#religions are in many ways the way we communicate with generations long before and long after us

[perfectlyvalid49]

On being Jewish, and traumatized (It’s been 5 months and I want to talk):

Judaism is a joyous religion. So much of our daily practice is to focus us on the things that are good. I know that there’s a joke that all our holidays can be summed up as “they tried to kill us. We survived – let’s eat!”, and you might think that holidays focused on attempts at killing us might be somber, but they’re really not. Most are celebrated in the sense of, “we’re still here, let’s have a party!” When I think about practicing Judaism, the things I think about make me happy.

But I think a lot of non-Jews don’t necessarily see Judaism the same way. I think in part it’s because we do like to kvetch, but I think a lot of it is because from the outside it’s harder to see the joy, and very easy to see the long history of suffering that has been enacted on the Jewish people. From the inside, it’s very much, “we’re still here, let’s party” and from the outside it’s, “how many times have they tried to kill you? Why are you celebrating? They tried to KILL YOU!”

And I want to start with that because a lot of the rest of this is going to be negative. And I don’t want people to read it and wonder why I still want to be Jewish. I want to be Jewish because it makes me happy. My problem isn’t with being Jewish, it’s with how Jews are treated.

What I really wanted to write about is being Jewish and the trauma that’s involved with that right now.

First, I want to talk about Israeli Jews. I can’t say much here because I’m not Israeli, nor do I have any close friends or family that are Israeli. But if I’m going to be talking about the trauma Jews are experiencing right now, I can’t not mention the fact that Israeli Jews (and Israelis that aren’t Jewish as well, but that’s not my focus here) are dealing with massive amounts of it right now. It’s a tiny country – virtually everyone has a friend or family member that was killed or kidnapped, or knows someone who does. Thousands of rockets have been fired at Israel in the last few months – think about the fact that the Iron Dome exists and why it needs to. Terror attacks are ongoing; I feel like there’s been at least one every week since October. Thousands of people are displaced from their homes, either because of the rocket fire, or because their homes and communities were physically destroyed in the largest pogrom in recent history – the deadliest single day for Jews since the Holocaust ended. If that’s not trauma inducing, I don’t know what is.

And there is, of course, the generational trauma. And I think Jewish generational trauma is interesting because it’s so layered. Because it’s not just the result of one trauma passed down through the generations. Every 50-100 years, antisemitism intensifies, and so very frequently the people experiencing a traumatic event were already suffering from the generational trauma that their grandparents or great grandparents lived through. And those elders were holding the generational trauma from the time before that. And so on.

And because it happens so regularly, there’s always someone in the community that remembers the last time. We are never allowed the luxury of imagining that we are safe. We know what happened before, and we know that it happened again and again and again. And so we know that it only makes sense to assume it will happen in the future. The trauma response is valid. I live in America because my great grandparents lived in Russia and they knew when it was time to get the hell out in the 1900s. And the reason they knew that is because their grandparents remembered the results of the blood libels in the 1850s. How can we heal when the scar tissue keeps us safe?

I look around now and wonder if we’ll need to run. We have a plan. I repeat, my family has a plan for what to do if we need to flee the country due to religious persecution. How can that possibly be normal? And yet, all the Jewish families I know have similar plans. It is normal if you’re Jewish. Every once in a while I see someone who isn’t Jewish talk about making plans to leave because they’re LGBTQ or some other minority and the question always seems to be, “should I make a plan?” It astounds me every time. The Jewish answer is that you need to have a plan and the only question is, “when should I act?” Sometimes our Jewish friends discuss it at play dates. Where will you go? What are the triggers to leave? No one wants to go any earlier then they have to. Everyone knows what the price of holding off too long might be.

I want to keep my children safe. When do I induct them into the club? When do I let my sweet, innocent kids know that some people will hate them for being Jewish? When do I teach them the skills my parents and grandparents taught me? How to pass as white, how to pass as Christian, knowing when to keep your mouth shut about what you believe. When do I tell them about the Holocaust and teach them the game “would this person hide me?” How hard do I have to work to remind them that while you want to believe that a person would hide you, statistically, most people you know would not have? Who is this more traumatic for? Them, to learn that there is hatred in the world and it is directed at them, or me, to have to drive some of the innocence out of my own children’s eyes in order to make sure they are prepared to meet the reality of the world?

And the reality of the world is that it is FULL of antisemitism. There’s a lot of…I guess I’d call it mild antisemitism that’s always present that you just kinda learn to ignore. It’s the sort of stuff that non-Jews might not even recognize as antisemitic until you explain it to them, just little micro-aggressions that you do your best to ignore because you know that the people doing it don’t necessarily mean it, it’s just the culture we live in. It can still hurt though. I like to compare it to a bruise: you can mostly ignore it, but every once in a while something (more blatant antisemitism) will put a bit to much pressure on it and you remember that you were already hurting this whole time.

On top of the background antisemitism, there’s more intense stuff. And usually the most intense, mask off antisemitism comes from the right. This makes sense, in that a lot of right politics are essentially about hating the “other” and what are Jews if not Western civilizations oldest type of “other”? On the one hand, I’ve always been fortunate enough to live in relatively liberal areas so this sort of antisemitism has felt far away and impersonal – they hate everybody, and I’m just part of everybody. On the other hand, until recently I’ve always considered this the most dangerous source of antisemitism. This is the antisemitism that leads to hate crimes, that leads to synagogue shootings. This is the reason why my synagogue is built so that there is a long driveway before you can even see the building, and that driveway is filled with police on the high holidays. This is the reason why my husband and I were scared to hang a mezuzah in our first apartment (and second, and third). For a long time, this was the antisemitism that made me afraid.

But the left has a problem with antisemitism too. And it has always been there. Where the right hates the “other”, the left hates the “privileged/elite/oppressors.” It’s the exact same thing, just dressed up with different words. They all mean “other” and “other” means “Jew.” It hurts more coming from the left though. A lot of Jewish philosophy leans left. A lot of Jews lean left. So when the left decides to hate us, it isn’t a random stranger, it’s a friend, and it feels like a betrayal.

One of the people I follow works for Yad Vashem, and a few weeks ago she mentioned a video they have with testimonies from people who came to Israel after Kristallnacht, with an unofficial title of “The blow came from within.” The idea is that to non-German Jews, the Holocaust was something done by strangers. It was still terrible, but it is easier to bear the hate of a stranger – it’s not personal. But to German Jews, the Holocaust was a betrayal. It wasn’t done by strangers, it was done by coworkers, and neighbors and people they thought were friends. It was done by people who knew them, and still looked at them and said, “less than human.” And because of this sense of betrayal, German survivors, or Germans who managed to get out before they got rounded up, had a very different experience than other Holocaust victims.

And I feel like a lot of left leaning Jews are having a similar experience now. People that we’ve marched with or organized with, or even just mutuals that we’ve thought of as friends are now going on about how Jews are evil. They repeat antisemitic talking points from the Nazis and from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and when we point out that those ideas have only led to Jewish death in the past they don’t care. And if someone you thought of as a friend thinks of you this way, what do you think a stranger might think? Might do?

