered clothing appears to be traced back to when humans began agricultural societies. Agricultural (also referred to as “agrarian” society anthropologically) societies were really the start of just about everything, like governmenting officials, farming, the concepts of relatives and families, gender specific roles (like taking care of kids and gender specific jobs) in a defined group, and religion.

Anthropologist Joanne Eicher studies humans in the now, the contemporary. What she loves to view is cultural standards art, humanities, and the way that people dress as well. She brushes up on this in her published work called “The Anthropology of Dress” from the late 2000s. Give it a read if you’re interested, we can talk further about it if you have questions.

In short, if you really were asking for my opinion about it it’s okay for males to wear skirts, then my answer will be “yes.” I think that it’s perfectly okay and cool beans for males to wear a skirt. I also think that it’s perfectly okay for females to wear male clothing, like suits/tuxedos that give off an alpha vibe and sports gear.

Onto the second portion of your question:

Tackling the first section, “I am a 12 year old boy, and christian. But lately I've been pretending that i'm a girl...” Are you asking me if it’s normal for someone your age to pretend to be a girl?

If you’re asking me if it’s normal for kids in your age group to portray themselves as a different gender, then yes in some cases. It is normal, it’s just deemed as a surreal topic to hear it in public. It is perfectly normal to question the portrayal of yourself, and it’s perfectly okay to explore other possibilities (Mascareille, 2015).

As stated before, what should matter here is what you think and feel is right in your heart/mind. No one can tell you what you can and can’t be. I can’t tell you who and what you should be in life, that’s all up to you. I can’t force you to become something that you’re nots only You know what’s best for you in your heart and mind. What helps is to have that conversation with yourself. Ask yourself who you are and what you strive to be. This is an important part of life—you get to invent the person that you want to be. And the glorious thing about this development is that this is the perfect time where you’re open to all possibilities and emerging into a culture/society where we ask questions. It’s okay to ask questions and try new things (Early Childhood National Centers, n.d).

I’m going to leave two links down below to a couple website that you can read more about. I do not mean to leave you on a short note here and shrug you off. What I’m leaving you with are some other source materials that you are welcomed to brush up on as well. I am very honored that you trust me enough to have this conversation, but I can only provide so much. This means that I can provide you with much information as I can on this topic, but I don’t know what it means to you in your heart and soul. You know better than I do.

KidsHealth.org by Nemours

Human Rights Campaign—Tools for Equality and Inclusion

There is nothing wrong with you at all. None whatsoever. And if you have any questions, or just need someone to talk to about it, you’re always welcomed here. I’ll provide you with the recourses that you need in order to be successful. Stay safe and remember that you’re worthy and matter. I hope that this answers your question, buddy!✨

[scarletravenswood]

Pagan vs Christian Worldview || 4 HUGE Differences

One of the most common questions I receive is if someone can be both Christian and Pagan. This is a difficult question as it depends on what perspective you're coming from. From a Christian perspective the answer is definitely NO as in Christianity you must only believe in the one ‘true’ God. If you’re looking from the Pagan perspective the idea of combining Christianity & Paganism is a bit more possible because as Pagans we can always add on an additional deity, which in this case would be the Christian God, into our religious practice. However, there are some huge differences between the Pagan & Christian lifestyle and worldview that would make combining these two faiths difficult. So for this video & blogpost I want to share what I view makes the Pagan worldview so fundamentally different from Christianity.

Now before we begin, some disclaimers. I am not an official expert on religion. This is just my personal understanding of the differences between Paganism and Christianity so take everything I mention with a grain of salt. I understand that there is complexity and nuance to everything and this is just meant to be an introduction & my personal beliefs. This is also a very difficult topic to tackle because Paganism is an umbrella term and there are many different religions with varying beliefs and practices that could be considered Pagan. For the purposes of this post I’m using commonalities I find among the majority of Pagan religions, though this will of course not reflect all Pagans or Pagan religions.

Now that we got that out of the way here are 4 fundamental differences between Paganism and Christianity:

One God vs. Many Gods

In Christianity there is belief in one true god. Those that believe in this God will ascend to heaven and those that believe in either multiple deities or a different singular God are incorrect and they must be “saved” or else they will not ascend to heaven. In Paganism we believe in multiple Gods. While there may be a hierarchy of Gods, with some more powerful than others, the belief in multiple deities is an essential part to Paganism.

This makes Paganism distinctively different from Christianity and also makes it extremely versatile as each individual can choose the deities they would like to incorporate in their religious practice. This Pagan worldview also allows for religious syncretism which is the blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system. The deity Hermes Trismegistus is an example of this as he is a deity formed by combining the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth.