The Jews are fucking terrified. I’ve seen a post going around that basically wonders if this was what it was like for our ancestors – when things got bad enough to see what was coming but before it was too late to run? And we can see what’s coming. History tells us that they way people are talking and acting only leads to one place. I’m a millennial – when I was a kid the grandparents at my synagogue made sure the kids knew – this is what it looked like before, this is what you need to watch out for, this is when you need to run. I wonder where to run to. It feels like nowhere is safe.

I feel like I’ve been lucky in all this. I don’t live in Israel. I have family and acquaintances who do, but no one I’m particularly close to. Everyone I know in real life has either been sane or at least silent about all of this (the internet has been significantly worse, but when it comes to hate, the internet is always worse). I live in a relatively liberal area – there’s always been antisemitism around anyway, but it’s mostly just been swastikas on flyers, or people advocating for BDS, not anything that’s made me actually worry for my safety. But in the last 5 months there have been bomb threats at my synagogue, and just last week a kid got beat up for being Jewish at our local high school. He doesn’t want to report it. He’s worried it will make it worse.

I bought a Magen David to wear in November. At the time it seemed like the best way to fight antisemitism was to be visibly Jewish, to show that we’re just normal people like everyone else. Plus, I figured that if me being Jewish was going to be a problem for someone, then I would make it a problem right away and not waste time. I’ve worn it almost constantly since, but the one time I took it off was when I burnt my finger in December and had to go to urgent care. I didn’t think about it too much when I did it, but I thought about it for a long time after – I didn’t feel good about having made that choice.

The conclusion I came to is that the training that my elders had been so careful to instill in me kicked in. I was hurt, and scared, and the voice inside my head that sounds like my grandmother said, “don’t give them a reason to be bad to you. Fight when you’re well, but for now – survive.” It still felt cowardly, but it was also a connection to my ancestors who heeded the same voice well enough to survive. And it enrages me that that voice has been necessary in the past. And it enrages me that things are bad enough now that my instinct is that I need to hide who I am to receive appropriate medical care.

I wish I had some sort of final thought to tie this all together other than, “this sucks and I hate it,” but I really don’t. I could call for people to examine their antisemitic biases, but I’m not foolish enough to think that this will reach the people who need to do so. I could wish for a future where everything I’ve talked about here exists only in history books, and the Jewish experience is no longer tied to feeling this pain, but that’s basically wishing for the moshiach, and I’m not going to hold my breath.

I guess I’ll end it with the thought that through all of this hate and pain and fear, we’re still here. And we’re still joyful as well. As much as so many people have tried over literally THOUSANDS of years to eradicate us, I’m still here, I’m still Jewish, and being Jewish still makes me happy.

Am Yisrael Chai.

[astrosky33]

HOUSE MEANINGS IN ASTROLOGY

[READ] People often question why there’s so many meanings for each planet/house and the reason is so that you can learn more than just one thing about yourself through each placement. Otherwise astrology would be very vague and boring. These are all meanings that I’ve learned from my astrology classes at Kepler College

1ST HOUSE: identity/self, outward personality traits, outlook on life/approach to life, appearance, physical body, beauty, confidence, beginnings, how you initiate/ambition, your mannerisms, your outward behavior, physical fights, your presence, individuality, and passion

2ND HOUSE: money/finances (how we spend it, store it, and manage it), work, short term jobs, your work ethic, material possessions, self worth, values, emotional security, stability, financial security, how you meet financial obligations, your singing voice, giving/receiving, and resources (both material and non material)

3RD HOUSE: communication, your speaking voice/the way you talk, your mind, the way you think/your thinking skills, your perceptions, your opinions, your conscious mind, neighbors, siblings, interests, gossip, ideas/information, mathematics, literature, transportation (only ground not flying/air), local media, social media, cell phones, phone calls, visits, social activity, publishing, early education (before college), short trips, and short journeys

4TH HOUSE: homes/houses, family/family roots, your parents (particularly the mother/motherly figure), your inner child, emotions, foundations, your childhood, heredity, tradition, self-care, places of residence, real estate, properties, femininity, and conditions in early life

5TH HOUSE: children, childlike spirit, talent, creativity, drama, risk-taking, spotlight, romance (shows short term relationships, flings, hookups, and if long term relationships then only puppy love), hobbies, pleasures, objects of affection, vacations, games, speculation, fertility, concerts, festivals, and joy

6TH HOUSE: daily routine/day to day life/daily tasks, your health/fitness/the work you do on your body, your duties, self improvement, consistency, step-siblings, your hygiene, innocence, systems, service to others, co-workers, analytical nature, diets, animals, and your pets

7TH HOUSE: long term relationships, marriage, concern for others, attraction/attractiveness, charm, conflicts, partnerships, business partners, contracts, love affairs, open enemies, close associates, lower courts, negotiations, peers, agents, equality, harmony, and sharing

8TH HOUSE: major transformation, sex, death, longevity, changes, joint/shared finances, investments, stock market, your partners resources, taxes, inheritance, reproduction, seduction, intimacy (in general not only sexual), rebirth, merging, taboos, resurrection, loans, assets, secrets, mystery, businesses, spiritual transformation, magic (especially black magic), psychology, surgery/operations, trauma, periods, and the occult

9TH HOUSE: wisdom, law/laws, beliefs, religion, philosophy, higher education (college/university), viewpoints, languages, foreign environments, in-laws (your relatives through marriage), ethics, long journeys, travel, ideologies, higher courts, media, television, interviews, cross-cultural relations, grandparents, and learning

10TH HOUSE: your legacy, your career, your public image, your status, your reputation, fame, long-term goals, worldly attainment, sense of mission, responsibilities, recognition, authority, father/fatherly figure, experts, bosses, achievements, and professional aspirations

11TH HOUSE: friends, friend groups, gains, money made from career, desires, step/half parents, step/half children, uniqueness, inventions, technology, film, social awareness, influence, manifestations, hopes and wishes for the future, ideals, humanitarianism, associates (not just close ones), groups (in general), politics, social networking, where you make your debut into society, companions, allies, science, socialization/social interaction, clubs, organizations, and parties

12TH HOUSE: healing, the hidden, karma, karmic debts, old age, sleep, mental health, solitude/isolation, dreams (the ones you have when you sleep), hidden enemies, hidden causes, illusions, secret bed pleasures, spirituality, fears, losses, endings, escapism, impersonations, closure, need for withdrawal/privacy, afterlife, limiting beliefs, subsconcious memory, subconscious mind, hypnotism, self-undoing, hidden desires, the past, delay, and restrictions

MASTERLIST

MORE BEGINNER ASTROLOGY

PLANET MEANINGS

© 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐤𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝

[butch-reidentified]

ID: Screenshot reading "You will recognise it as an arguable point as soon as you switch the victim to a species that you think morally matters. Humans will inevitably die too" followed by a comma before the screenshot cuts off. It is not shown who the author is.

Preface: This will be a long post, but I think it's worthwhile as part of my efforts to open up real conversation about psychopathy and the stigma + misinformation surrounding it. The main reason I'm making a separate post instead of reblogging is that this post is not really intended to be about veganism. I'm more using the contents of the above screenshot to dive more into a topic I've touched on a few times recently.