Why is Religious syncretism important? Well, Pagans have the ability to adopt other deities and religious customs instead of completely rejecting them as wrong or sinful. Because of this unique feature it is my personal belief that Paganism is very conducive to peacefully living in a society that is filled with a diversity of people with various faiths. Also, as a side note, since there is not ONE true God in Paganism that means that others don’t need to be “saved” so there is no need to proselytize in Paganism. “Spreading the word” or converting others is not necessary or desired in Paganism.

Faith vs. Actions

Faith is the most important aspect of Christianity. Sin can be forgiven as long as you confess & have faith in the one true God. For example, in Hebrews 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

In most Pagan societies, faith was secondary to actions. It was more important to perform the rituals & festivals to honor the Gods than it was to fully believe in the Gods. It was your actions in life, not your faith, that determined your place in the afterlife. You can look at Valhalla as an example - it was your strength in battle, not your faith, that determined a place in Valhalla.

You can also look towards ancient Roman society where religion was practical and contractual, based on the principle of "I give that you might give." Roman religion depended on knowledge and the correct practice of prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, not on faith or dogma. Excessive devotion or fearful groveling to deities was considered undignified in Roman society. This does not mean that faith was unimportant among Pagan societies, it just means that it was not valued in the same way as it was within a Christian worldview.

For example, we can look at a quote from Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, “Since it is possible that you might depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve you in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, why would I wish to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence? But in truth they do exist, and they do care for human things, and they have put all the means in man’s power to enable him not to fall into real evils.”

Here Marcus Aurelius is stating how the Gods have created us not to watch over us to see if we are sinning, but instead they have empowered us to create and mold our own lives. Faith here is not what’s truly important. What’s important is the quest to empower ourselves to actions that better our lives and the lives of others.

Mercy vs. The Warrior

In Christianity there is a focus on humility, peace, and meekness and an de-emphasis on physical strength & the warrior archetype. For example, Matthew 5:5 - “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

This is much different from Paganism. There is not a ‘turn the other cheek’ worldview and Pagan societies were not always peaceful or gentle. In fact, pretty much every Pagan society had at least one God of war.

This does not mean that we as modern pagans condone violence. However, it does mean the warrior archetype has value and that building both physical & mental strength can be an active part of Pagan practice. If you are interested in learning more about the Warrior archetype I would recommend watching the video The Archetype of the Warrior – How Films Help Empower Us All. 

Strength in the Pagan worldview, both personally & collectively as a society, was greatly important. For example, you can consider the value of athletic glory in Ancient Greece or you can look towards Socrates who wrote, “No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.”

In Paganism the body is not sinful nor is it something to be ignored. In fact, the body is an integral part of spiritual practices. Through bodily strength & pleasures we gain access to glimpses of the divine, but that does not mean we should descend into purely hedonism. There is of course a time & a place for hedonism in Paganism, but it must be balanced by a strong body and mind.

Focus on Afterlife vs. Focus on Life

In a Christian worldview the goal is to live in faith without sin so that you may ascend to heaven. In many Christian texts and in certain aspects of modern Christian culture there is a yearning for this life to end and for the rapture to occur. During this time faithful Christians will be chosen by God and the rest of us will descend to hell for eternity.

Even the main symbol of Christianity, the cross, focuses on death and the afterlife. Additionally, you have the concept of the martyr - to sacrifice your life for God leads to sainthood.

By contrast, the afterlife is not as important within Pagan societies. While there are some occasional mentions of places like Elysium or Valhalla, it’s clear that the afterlife was not a main focus of Pagan religions. Instead, a main focus of Pagan religious rites and festivals was to celebrate life & fertility. This celebration of fertility is a clear departure from the Christian worldview.

In Christianity, female sexuality and fertility is often viewed through a lens of sin. Pagan societies however, greatly celebrated fertility - both our human fertility and the fertility of the land. Some of the earliest art we humans created, like the Venus of Willendorf, emphasized the sexuality & fertility of the female form and celebrating this fertility is an integral part of pretty much all pagan religions.

When it comes to death in Pagan societies, it was your legacy that mattered much more than where you end up after you die. For Pagans achieving eternity did not mean dying and going somewhere where you’ll live forever. Instead eternity was achieved when the great acts you performed in life are remembered & retold by your descendants and your community.

There’s a lot more I could discuss about the differences between the Christian & Pagan worldview, such as Purity of God vs Flawed Gods or the Intersection of Science and faith in Christianity & Paganism so let me know if you enjoyed this post and I maybe I will make a part 2.

Next I’d love to hear what you think are some of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Paganism, so please share your thoughts as well. ✨

[shadowfae]

1- Not much tbh, just what you've posted, and 2- To be honest I quite like your long answers. It can definitely wait though, you should get some sleep.

Is your warpriest link a constant thing? Does it ever fade into the background? I'm contemplating forming a second link, something happier than my copinglink, and I'm not sure how to tell when to tell when the line of a link vs a persona is crossed when not worn out of necessity.

And the original ask so I have it on hand. I did take a look at your original context, and if you're cool with it, I'll edit this post with a link for those who may find this is a useful answer and need that on hand. Otherwise, it'll stay a mystery.

But yes, it seems like my Sabe experiences would be a useful thing to talk about here. And in order to do that, I need to go over four things: who and what Sabe is, why he exists the way that he does, what that does for me, and lastly what I think he is in terms of terminology and why.

To start, here is his toyhou.se profile, if you want to read more about his actual story and thoughts and whatnot. But I doubt you'll have the necessary context for that, so let me go into it. RuneScape (RS) is one of the oldest MMORPGs in existence. WoW might be older but I doubt it. Basically it's a medieval magic fantasy that's very long running and you the player end up the World Guardian, aka the guy that stops the gods (who are very powerful folks who just don't die of natural causes and typically stand for some philosophy) from blowing the world up because Guthix, the dead god of balance, asked you to. Well, he voluntold you. And that makes you a major chess piece, Elder Gods get involved, it's a big mess.

But before all that happened, back in 2006 when I was introduced to the game and very shitty at it, well. I liked the lore insofar that I've always liked the lore, it was interesting and I liked thinking about it. I didn't have membership and I sucked at playing so I just read the wiki and the God Letters over and over and sometimes the Postbag from the Hedge. Alongside my two friends, we played at being children of the then-triad of main gods: Saradomin, Guthix, and Zamorak.

I liked Zamorak best, but I didn't think his ideas would be the best for society as a whole, so I ended up playing child of Guthix. Eventually we grew up and grew apart but every couple of years I'd go back to RuneScape, read the lore, settle on what choices I'd make if I could play, and think about being the player character. In 2010 I discovered a fic - dawn by khayr, it's on Ao3 and dA - about Iban, son of Zamorak, right around when I was reading Percy Jackson. Cue him showing up as a soulbond and an older brother figure and guiding me right up until the end of sixth grade. Iban got me through the ruthless bullying that would later set the stage for all my major suicidal-ideation and self-hatred for the entirety of high school: even then, I was more stable than I might've been otherwise, because he interfered.

Saradomin stands for strength through order. Procedures and law and diplomacy and war strategy. He was originally kind of a ripoff of the Christian god, but he's grown to be more of an order-over-peace character and is quite well-written. Guthix stands for strength through balance, and has been all over the board in terms of what he's done and will do. He's kind of a dick, actually, but his heart's in the right place.

Zamorak, as you've heard, is strength through chaos and personal strife. It's no "the strong over the weak" or "the strong take care of the weak", it's flat-out "everyone is strong, and just need the right circumstances to tap into it to be the best they can possibly be". Now, his philosophy is kind of more for warriors and scholars, but if you tilt your head, it applies to everyone. Chronically ill folks will find their chaos in fighting to get up every day and maintain a life. Folks in traumatizing, abusive situations find that chaos in their very survival. Scholars challenge themselves and their fellows and their predecessors trying to find the answers they so need. Nobody in lockstep, no such thing as "we've always done it this way."

A lot of human Zamorakians and Saradominist propaganda says that Zamorak is simply absolute evil: and to be fair, when most of that was written, he kinda was because he was based loosely on the Christian devil. Later writing says that they're typically mistaken on that. Zamorak isn't evil. The very first thing he did upon becoming a god was fulfill a promise and lead a slave rebeliion. (The Avernic uprising, if anyone's curious.) He stands for the downtrodden and says "You are never going to get your dignity by going through the motions and trying to peacefully show you're worth respect. Burn some shit down and prove that you won't stand for this bullshit."

Zamorak in a Saradominist's eyes is someone whose banner you wear when you want to be a crazy murderer. Zamorak in a Zamorakian's eyes is the singing voice who murmurs "Get up, this isn't enough to kill you, you can still do this," when transphobic laws get passed or you hear a slur thrown your way on the street.

And as someone who grew up queer and nonhuman, yeah, that resonates, and the older I get the more I think "Guthixian philosophy is best for a society at large, but Zamorakianism for individuals is good." Because Zamorakianism can't really apply on a theocratic level. It really doesn't. It turns into American bootstrap culture and no social services and all that shitty stuff.