Humans being "a species that you think morally matters" is an interesting assumption I often see vegan activists make. I've been undecided for a while about talking about this because I know how controversial this is and don't feel a strong desire to deal with the fallout of posting it/saying it outright, but seeing as I've always tried to be as honest and open as possible in here: I do not actually think humans "morally matter." I do not think killing is inherently wrong, either, regardless of species. Just about every creature on Earth engages in killing, either of each other or of members of other species, if not both. I don't think humans are sacred or special in any way, and thus are no exception. I don't see humans killing each other as any more INHERENTLY (this word is incredibly important here... obviously) wrong than, say, leopards killing each other. My culture used to engage in religious human sacrifice, so I have thought about this a whole lot, and it is a bit of a discourse topic in my community to this day (some even think we would be better off today if we had not stopped giving human sacrifices to the gods).

Most arguments for killing being inherently immoral that I've encountered are directly or indirectly rooted in religion, a societal value accepted without question, and/or the result of emotional reactions. One response I often get to this is that if I don't think killing is inherently wrong, I'm not allowed to be sad about it or grieve when people are killed - the idea being that this is somehow hypocritical. This is nonsense. I don't believe abortion is wrong in any way, but I'd never dream of telling someone who had mixed feelings about her abortion that she was a hypocrite for it*. Having complex, mixed, or even negative emotions about something does not make that thing immoral. Not to jump too far into moral philosophy**, but my view is that emotional responses are not - or at least should not be - an indicator of morality in any capacity. I suspect that more people agree with me on this than realize they do, and here is an example of why: Some people feel badly about killing an insect in their home, but most people do not consider this wrong. Even when it comes to humans, many - if not most - people would likely experience negative emotions when they kill out of genuine necessity, such as in self-defense, but very few people will argue that this is morally wrong, that you should just allow yourself to be harmed or killed if someone attacks you.

In this sense, it would be most logically consistent for me to view hunting wild animals in their own territory (as opposed to shit like when rich people transport animals to a personal hunting ground so they're guaranteed not to lose their prey) for food as morally superior to livestock farming, and I very much do. Traditional hunting is the method of killing for food most similar to that of other animals, as far as I understand. That said, I'm not remotely an expert on the topic beyond having hunted before as a kid and having a general understanding of animal behavior at the college level.

However, I will not pretend like I always behave consistently with the moral conclusions I come to. Like I've discussed before, I don't have an emotional response to violating my own morals. I simply didn't come wired with that feature. I don't really feel guilt or shame, so when I do something "bad," whether by my standards or others' standards, I either don't care at all or make a deliberate effort to cognitively "scold" myself, depending on the circumstances. I do consume meat that I have not personally hunted in the wild. While I do not think that livestock farming, especially modern livestock farming, is good in any way (ethically but also environmentally and health wise), because I don't have an emotional reaction to that thought (but do receive dopamine when I eat tasty food), I have so far been unable to convince myself to stop consuming meat.

I have said previously that I am glad that I am the way that I am, and that remains true; I do think my psychopathic traits are overwhelmingly more beneficial than not. This, however, is one example of the ways it actually is a negative to me - I really can't force myself to care about something I don't care about by default, and often have a hard time making conscious decisions that run counter to what produces dopamine. For this same reason, I have repeatedly failed to cut out gluten despite my doctor's insistence that I need to, and despite knowing how much better I feel (no daily migraines!) when I do abstain from it for a while. I tried to go vegan before and found that I latched onto very unhealthy junk food that was vegan by nature, like Oreos, and was eating incredibly badly. It does not help that I don't know how to cook, partly because my genetic disabilities make cooking a difficult endeavor for several reasons.

I am well aware that some people may be upset by this post, and may feel a need to label me a bad person for being this way. This is your prerogative, and I am certainly open to hearing your responses to this post, within reason. If all you want is to "punish" me for this, send me hate anons and insults, feel free, but I'll go ahead and let you know it doesn't do anything to me... not to mention I'm very used to it already as a radfem blogger. If you still want to do so because it makes you feel righteous or something, by all means go ahead, just be aware that it will not elicit a response from me in any way you'd desire, and definitely won't change my thought processes or behaviors. If you want to have an actual conversation, though, I'm more than happy to engage, answer questions, and hear your perspectives.

*I chose this specific example not because anti-choicers think abortion is killing, but because I have seen women be told that their sadness or grief about an abortion (which, btw, does NOT mean she regrets it!) is somehow "pro life" and that she can't talk about how she feels or else the right wing will use it against us. This is also nonsense, and fucked up nonsense at that. The right wing will use whatever they can; I'm in no way disagreeing with that. However, silencing women and girls to serve a narrative is not the answer. The lived experiences of women and girls (or any marginalized persons) cannot ever be devalued or concealed just because the enemy would use them against us. Actually, this is the same response I have given when told I should hide the fact that I didn't regret my mastectomy, or even that I should pretend that I did regret it. My story, my truth, is mine to own and discuss as I choose, whether it could be weaponized by ideological opponents or not. Same is true for all marginalized persons.

** If you are interested in moral philosophy, specifically where morals come from/what people base morals in, this page and the following pages (there's a Next button in the bottom right corner) sum it up pretty well on Page 1, then dive in a good bit more thoroughly with individual pages for each "root cause" of moral systems.

Side note: I will be reblogging this later because it's 6:30am EDT and a lot of my audience is in the USA. I worked hard and spent a lot of time on this, so I'd like it to actually be seen. Not much point trying to educate/inform/raise awareness if nobody sees it lmao

[supernovaa-remnant]

L’manberg, Nationalism, and c!Dream

Okay, I know it’s been done to death, but I’ve been reading Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities for a class which talks about nationalism as an imagined community, so nationalism has been on my mind. And, of course, my mind’s natural progression was to start thinking about L’manberg and nationalism again. So, without further ado, here’s my post on L’manberg, Nationalism, and how that played a role in c!Dream’s story arc. 

(Also, I haven’t written an essay in ages, and I haven’t done analysis in ages, so please cut me some slack lol)

It’s under the cut because this is a very, very long post (3.2k words long, in fact). (you can also read it on google docs if you'd prefer).

What is Nationalism?

To start this all, we need to take a moment to step away from Minecraft roleplay to actually talk about nationalism itself. Since I know most of you are here to hear about the Minecraft roleplay aspect, I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible, but it is very important for context. I’ll bold (and color) the main points if you just want to read those before skipping down to the L’manberg section, but you’re more than welcome to read all of this. 

To understand nationalism, you need to understand a bit about how it came to be, which requires a bit of knowledge about the transition from pre-modern to modern times. In general, this transition is often thought to have occurred in the mid-18th century during the Age of Enlightenment and during the time when a lot of revolutions were taking place, such as the American Revolution and the French Revolution. But it’s important to note that there isn’t really such a clear cut line of when this transition from pre-modern to modern times happened, and, in many ways, this change is still occurring to this day.

The most important aspect of this change to think about in the context of this post is in terms of religion, though I will also briefly talk about the shift from dynastic rule to democracy. I want to start off by briefly talking about this because, in many ways, nationalism has taken on the role that religion held in pre-modern times. (Side note: this isn’t to say nationalism replaced religion, but the widespread role of religion in people’s lives today is different than it was in, say, the 14th century). 

In pre-modern times, religion gave people a sense of belonging, and this idea of belonging is something I’ll come back to, but, for now, you should know that nationalism gives a similar sense of belonging. I won’t get into too much detail about why Anderson specifically says this is a sense of belonging to an imagined community, but it basically comes down to the fact that you’ll never know everyone in your community (whether that be religious or national), but you still feel a sense of belonging to the collective.