The funny thing is that Zamorak himself has no issues helping out if he thinks you need it. (If he didn't, he wouldn't be cool with asking for help, or giving it when he's asked. Which he does do repeatedly so. The man has more kindness in him than people want to admit.) What I do find fascinating is what he thinks of the actions of some of his longtime subordinates, who clearly support him, but I don't think support his actual philosophy. Because if you ask me, he'd side with the downtrodden humans of Meiyerditch, not the vampire lords that treat them like cattle. He's proven that he likes humans, and doesn't see them as unworthy. I do wonder if Jagex will show us what he might do about that.

Either way. Ahem. Over the course of a decade and a half, I keep going back to RuneScape, refining my philosophy and side, thinking again what I would do playing the game proper. About... I want to say five years ago, Jagex opened up the Sixth Age and I finally noticed, and they rewrote every god's philosophy because they wanted every single one to be actually playable. Not just "hurr durr evil" but actually have a logical line of thought. They probably didn't have pop culture paganism in mind, but the gods of RS are incredibly well-suited to it.

Well, I found that out, and immediately went through every god's philosophy, and reasoned my way through it. What does a worshipper of this god look like? What sort of life would they lead? If i apply this to me, what does that look like from that perspective? Do I understand this? Is it comfortable to exist in?

And as it turns out, I understand Zamorak the most, followed a close second by Armadyl, which was quite surprising. Zaros remains incomprehensible and I don't trust like that. (That's another story.) So I thought about it more, and it stuck even when I wandered off to different fandoms and interests. But what happened was that I ended up internalizing it, unknowingly and without meaning to.

It meant that when, two years later, I ended up in a horrific and traumatizing situation, the anchor I hit that held me together was a mixture of being a Devil - I am a fucking God you will obey me and recognize my power - and Zamorak's core philosophy: this cannot kill me, this cannot stop me, this is pure fucking hell and I am going to laugh in the face of death because people are forged in hellfire and I will walk away knowing what I'm made of.

And I was right. Honestly, out of everyone who was there with me, I think I'm the only one that was that deeply entrenched and walked out without trauma. I do not believe I could have done that had I not internalized Zamorak's philosophy. (That isn't to say if the others had that philosophy they wouldn't be traumatized, because there were absolutely other factors I wouldn't know about and some that I do and didn't do them any favours; but I am saying that it saved my ass and without it, I might not have been okay.)

I walked out of that with zero regrets. Zero. Even now, I don't regret a thing. Because it doesn't matter what happened or how much I was lied to or if he deserved my kindness. I know what I perceived to be happening, and I know how I reacted, and when the pieces were down I was stronger than steel, gave kindness without considering the cost, and I walked away unscathed.

How many people can say they've looked death in the eye and laughed? More than there should be, not too many that knowing what I'm capable of when put into pure chaos isn't somehow impressive. Because it is. And Zamorak's words proved themselves, or rather, I proved him entirely correct.

And when I last went back to RuneScape, and thought about it with enough time to put it all into hindsight, well. Aw, shit, he was right. Then vaguely around that time I went back and read Dawn, which was unfinished, tracked down the author and demanded to know how it fucking ended. (She told me and we're still friends like three years later. xD) Then I went back and found my old OCs, and decided fuck it, I'm making my own World Guardian.

So first thing I did was log in and jump over to the Makeover Mage and make myself into a boy. Kept the plateskirt though, I wanted to have the RS equivalent of a limp wrist to prove I'm Very Queer. Then I went about remaking my character. I wanted to make a self-insert, I was old enough to know it wasn't cringey, it was just fun, but I didn't want to use my default avatar with the black hair over one eye and the Chaorruption. I wanted to make a new self-insert based in nothing I was already using.

So I made the most beautiful man I could! Long, dark brown hair, pretty semi-dark skin, looked Kharidian, and then I said fuck it and made him Zamorak's youngest son. Originally, he was adopted when he was young by Iban and Clivet, and suffered serious imposter syndrome when being WG meant he'd never get demigod powers. But as I grew more confident in myself, he ended up getting powers? And then eventually I rewrote his backstory, and then wrote about his mother, and her relationship with Zamorak, and then he had friends like Blaire and Icthlarin (who was also my furry awakening, rip me).

Then with the most recently questline I've been getting a bit more into RS magical theory, and I've been mulling it over lots, and Seanan McGuire's Middlegame definitely helped; and I figured out how I wanted him to handle being World Guardian: it didn't make sense for him to be openly Zamorak's son, the other gods would just target his family to manipulate him. So I had him play neutral openly and Zamorakian to his friends, effectively living a double life.

Then he just looked up one day and said "Oh, by the way, my father won't acknowledge me to keep me safe but I don't know that so we have a very unsteady relationship because I don't know if he loves me", and then Children of Mah came out, and he was all "Oh and I think I just got disowned (I didn't, Zamorak was protecting me, but I don't know that) so my relationship with Zamorak is Fucking Shitty" and he was stuck that way until I figured out how to save their relationship.

It culminated in Sabe not knowing how his Mahjarrat powers worked and guessing, and hating himself for being half-and-half, and missing everything about being a Mahjarrat, and literally you couldn't have gotten more obvious in order to tell me I was having Fucking Issues coming to terms with the fact I didn't have any understanding or knowledge of my own heritage, but whatever, eventually I noticed that.

And as I've been working to understand myself and my heritage, so too has Sabe been doing that with his Mahjarrat heritage. But for the longest time, no matter how I put him and Zamorak in the same room in a scene to try and get them to talk it out, it wasn't working. Something wasn't right. Sabe resented being World Guardian, hated having to betray his family, didn't know if he was wanted, and hated himself for having to kill Mah, the mother of his species.

Not that long ago, a few months actually, he informed me (which is my shorthand for 'I suddenly figured out this happened, and it genuinely feels like remembering that one fucking word you have on the tip of your tongue, I always knew and just forgot for a while') that no, he'd been ripped in two by a hope devourer, brought to his father's stronghold, and Zamorak split his magic between mortal and divine in order to get around his godproofing and heal him. Zamorak's intense worry for his youngest son was what caused Sabe to break down and tell him honestly what was going on and how he was feeling, which caused Zamorak to do the same, and they finally, finally made up.

A week later, I noticed the connection between Sabe's Mahjarrat issues and my Irish issues, and started to wonder if he was a linktype.

I mean... he's a self-insert. He makes the choices I would, the me in the here and now, that I think are best. He's not a person I was and still know myself to be, he's not someone I grow into, he's not living his life beside me like a shadow. He's me, choosing the things I do, because I say so. But he's also me in the things he reflects, the things he struggles with, and things I had zero fucking conscious input on.

Sabe is the person I am when a crisis hits and I have to deal with the chaos. Sabe is the person I am when I need to lead. Sabe is the person I am when I am desperate to be known and loved by those I consider family. Sabe is the person I am when I want to be sure in where I came from, where I will return to, and the things that I will always be. Sabe is a man of darkness who knows the light as an acquaintance and nothing more, who is cruel and careless and kind.

Sabe is a warpriest of Zamorakian philosophy, because it took me twenty fucking years to put into words how I see the world, and now that I know, I will argue them to death and use them to help others. Drakath may have wanted a messiah to share the hivemind with others. Sabe is a warpriest, spreading the word and calling home the broken and the damned. He is the Last Rider, not the last of the Ilujanka but the one who keeps riding towards the chaos and never falls, no matter what.

Some of who Sabe is I have conscious input on. A whole lot of him was unintentional and perfectly reflects me.

So when it comes to terminology... I don't know what he is. A self-insert, yes. A linktype, maybe. A kintype, also maybe. Sabe doesn't feel like my past linktypes, because Sabe isn't always catharsis and comfort. Until he made up with his dad, Sabe was brutal and hurt a lot and constantly yearning for his foundation and slowly going mad. It wasn't fun. I just refused to do anything but see the story through. I was going to get it right. I wanted to see it to the end. I wanted to be the Last Rider, even though I didn't phrase it that way.

But to answer your actual question, of what he feels like when I'm not actively being him out of necessity, desire, and active thought. If it fades into the background.

And like... it can? Sabe as he is, recognized for what and who he is, is kind of a new thing. Sabe as a concept is very old, but Sabe as what he is right now is new, and confusing, and honestly I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it.

Like, seriously. Sabe is Zamorak's son. Am I Zamorak's son? Is he keeping an eye on me as I am? Would he be proud of me? Would he offer his approval of my progress? Does that make me, in some way, the World Guardian?

I have not a clue, buddy. Not a goddamn clue.

So what it means is that I've been paying attention, really. I don't just become strong in times of crisis. I've been trying to do better. Be better. Learn, and listen, and rethink myself. Break out of lockstep, of doing things the way I've always done them. Try to always do better than I did, build habits I like, stop waiting for things to change and just do it. Become the chaos, instead of waiting for it to hit me.

It means I need to live up to what Guthix told Sabe to do. It means being gentler, being kinder, not burning bridges when I'm not sure. It means keeping an eye out for any sign Zamorak's listening, in case I am his son, in case I really have to decide what I'm gonna do about being the son of chaos incarnate.

But other than the questioning, what it feels like is just... what I was already dealing with, just a little more at arm's length and easier to deal with. Once I recognize that his issues are reflective of mine, if I solve his, I have a pretty good idea of how to solve mine. Some of it won't work exactly right - Zamorak will always forgive him for not being the son he expected he might have had, my own parents may not, yay I'm queer and pagan - but it's a good rule of thumb.