“Okay, Stella, very interesting, but you still haven’t defined nationalism.” Alright, alright, I’ll define nationalism, which requires me to define a nation. In Anderson’s words, from page 6 of Imagined Communities, “it is an imagined political community—and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” I want you to take a note specifically of it being inherently limited and file that away for later. 

I said I was going to briefly discuss the shift from dynastic rule to democracy, so I’ll do that now. So, a couple things about these dynastic rules with centralized power: firstly, it was believed that the monarchs had some sort of divine right to rule from God (see how this ties into religion?), and, secondly, a lot of borders were less defined the further you got from the centralized powers. Obviously, with the shift from pre-modern to modern times, both of these things changed, bringing the idea of giving power to the people, and also bringing more concrete borders.

Anyway, moving on. Nations are imagined as inherently limited because no one imagines one nation as encompassing all of humanity. Yes, in modern times borders are very concrete and defined, but it goes beyond that—in a person’s mind, nations are limited because there are always people who do not belong to the nation. It’s not often thought about, but with a sense of belonging comes exclusion. The entire concept of belonging comes from the idea of being with people who are similar to you, and this implies the existence of people who are so dissimilar that you don’t belong with them, and, thus, they don’t belong with you. It can easily become a double edged sword, I think; there is comfort in belonging to a collective, but it can be all too easy to fall into an “us vs them” mentality, which is going to be an important point moving forward.

So, how does this all relate to a Minecraft Roleplay?

L’manberg and Nationalism

Onto the fun stuff! Minecraft Roleplay! Obviously, L’manberg is a nation, so I’m sure you can already see how nationalism is going to play a role, but let’s get into it. First, though, I’d like to give a minor disclaimer that not everything is going to fit perfectly simply on account of the fact that the DSMP takes place in a very sparsely inhabited world, and, honestly, that alone makes governmental structures of any kind really interesting to look at, but I digress since it’s not the point of this post. (It also means that nationalism as talked about in this post isn’t really an imagined community like Anderson claims it is. From a meta standpoint, you could say this sense of nationalism actually leaked into the audience itself, but in the story it’s not really an imagined community).

The DSMP starts out as a world with no borders and no governmental structures of any kind—it starts with no nations. Rather, the DSMP in itself is a cohesive community to which everyone belongs. It’s not a community like nationalism, nor is it a community like religion, nor is it an imagined community in any way. As previously stated, the DSMP is a sparsely populated world, and, at least at the start, everyone knows each other or knows of each other as an individual. This sense of belonging is more akin to a group of friends than anything else, which I think makes the introduction of nationalism especially interesting. 

c!Wilbur. What a guy, am I right? He shows up to the server, and he brings with him capitalism and the idea of monopolizing resources—there’s an interesting post to be made about that, I’m sure, but not the point of this one—and, most importantly, he brings with him the concept of a nation. He’s putting up borders, putting up walls, and essentially dividing a place that used to be united, citing L’manberg as an independent country, which is does not include everyone in the server (it’s limited), and which is separate from the DSMP and essentially is its “own server” (it’s sovereign). Sound familiar? Yeah, it’s ✨nationalism✨

I’ve seen posts talking about the fact that L’manberg was specifically satirizing nationalism, and though, despite my efforts, I couldn’t find these posts (if anyone has them please send them to me! I’d love to re-read them and link them in this post), I do think it’s true. I think there’s a lot to be said about L’manberg from a narrative and meta standpoint, and I think there’s a lot to be said about the fact that c!Wilbur was always written as a villain in the story (and not just during the Pogtopia arc, despite popular belief), but I can’t get into it all in this post. So, what I do want to do is come back to the concept of belonging and how that always comes with exclusion, and I want to talk about the “us vs them” mentality.

The reason I say L’manberg is satirizing nationalism is because it takes these facets of nationalism to the extreme. It’s not just a place made to give people a sense of belonging which in turn creates exclusion; L’manberg is a xenophobic nation, and I would go as far to say that its founding was based more on exclusion than inclusion. That is to say, the exclusive aspect was not just an unfortunate yet inevitable side effect of creating a nation. From the very start, L’manberg was founded on the exclusion of non-Europeons, and, more specifically, the exclusion of Americans. Sapnap actually originally wanted to join, but he was denied because he’s American. L’manberg wasn’t ever some place accepting of anyone who came to it, and it wasn’t a place to be free from tyranny, but let’s get into the idea of L’manberg going against tyranny. 

The “us vs them” mentality is already extremely dangerous and something to be wary of, and it’s something I think we should constantly be checking ourselves on, but L’manberg takes that to a further extreme. I don’t want you to think this point is completely separate from the point I made before, because they do very much connect to each other and are intertwined. Nations are limited. This means there will always be people who don’t belong to any given nation. Obviously, in this case, members of the greater DSMP do not belong to L’manberg. (I think it’s also helpful to remember that c!Wilbur specifically didn’t allow dual-citizenship; c!Tubbo initially wanted to be a citizen of both the greater DSMP and L’manberg, but that wasn’t allowed, so in the end he became a citizen of only L’manberg).

But, this wasn’t just a case of the greater DSMP being separate from L’manberg. No, they were tyrants that L’manberg was escaping from. c!Dream was a tyrant that L’manberg was fighting against. It’s taking the “us vs them” mentality to an extreme of “we are the righteous good guys fighting against oppression and tyranny, and they are the tyrants trying to oppress us.” It sure sounds like a noble cause—and you can always count on c!Wilbur to spout pretty words that convince people to play on his terms—but is that really the case? In a place that previously had no nations and no real defined hierarchy of power, how could tyranny exist? As I said before, the DSMP previously was more like a group of friends living in a commune than anything else, and tyranny doesn’t really seem applicable in that context, does it? This is c!Wilbur spinning a narrative that is going to continue to affect the SMP all the way to the very end, and it’s also what places c!Dream and c!Tommy on opposite sides from the very beginning, by establishing that extreme “us vs them” mentality.

(Oh, it should also be noted that the “us vs them” mentality very often leads to the dehumanization of the other side, so keep that in mind for when we get to c!Dream). 

(Also there’s something to be said about the L’manberg revolution being heavily based on Hamilton, which is based on the American Revolution, which was a very key part of the transition from pre-modern to modern times and how that relates to nationalism, but this post is already getting long enough).

So, yeah, L’manberg was satirizing nationalism. And, ultimately, L’manberg was never good for the server as a whole.

c!Dream and Nationalism, even in the wake of L’manberg

Ough. c!Dream… :( oh he really did walk the path laid out for him by c!Wilbur to the very end, didn’t he?

Listen, everything c!Dream does on the server is ultimately tied back to the founding of L’manberg, and, in turn, to the introduction of nationalism to the server. One of c!Dream’s primary goals is unity (or, specifically, the unity and simplicity of the server from pre-L’manberg times), and this is antithetical to nationalism, or, at least, to the extreme form of nationalism that L’manberg brought. Because nationalism brought division, and division brought conflict, and conflict brought death (specifically canon deaths). And, well, we all know how much death is a motivator for c!Dream.