It's also just comforting to know that when in doubt, nothing can kill me, because I simply refuse to die. I am World Guardian, I am a demigod of chaos incarnate, all the hellfire in the world can do nothing but strengthen me. And if I present those to myself as unshakeable beliefs, because for Sabe they are, then I'll be okay. It probably couldn't stop most disasters or tragedies, but I got hit by a car, broke five bones, and walked away with a record recovery time, so I mean... I can't prove that I can't die by some accident or tragedy, but you also can't prove that I can. (Trying to do so usually falls under what we call 'murder', and I personally believe I can't be murdered. Only assassinated.)

But really, I think the worst that could possibly happen with a new linktype is that you learn what not to do. It's new, it's scary, it's chaotic, and from where I'm standing, that's the best way to learn.

[incarnateirony]

You really met the most obnoxious atheists ever, that sucks. Me and most atheists I know don't go around shitting on people or hyperfixate on Christianity, and the reason we don't believe in and don't like most (not all) religions isn't because of the good parts, but because of all the crazy stuff and the supernatural elements. Maybe it's because this is the internet? And almost as a rule every conversation that could be productive goes south because of trolls? 1/2

But yeah, there's a lot of atheists that don't have a problem with people like you and your type of religion, actually I think most of us would like to talk about history and stuff with people like you that really care about and know your stuff. So sorry for all the shit you had to hear from the trolls, they don't represent us. 2/2

So, while I appreciate the sentiment there’s a few things I need you to recognize about your phrasing and framing here.

Eg, the underlying sentiment here is “Oh, everyone who believes in or has experienced things is crazy, but don’t worry, you’re one of the good ones.”

Like, you don’t even recognize that’s the sentiment. You mean no harm in the sentiment. And frankly, I don’t really take offense to the sentiment -- people who have not experienced some of the things out there are far better off not believing in them rather than fucking around and stumbling into it, and I have no reason to go out of my way and flag my arms dramatically to prove anything to anyone.

But that said it’s the angle and framing I’m actually suggesting you introspect-- a subconscious bias of “I have seen enough to know that things beyond this are untrue or crazy no matter the scale or flavor.”

This is why I appreciate people who say they are agnostic, not atheistic. Agnostics don’t really know or pretend to know, but they generally don’t believe or have reason to believe; Atheists come from an angle of knowing and assuming they know, despite the breadth of Everything they infer to know.

These are two very different things.

But whether it’s overt judgment that you refer to as trolls, or the biases in speech, the bias is still there. The simple fact is though, and you’re gonna think I sound like a bitch but, I kinda just have to laugh rather than get angry?

Like I said. Better for people like me when more people are like you and go on your merry way.

I find flashpoint tiktok baby witches that refuse mentors far more annoying actually. They half make us look like batty dingdongs and the other half actually manage to dig in shit they shouldn’t and cause problems we have to clean up after them.

But why do I laugh? Well. Honestly? Because even as a believer in things, I’ve realized I’m a fool in having discredited certain things before. Nah, I brushed off. Idea X or Y are total ridiculous movie nonsense. And then you actually find the bizarre ass unique situation it happens in and it makes a complete ass out of you. So I’ve actually been in that boat -- discrediting things I hadn’t had the (dis)pleasure of witnessing. It hadn’t crossed my vision and nobody had bothered to take the time to tell me -- ME -- how, when and why it works or the nuances or the sciences it could happen by. Problem is that’s an incredibly egocentric way of the world, an expectation of expenses and time for something that--well, people are better off NOT taking the time to talk about anyway.

Since we’re drifting in Supernatural fandom, think of it like--hunters don’t talk about hunting, unless you get a vic so in over their head you have to give them The Talk. People around hunters may be aware of the hunter life in time. But hunters aren’t about to break out the men of letters library just to have a twitter argument to explain the nature of the universe to some d00d on twitter.

Are there ridic religions out there that abuse their following for gain? Absolutely, I’m vocal about that. Are there equally ridic things people do as poppy trend culture things thinking it’s hip to be contrarian and thus on boarding with a hand full of dollar gems from earthbound and a smudge stick? Yup. Are there people that run around making vainglorious stories about, IDK, fighting demons with katanas in a trenchcoat on billboards or some shit, yeah sure. Welcome to people. People are thirsty for attention. For validation. Whether that comes in validation through group religion or attention trying to be the most special person on the block.

But you really need to understand that the “people who believe--or even more than believe and just know--about things labeled spiritual or paranormal, however it is they come to identify it-- are nuts. Except you. Ones like you are interesting” angle is legit nowhere near as warm and fuzzy as it sounds before someone hits send. And again, comes from a long, long series of presumptuousness.