(Also, there is something to be said about the start of nationalism and nations on the server not being framed as a good thing in the narrative, how it was satirizing and criticizing the concept of nationalism, and there’s something to be said about how the narrative agrees with the group of anarchists—the Syndicate—who push against the idea of nations. But, well, that’s also a post for another day). 

Now, obviously, unity is not c!Dream’s only motivation—actually, I think we’d all agree that the thing that motivated c!Dream the most was fear. But, a lot of this fear does tie back to L’manberg and the narrative built by c!Wilbur. So, let’s for a moment take a look at how this narrative affected other people’s perceptions of c!Dream.

Remember how I said the “us vs them” mentality often leads to dehumanization? Well, well, well. Listen, this is dreblr. The dehumanization of c!Dream has been talked about to death, but that’s because it’s always relevant to his character!! And I’m here to say that this dehumanization started all the way back during the L’manberg revolution when c!Wilbur labeled c!Dream a tyrant. Obviously the dehumanization of c!Dream is incredibly apparent with the revive book and in Pandora’s Vault, but this is not a post about the box, unfortunately (I’m sorry—I know we all love the box here 💔).

c!Dream’s dehumanization started the moment he was labeled as a tyrant and the moment he was labeled as the “enemy.” He became the “them” in the “us vs them” mentality that was adopted by L’manberg. He’s the oppressor they need to defeat, and he’s the monster that needs to be slain. And this is important because this never went away. Even after L’manberg was gone, the concept of nations and the concept of “us vs them,” never went away! c!Dream was still the enemy that needed to be killed! And, over the course of time when L’manberg was still around, c!Dream lost pretty much everyone. Everyone was turning against him, people were using attachments against him, and people wanted to kill him (New L’manberg was planning to execute him under the false pretense of a peaceful celebration!). And, yes, he did plenty of bad things during this time (namely exile), but I think we should also remember that most people did not know about what happened during exile at this time. They wanted to kill him because he was powerful and dangerous, and he wasn’t with them so he was against them because that’s the narrative L’manberg created—if they’re not with us, they’re against us.

Everyone was against him, and he was spiraling (pushed further by the existence of the revive book) to the point that he commissioned the build of a giant, obsidian, inescapable prison and he locked himself in there with the hope that it would protect him and save his life. (☹️) Obviously that didn’t work like he’d hoped, but… well… 

As I said before: none of this stuff went away even after L’manberg was gone. The concept of nationalism didn’t magically disappear from the server just because L’manberg was destroyed. Nations kept popping up. The server kept splitting itself into more pieces and factions, and it all became so convoluted. I think it’s important to remember the population of the SMP—they don’t really have enough people to make functioning governments, yet they keep trying to make nations, anyway. They’re following L’manberg’s footsteps. They’re chasing this concept of nationalism.

Obviously this affected everyone’s lives, but it really did ruin c!Dream’s life. The introduction of nationalism is what causes c!Dream’s life to essentially start falling apart. I don’t want to rehash stuff that’s already been said a lot in dreblr, so there’s a lot about c!Dream’s motivations and story that I’m not including, but I want to bring our attention to a certain line c!Dream said in the finale streams: “Why can’t things be simple again?”

Because things were simple before all this! It was a group of friends making a home!! They built the community center because the server was meant to be a cohesive community of friends. There was never a need for nations or governments! It was just a group of friends making a home together! And then it all became so convoluted, and there were nations when there didn’t need to be any, and people were being divided into sides and being divided into “us” and “them,” and it was so irrevocably different from what the server started as. And I don’t think c!Dream ever really figured out how to accept that it was irrevocable :( and even he himself was blindsided by the story crafted by L’manberg and by c!Wilbur, to the point that he didn’t even fully understand his own goals! Because he (and everyone else) got so used to nationalism on the server and factions and conflicts and “us” vs “them,” that he didn’t even realize he just wanted things to go back to how they were :( oughhhh c!dreamie :((

Sorry to devolve into emotions at the end of this, but it’s not an academic paper, so I think you should cut me some slack. It’s just :( “I don’t ever want to be alone” because with nationalism comes exclusion and it eventually brought c!Dream to a point where he was so, so alone and :( He makes me so sad </3

Anyway, the reason the DSMP didn’t end with c!Dream dead at c!Tommy’s hands is because that was never the point of the story—that was the narrative L’manberg was trying to spin, but that was never what the story was actually about. It took up until the very end for them to break free from the story of L’manberg.

(And, it’s been mentioned many times before, but there’s a reason this was never able to happen until c!Wilbur was removed from the narrative. c!Dream and c!Wilbur and c!Tommy are absolutely crucial in each other’s character arcs, and you can’t really understand any of the duo relationships without considering the third (says the person guilty of writing c!Dreambur fanworks without always thinking about c!Tommy lmao, but hey at least it’s not analysis, right?) but that’s also a post for another day).

I never really know how to conclude things. I’m kind of worried I’m forgetting stuff, and I apologize if I did forget stuff, but I’ve been working on this for, like, 4 and a half hours and am getting tired lmao. But my main points are that L’manberg was satirizing and criticizing nationalism, that the concept of nationalism stuck with the SMP until the very end, and that the concept of nationalism from the beginning set up c!Dream to be the villain (and, really, this is largely in part because L’manberg from the beginning set up c!Dream to be a villain, and I don’t think you can feasibly separate L’manberg from nationalism). Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk! Feel free to ask questions and discuss further, and I will do my best to respond lol.

[propheticeve]

Holiness Hoodoo: Speaking in tongues

In my exploration of the question, "Do any other religions practice speaking in tongues?" I arrived at a resounding "NO." More specifically, I discovered that speaking in tongues, or Glossolalia, is primarily native to Pentecostalism. This revelation left me pondering why the internet isn't more updated with information about the practice of speaking in tongues in African Traditional Religions (ATRs), as this practice predates the knowledge of Christ or Pentecostalism.

My curiosity extends to how this practice correlates with spirit possession in other cultures. Speaking in tongues is often seen as a form of being possessed by the Holy Spirit. I wonder how this phenomenon compares to the concept of being "ridden" by the lwa in Vodoun rituals, a practice prevalent in various religious traditions, such as shamanism, Yoruba, Santeria, and Spiritism. In these cultures, spirit possession is not only accepted but viewed as a privilege or a sign of divine favor and great power. The question arises: does it matter if one understands the spoken words, especially when the person speaking has no control over them or doesn't comprehend their meaning?

I shared that I grew up in a Pentecostal environment, where I witnessed numerous instances of tongues speaking, the laying on of hands, Holy Ghost encounters, and more. While I have not been gifted with the ability to speak in tongues myself, my sister has received this "mantle." I acknowledge that it might still be possible for me to receive this gift; it simply hasn't manifested yet.

A striking discrepancy lies between the way the Bible describes speaking in tongues and how it is practiced in the Black church. These two interpretations do not necessarily align. The way in which the Black church practices speaking in tongues could be considered blasphemous by those who do not understand the cultural context.

For instance, 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (ESV) advises that if anyone speaks in a tongue, there should be only two or at most three speakers, and someone should interpret. If there is no one to interpret, individuals should remain silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. However, I recall watching my mother enter profound trances in church and speak in tongues. She often conveyed familial messages, sometimes from loved ones or ancestors. On occasion, her utterances were messages directly from the Most High. This suggests that, despite our belief that we are communicating solely with the Most High, we may inadvertently be connecting with ancestral spirits.