Anyone who believes they understand every corner of the universe and its function, even some things well within scientific boundaries or even current study that began in old practice -- that’s silly. We should all know that’s silly. Because that becomes an egocentrism of /that/ person being god. After all, they know everything ever, and then people should have to prove things to them in an excessive degree, right? And is that really different from someone thinking an 8000 year old book’s particular sky daddy knows everything ever and has the right to demand you prove yourself?

Which is why I always say, again and again: Tell me you’re agnostic, and I will forever be fine with that. To some extent I’ll be good with atheists too, but as much as there is that sly if subconscious “lol theists are silly” tone framing delivered points from your end, you have to understand there’s going to be equal “lol silly” from mine. No, I’m not going to get into long lists of the things you can never explain away. I don’t have to. You don’t believe in anything. Good for you, I guess? Lol. You believe that. Or uh. Don’t. Believe that. Whatever the sentence structure for that is.

But agnostic people hold no pretentions. They don’t claim they know every possible rule or logic in the universe to rule out or consider it silly that someone else has had a different encounter or experience than them. To hold all the worldly mysteries and their answers. They just go “IDK man, I really ain’t seen it, got no real reason to believe in it either, not sure there’s something there, IDK, maybe not, probably not, could be?” which, quite frankly, is a far more healthy position when juxtaposed to the “this tends to course from opposition to christian thinking infecting society, not from the idea of there being things outside of average daily events or understanding and the handful of core human senses and its dimensional understanding”, whiile science carries on finding weirder and weirder skews and planes to test each day.

[erazonpo3]

It’s Era talks about topic of the day time, but I’m gonna do so in a way that’s more about our broader cultural perspectives on moral philosophy and how it relates to the narratives we tell. So

The topic of the Redemption Arc is one that’s come up in a big way pretty recently, and so the debate emerges- what makes a good redemption arc? I’m not really interested in answering that question. 

But what I will argue is that, as others have said before, a character should not have to endure suffering as a prerequisite for being redeemed; it is not necessary for their growth, it is not beneficial for their victims or the greater good, and encouraging it as a necessary part of a Redemption narrative (note that writers choosing to create conflict throughout a redemption arc can be a valid narrative decision) is just indulging in a sense of sadism that utilises a westernised conceptualisation of ‘justice’ to see a character they don’t like get put through the wringer before they can ‘earn’ love or compassion. 

I get it, the antagonist was an antagonist for a reason, and they probably did shitty things and you as an audience member are allowed to choose not to empathise with them (even though most narratives these days are driven by emotional character arcs that encourage empathy and compassion as a core value), or you can choose to empathise with them but still condemn them and their actions. However, what I’m going to go into in more detail is the fact that your personal feelings about an antagonist in a narrative don’t really hold any weight because the redemption narrative requires just as much empathy for the people who were affected by the antagonist’s actions just as much as it requires empathy for the antagonist themselves.

And if those characters choose forgiveness? You don’t get to argue the point because you prefer to frame justice as punishment for the wrongdoer rather than empowerment for the victim, in whatever form that may take. So here’s my extended take: if an antagonist suffering in order to earn their happy ending is more important to you than the good that comes out of a redemption, consider that no. 

Part 1 - We live in a society

There’s no easy way to break it to you, but I’m afraid we live in a society. Namely a Western society that is dominated largely by Christian cultural influences and authoritative bodies of governments with legal structures that are built on colonialism. Considering that western nations around the globe have historically dragged their feet in making changes like “human rights apply to all humans”, it’s fair to say this isn’t a great basis for our foundation of morality. 

I should also say that Christianity as a faith does not equal bad, but contemporary Christianity in modern society has an exorbitant focus on the fear of damnation, which goes hand in hand with the legal system as a form of coercive power. Furthermore I should clarify, I’m not saying laws are bad; I’m saying that a good thing is not good because it is law, and a law is not good because it is law. The authoritative bodies of western society rely on the fear of punitive justice for misdeeds rather than an encouragement of charity and cooperation because law and order is easier to maintain through fear than generosity. 

But I’m not here to make a statement about society, because that’s its whole own essay, but what I can say is that our moral codes are best made on our own terms and not by the people with a vested interest in keeping us lawful, because historically their idea of lawful is “you’re only human if you meet certain conditions”. Like, the government of my own country mailed me a non-legally-binding ballot to ask me if I thought letting people get gay married was a good idea. They’re not the people I’m letting dictate my morality to me, alright. 

Anyway the whole point of this section is to remind you that your ethical foundations likely come from institutional groups that encourage you to believe that justice = suffering, because people are scared of suffering, and people who are scared are easy to control. 