As previously mentioned in my post about "shouting," Black people approach worship differently, and our cultural influence extends to various religions we encounter. This manner of worship has roots that run deeper than mere survival; it dates back long before the era of colonization. Our unique approach to worship resonates deeply with the source, and we have been able to utilize the Bible to justify our practices.

Acts 2:4 (ESV) states that the disciples were "filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." In the Black church, particularly the ones I attended, deliverance magic, akin to exorcism or the casting out of demons, was prevalent. When witnessing the casting out of a spirit, the individual performing the exorcism would often speak in tongues. My mother would emphasize that she wasn't addressing the person but the spirit.

Mark 16:17 (ESV) further supports this practice, stating that "these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name, they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues."

Despite its significance, many people question those who speak in tongues, doubting the authenticity of their utterances. They may ask, "What are they saying? Can you translate it?" The answer is generally no, as this conversation resembles a language of light—words only decipherable by the person and the spirit. Sometimes, the person speaking in tongues is unaware of the message once they emerge from the trance.

The discourse conducted through speaking in tongues is not meant for everyone's ears. It is a communication meant for specific individuals, often excluding the person speaking. Consequently, I do not advocate listening to or repeating others' tongues or mimicking the practice. The spirit being communicated with may not be in everyone's best interest. Speaking in tongues is a form of spirit communication bestowed upon only a few.

Please make sure you SHARE! SHARE! SHARE! For more if you enjoyed this post.

Don’t forget My MInd and Me inc is still seeking donors for The Peoples Praise House! Even if you cannot donate, SHARE ! Thank you !

@conjuhwoeman on twitter

@realconjuhwoeman on IG

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

you've talked about a lot of people your age are risk-averse homebodies; do you put that down to just helicopter parenting, or is everyone being broke also a factor?

Oh jeez is that post going around again.

Listen. Helicopter parenting is one of many factors. And I think that Helicopter parenting is only as common as it is because of Reagan era moral panics still having hold on society because of complex factors that have a lot to do with American exceptionalism and the cold war and American hyper individualism.

I don't think that being broke has much to do with it actually, I'm not saying it isn't part of it but it's kind of negligible in the specific problem of people refusing to touch grass. Like people are much poorer than their parents generally and it's a huge problem but it is possible and even easy to go out and hang out with people when you have no money. Literally go out and fuck around in the woods with your friends. Do it. It is easy and free and people have been doing it since the beginning of time.

No the issue is that the third space is being completely removed and part of that is manufacturing consent for it. For example community centers, if they haven't closed down altogether, have a lot fewer things for adults. You used to be able to go take a pottery class or some shit like that at a community center and it might cost you some money but those sorts of things were always intentionally affordable. Now everything is ages 5-12 if it exists at all. And as for spaces that aren't meant to be third spaces but which people use that way, loitering is being prosecuted way more now, especially in racially marginalized communities, but not just in marginalized communities. Like think about shopping malls for instance. In the 90s and 00s there used to be roving gangs of teenagers in those things now they're ghost towns. A lot of those stores will ask you to leave if you're not there to buy something. Those two things are directly connected. Bathrooms in coffee shops didn't used to be for customers only. When I was a kid I could walk into a coffee shop and sit down with a book and no one would tell me to buy something or leave as long as I was unobstructive, it's not like that anymore. Obviously COVID is a factor but that was happening before COVID.

Also people are wayyyy less religious than they used to be, which I think is good, but one side effect of it is that another third space disappeared. You used to go to church or temple or whatever once a week and Idk what non church places are like but usually you would sit for an hour and listen to some guy talk about God and you'd sing some songs and then you would go into the church basement and have coffee and food and talk to the other people who were there getting coffee and food. And the churches would have food drives and things of that nature on days other than Sunday. That stuff still happens if course but young people aren't there because we don't believe in that shit. Which yeah the church is a pretty bigoted institution and I think organized religion gives too much power to the leadership. If you connect god with some human guy that human guy can take advantage of your faith it happens all the time. But we have to replace that ritual of gathering somewhere and getting coffee and food with people once a week or we're gonna have a poorly socialized populace. And you can't really replace it with coffee shop because you have to buy your food there and you're not really encouraged to talk to other people you don't know that well the way you are at a church.

And yeah there's the financial aspect of it but it used to be easier to jump the fence and get into a concert, the bar didn't always have that cover charge, there used to be a public bathroom there, there used to be a public water fountain, there used to be a 30$ craft class, that used to be a public park and they'd do block parties and Shakespeare in the park there and now it's a parking lot, and so on and so forth.

Frankly one thing I find shocking is that even places that are expensive are getting less friendly to adults seeking activities. My town has 4 dance studios and not a single one of them offers beginner level dance classes for adults. And I'm not just talking about ballet either, they don't teach any classes to adults. I'm a drag queen that's a thing id be interested in paying for with my tip money so I can get more tips in the future. They don't have it.

Idk it just feels like "I'm broke :/" ok well being broke didn't used to mean that you had to stay in your apartment all day.

[bluegekk0]

So I have a question.

First of all, since I don’t quite feel like going through all of your posts for one detail, what’s FPKs spiritual status or whatever? Has he regressed in part? If he’s still a god have his domains/aspects shifted with the feralisation?

Secondly, what of the rest of Hallownests pantheon (Not the Godseeker pantheons I mean the remaining higher beings of Hallownest, and I suppose the more special creatures like Bardoon since otherwise that’s a really short list)? How are their relations with FPK? Have they even met again? Do they even know he lives?

Hi! I have a tag for the most important ask responses and other AU related posts, both for the story as well as for understanding the characters better, the tag is #save. In case this link doesn't work properly, all of my tags are pinned to my blog, so I recommend checking that out!

I also have some responses related to the topic of gods in the AU, as well as where FPK lands in all of that. Here is one about The Radiance and Grimm's father, which also goes more in depth about how I see the gods. Here is another response related to The Radiance, which also touches on the topic of gods. And lastly, here is one that talks more about FPK (and mainly WL) and how he fits into the whole thing.

But to add something to my answer that I either came up with later or just didn't mention in the other posts (it will be long so I'll put the divider here)

As I mentioned in one of the posts, the gods generally inhabit their own areas. They are not omnipotent, which makes sense, since they are more like guides than creators. This means that certain areas develop cultures and terms that are somewhat exclusive to the region, and an example of such is the term "Dream Realm", which is only really used by the inhabitants of the Hallownest territory (the reason for which I'll explain later). Another interesting result of such scenario is that many mortals travel between countries and kingdoms in order to reach their gods and seek their guidance. I think it would add a pretty fascinating element to their world, one that is not actually that far-fetched from canon, as the Godseeker traveled in search of other gods after the ones of their homeland perished.

There are two distinct "categories" of gods in the AU: the old gods and the new gods, and most of the higher beings we know belong to the latter. The old gods were more like what you picture when you think of a god: a powerful being you devote yourself to, but one you cannot see or touch. This was the old way of the gods, though these days it's very much a thing of the past - most of them choose to create a physical form to walk among the mortals and interact with them, some even blend into their world to the point where it's not as easy to tell that they are in fact gods. Many of them care not for worship, and instead prefer to have a more personal connection with the mortals. A notable exception was The Radiance - she was obsessed with the old gods and their way of life, she refused to create a physical form, and drew most of her power from the worship given to her. This earned her the nickname Grimm would often use mockingly - The Old Light. Though for the longest time, she actually flourished. Worshipping her was the main "religion" of the Hallownest territory for quite some time, and the Moth tribe that she created served as a way for mortals to communicate with her. This was done through their dreams, which eventually coined the phrase "The Dream Realm", first to refer to The Radiance's domain, though over time it became the main term to use for other god realms, even if they were not related to the concept of dreams. But with time, the new way of gods overshadowed her rule, and eventually the mortals turned away from The Radiance, instead devoting themselves to higher beings they could see and interact with.

This is where FPK came into the picture, as I mentioned before, he learned his powers and thus was not a real god, but in the eyes of mortals he was just as worthy of worship as any other higher being. At that point, The Radiance was already weak, and we know the rest of the story so I won't get into it now.

And since we're on the topic of FPK: before advanced civilization developed, the gods would instead guide the course of nature itself, which at that time was full of now prehistoric creatures. Giant, imposing beasts dominated the world, and wyrms were one of such species. But eventually that megafauna would slowly die off, passing the torch to smaller creatures and allowing them to evolve and develop (similarly to how the extinction of dinosaurs allowed small mammals to flourish). I like to think that this common ancestor was quite insect-like in its appearance, which is why those traits are quite commonly present in modern species (though they are notably not actual insects). Wyrm were the last of those gigantic species, due to their unusual ability to stop aging, which eventually led to intense cannibalism and their eventual extinction.

FPK was born in the very last generation of wyrms, when their numbers were already dwindling. He was a small, weak, leucistic wyrm, which inevitably made him an outcast for his species. After he matured and left his nest, he began hiding from his kind, as he knew he had no chance of fighting back. That is when he stumbled upon the lore tablets left by the gods. Soul magic was notably difficult to learn, and while there are mortals who know how to use it, their short lifespans mean that they die before they can reach its full potential. FPK was just the right creature to learn the magic and perfect it - he spent almost 200 years studying the tablets and developing his skills, and by the time he changed forms and created the kingdom, he already reached levels of power comparable to that of the gods (though he still lacked a lot of their abilities that he was not able to learn with soul, which I mentioned in one of the linked posts).

But since his power was learned, not natural to him, it was inherently linked to his mind, his memory, and his experiences. And as he fell into hibernation, his oldest memories began to get slowly erased, which included the very basics of soul magic. This meant that, when he was woken up (thankfully before he lost most of his memories), he had no knowledge of how to utilize his powers, and thus was not able to sustain himself with soul (I recommend this post for more details on the importance of this ability in particular for him, as well as his feral nature). While it is technically possible for him to re-learn those basics and become powerful again, he chooses not to for personal reasons - he became too dependent on it, to the point where he was starving himself, and he generally associates it with the worst moments of his life.

So after hibernation, he is pretty much exactly the way he was in his childhood, though obviously in a different physical form. He doesn't age (which was a trait Hornet inherited from him), but aside from that, he doesn't know any magic.

---

I'll return to the topic of other gods, to give some more details on them and their relation to FPK. The list, as you pointed out, is not particularly long, but with the previous context I think it makes sense.

First, there's The Radiance and The Nightmare (now known as The Nightmare King/Grimm), the two siblings and the children of The Dream Lord (name is subject to change since I haven't sat down to create a design for him yet), who is now dead as noted in one of the linked posts. I won't go into too much detail on what their domains and responsibilities are, refer back to the posts I linked.

Then there is The White Lady. I mentioned that I imagine she would be the god of fertility, and perhaps she would also watch over the flora of the region. She would be the god to seek in topics related to fertility or crops, I imagine.

Quite related to WL's domain is Unn, who watches over the wilderness, particularly the fauna (though she is also responsible for the vegetation of the region, which is where she clashes with WL). She is one of the few gods of the region who actually created her own followers, though she is always welcoming to any mortal who seeks her aid.

Lastly, there is The Shade Lord, a unique higher formed from void itself, which does not have a domain of its own. Instead, it stood opposed to The Dream Lord - balancing the hopeful dreams with chaos and doubts. But it became dangerous, and so The Dream Lord sacrificed himself to seal it away in the Abyss (Ghost united the void one last time to defeat The Radiance, but The Shade Lord as it was known once is gone).

Now, there is also the possibility of there being other gods, which were never encountered by Ghost. For instance, the hot springs imply the existence of possible volcanic activity in the region, so perhaps there is a god whose domain connects to fire and heat? Perhaps they could serve a similar role to Hephaestus in Greek mythology, and be the guide to all the blacksmiths of the region?

There may also be a god related to Lifeblood, I think there is an implication that it comes from a higher being like source. They could be the god you seek in matters related to health and vitality. But then again, Lifeblood itself is so strange that it may as well just be some kind of drug hahaha

And again, FPK was never part of that pantheon of gods, The Radiance notably considered him a fraud and rejected him. But the other gods, which are much closer to the mortals, were more open to welcoming him among their kind. His marriage to WL earned him the title of a Pale Being, and while he was not able to become part of the matters of gods (his inability to enter The Higher Plane was the biggest factor here), he was still considered a god by all the mortals.

He did meet with WL after coming back, though as I mentioned before, since they divorced, he only rarely pays her visits - their new lives are almost completely separate. Unn was definitely aware of his return, after all, he frequently hunts in her territory. She definitely watched him closely to ensure he wasn't overhunting the animal population, but since he only does that to satisfy his hunger, she never had to intervene. The Radiance is dead, and Grimm is married to him so not much to add here.

---

Also, since you mentioned Bardoon. I think his species may be a quite recent descendant of one of those prehistoric beasts, which would explain his size and knowledge of wyrms. So he's definitely in the same category that FPK was in when he was born.

---

This turned out really long, but I hope it's a satisfying answer. Again, I definitely recommend checking out the posts I linked, as well as scrolling through the #save tag (especially if you want to learn more about the more personal aspects of the characters). I tried to make it as easy to understand as possible, but again, the AU is not a serious writing project, I definitely make it up as I go, so there is a chance that some things don't quite add up or are a bit convoluted. So if you have any more questions or want me to elaborate on something, feel free to send me another ask!

[illarian-rambling]

Chemistry is making me sad, so I'm gonna ramble about something @mk-writes-stuff and I were talking about!

The Cloud People

The Cloud People are Illaros's aliens... kind of. They got their start about a thousand years before the start of Honor's Outcasts, during the War of Conquest. Back then, the young Republic was carving a bloody path through the south of the Iarlan continent, pillaging and enslaving as they went. The nations of the south fought back, of course, but by the time the horror that was the one-day Siege of Lanokos took place, it was a losing battle. People were getting desperate. They needed a way to escape.

Here's where we meet the wealthy merchant, Suruk Baijahreet. Suruk was a third-generation human immigrant living in the hobgoblin city of Koptet. For many years, he'd made money by delivering his goods via rune controlled balloons, flown by pilots he'd trained himself. It was a novel technology, but one this pillar of the community made good use of.