Part 2 - Redemption, and who gets to decide who gets it

I’m going to answer that right here right now- probably not you. That’s right! Even when we’re dealing with narratives, where the people are fake, it’s not really up to you to decide who gets to have their happy ending and who doesn’t if you’re not the person writing the thing. If you want that power… write the thing. 

But what you should also keep in mind is that redemption narratives usually start with a character recognising that they’ve done the wrong thing, expressing regret for that- which ideally leads to them never doing the thing again. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this is the point in which everyone has to step back and remove their feelings from the situation and consider the bigger picture. You can give zero dogshits about an antagonist, but if you’re going to pretend to be a good and moral person you should probably consider their victims, be they direct or indirect. 

Starting with the indirect, we consider all the people who are part of this world’s society. I’m now going to introduce you to some fancy macroeconomics terminology called positive externalities and net social good. The principle is simple: when the government pays for somebody’s education and they go on to become a doctor, I benefit from this transaction despite having nothing to do with this because doctors good. The positive externality is that I benefit when the government pays for someone else’s education, and the net social good is that everyone else benefits as well.  

When it comes to crime, the general idea is that an offender who can be reformed and rehabilitated is less likely to commit future crimes once they’ve served their time, so any rehabilitation efforts contribute to net social good. Of course I have to state here that life is far more complicated than a simple black and white model of crime > reform > good, but the general idea is that where society can see improvement, an effort must be made to ensure said improvement. You don’t get to derail a net social positive in a demand for righteous justice because you said so.

Demanding righteous justice even when there’s no benefit to society is how you get the death penalty remaining in 28 US states- despite being incredibly inefficient and expensive compared to life-without-parole sentencing (and who knows how many incorrect verdicts that can never be reversed)- as a result. Yay. 

Moving on to the direct victims, you have to accept that these characters with personal stakes are likely going to have different reactions to their antagonist depending on the severity of the circumstances and their own characterisation, moral code etc. Reflecting real life, narratives give us an array of characters who have different ethical standpoints and responses to their situations. And if a character decides to forgive their antagonist? Hey ho you don’t get to be the one who says “actually, no-”. 

Forgiveness is a kind of forgotten virtue of mental health these days, in no small part due to misguided advice from people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Forgiveness means very different things to very different people. There are people who can forgive the murderers of their family. There are people who hold grudges about the pettiest shit imaginable. Forgiveness isn’t a slap-a-bandaid on answer to finding closure, but when it is applicable it is incredibly empowering. 

When you are an audience member projecting your emotions onto a protagonist, of course it’s easy to say “I’d just hate that person forever!” because you’re not the one who carries that burden. Hating people is exhausting. Unless they’re doing societal harm, it’s probably not worth the emotional investment to hate them. If you can find closure through forgiveness, it’s not up to anyone else to tell you that that person doesn’t deserve it or that you’re a pushover because of that. Mental health comes first. 

It’s personal anecdote time, so here’s a small warning for mentions of sexual assault. Obviously I’m not going to go into the details because that’s weird and unnecessary, but what you need to know is that there were two different incidents with two different endings. Person A went on with their lives as I went on with mine and I don’t know how they feel about the incident but based on what I know of them, I’m not given reason to assume they regret it. Person B was a friend who hurt me in a pretty ugly way but immediately regretted what they’d done and gave me a very sincere apology both straight after and later again to assure me they understood what they’d done wrong. I forgave them, because I valued their friendship and I cared about them and I trusted that they were sincere, and I don’t regret that decision. 

Because between the person who worked to be in a place where I was comfortable to forgive them and the person who will never give me that chance, which do you think gave me any kind of satisfying closure?

The point of that anecdote isn’t to say every character has to be like me. It’s a perfectly valid reaction for someone to say “you’ve worked hard to be a better person and I’m glad for that but I’ll still never be able to forgive you for what you did to me” because I’ve been there as well. Forgiveness isn’t the key to a prior antagonist’s redemption arc because their self improvement should be entirely self-driven and not reliant on another person. However I argue that a prior antagonist should be allowed to work towards redemption to provide their victim a sense of agency- if forgiveness comes with conditions, they should strive to meet those conditions. 

And that’s the crux of the matter. 

A redemption for the sake of the character being redeemed is only one part of a big picture about recovering from trauma. They should strive to be a better person for their own sake and for the sake of others, so that their redemption serves as a net social good. They should strive to be a better person so that the people they’ve hurt might be able to find closure in the fact that they’re trying hard to be a person who can be forgiven, whether or not those victims actually choose forgiveness or not. 

Forcing a character to suffer for your own vindictive self-righteousness deprives this outcome, denies the victims their agency and closure, creates a neutral or negative externality in which the prior antagonist either performs no future good or goes back down a path of criminality, all because you believe they deserve to suffer more than you want actual justice. 

And that’s, like, bad.