When the Republic came knocking, Suruk knew he needed to find a way to save his people. He researched bigger and better flying machines as the army closed in. Despite the fact that the Republic was a human nation and Suruk was a human, his heart belonged to Koptet and the people of the city helped him in any way they could. By the time the Republic army made it to the city walls, just about the entire population lifted off in a fleet of what were Illaros's first zeppelins. And by god they weren't coming back down.

The war continued to rage below, but now, the people of Koptet were safe in the sky. They had stores of food and could send smaller craft down to scrounge when those stores ran low. They assumed, eventually, the war would calm down and they could return to sift through the ashes. However, for a hundred years, they were wrong.

By the time the War of Conquest ended, most people living in New Koptet, or what was coming to simply be called the Flying City, had been born up there. Suruk's son, Yazid, served as the city's navigator now. They had established a new form of democratic government, and even elements of new religion and language. They liked it in the sky. With a better vantage point for their fancy telescopes, they saw the other planets and wondered if they might make one of those their home.

For two hundred more years, the Flying City lurked in Illaros's atmosphere, occasionally coming down to trade with some remote Janazi islands. The many smaller crafts were consolidated into one massive structure. A winged, wooden behemoth with great fans and sails to keep it aloft, constantly orbited by smaller zeppelins. The Flying City is roughly twice the size of a very large cruise ship and holds 14,000 people. Eventually, their mages figured out how to protect the ship from the ravages of space, how to renew their air, and how to travel at incredible speeds. With that, the Flying City left Illaros, excited to see what the other planets held.

They did indeed find some cool stuff out there - aliens, most notably. They traded and mingled curiously with the blue-skinned Daramaktians and crystalline Hal'lahris. Some people from these planets joined the Flying City, bringing fresh blood and new cultures to the nomadic vessel. The blue Daramaktian blood bred especially true, leading to most modern people of the Flying City having a navy tint.

Really, the only reason they have to return to planets at all is because they have no way to produce their own food. Also, they've sort of embraced their role as mysterious merchants now. The folk of Illaros call them Cloud People because they descend from the clouds bearing strange gifts on exchange for canned produce. No one remembers the mythic flight of Koptet anymore, and even if they did, they'd be hard pressed to recognize the Flying City as the same place. Most of the population has mixed alien blood, many worship the Daramakt or Hal'lah gods along with the old Koptet religion, which has been long wiped out on Illaros by now. There's still a Baijahreet at the helm, even all these centuries later. Captain-Queen Jawen Baijahreet is well liked by her people as the head of their Citizens' Council. There is still a statue of her distant ancestor, Suruk, standing proudly at the bow.

But yeah, that's what's up with the Cloud People. I like them an inordinate amount considering they don't feature at all into my books other than Ivander’s absent mother being one of them. Yes, that does mean he has blue blood because he's part alien.

Hope you like this and lmk if you have any questions!

And go have a bitchin day <3

[heavenboy09]

And So April is come and gone.

Now on Begins the 1st day of May. With that being said this this new month brings the 8 brings the Asian culture and Pacific islander culture To become more aware than ever before with recent events of having a lot of Asian Hate.

Now is the time to be able to put a stop to all this. More than ever to learn more about Asian and Pacific islander culture and to continue that for many generations to come to learn of their beautiful and wonderful diversity of their way of life.

May is the month all of the Asian communities and Pacific islander communities and their stories to be told from now till the end of May and even then. Tell them all year long like every other Culture and Race, and Religion.

One Month does not hold us to tell Everyone's Stories. But It means alot to Represent Every Culture For the Month They are Given.

Representation Matters.

Divisterity Matters

And more Importantly.

STOP ASIAN HATE.

We are all part of one World 🌎

But we all can't be Happy if we can't learn to Love one another.

That goes for everyone and anyone.

Tell your family, your friends, and etc.

Half of my Good friends are Asian. They have been part of my life for a long time and I don't plan on having that being torn apart because of Ignorance.

Support Their People and Learn all you can about The Way Of Asia 🌏 and The Way Of Pacific Islands 🏝

THIS IS AAPI MONTH

THIS IS ASIAN AMERICAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER HERITAGE MONTH 🌏👲🇨🇳🎎🏝🌺🇭🇰🇯🇵🏣💴⛩🈷️🍡🏯🇮🇳🍛🌊🐚🗿🌴 #AAPI #AsianAmericanPacificIslander #AAPIHertiageMonth #stopasianshate

[mask131]

Roman gods are not Greek gods: General intro

I keep repeating it again and again: for years and years we have been told that “Roman gods are just the Greek gods with another name”, but it is a lie. The concept that the Roman pantheon is just a copy-paste of the Greek one is… Well, it is true, I can’t deny it. The Roman gods were copies (not to say rip-offs) of the Greek gods. We can say truthfully “Jupiter is the Roman equivalent of Zeus” or “the figure of Ceres is based on the one of Demeter, from Greek mythology”. 

However, this concept is also false by many ways – or rather, it is the exaggeration and simplification of an actual cultural fact, which in turn leads to a massive misconception of what Roman deities were. You can’t say “Juno is the same goddess as Hera” or treat Aphrodite as if she was identical to Venus. As a result, if someone with knowledge of Greek mythology starts studying the Roman pantheon, they will immediately feel comfortable due to spotting a lot of common ground and things they know already, but the more time they will spend in the world of Ancient Rome, the more they will feel like aliens in a foreign land due to the many specific differences, unusual divergences and bizarre local traits of the Roman gods.

Anyway, I have been talking about this over and over again – and I finally decided to make a series of post about it! To truly talk about the differences and specificities of the Roman religion/pantheon/mythology compared to the Greek one. To do so I think I will go by the Olympian gods, which are the most famous of the Greek gods, looking at their Roman self to see how they differ from the Greeks.

BUT BEFORE ALL! A general introduction. A general introduction to specify some context points about Roman history, religion and culture – points that are actually quite important to understand why Roman gods are like they are.

POINT 1: Roman gods are copies of Greek gods.

That’s a fact: as the Romans built their civilization, culture and religion, they looked over at their neighbor, the mighty Ancient Greece (that soon would become just a part of the vast Roman Empire), thought their gods were really neat, and decided to “adopt” them. As a result, they took back the main and most important Greek Gods, and gave them Roman names and temples. Zeus became Jupiter, Poseidon became Neptune, Hephaistos became Vulcan… The legends, symbolism, attributes and relationships of the Greek gods were brought over in the Roman religion, and this is why nowadays everybody says “The Roman gods are Greek gods by another name”.  HOWEVER…

POINT 2: Roman gods were transformed into the Greek gods

Roman gods were not “invented” to copy the Greek gods as many would believe. The Roman gods existed long before the Romans decided to Hellenize their religions. They were the Italic deities, formed and born out of the many previous communities and civilizations that lived and existed in Italy before the rise of Rome: we are talking about the Etruscans, the Sabines, the Albans, all the Latin people. And this early Latin religion had its own gods, often very unique, which formed the proto-pantheon of Rome, its religion in its early days.

When the “Hellenization” of the pantheon happened (in fact the very use of the word “pantheon” is anachronistic since it was a Greek concept the Romans brought over), what the Romans did was that they looked in their local religion to see which gods corresponded to the Greek deities, and then reshaped their own gods to look more like the Greeks. As a result, yes, the Romans didn’t “copy-paste” the Greek gods, because it would imply that there was nothing before them – rather, the Romans did a full makeover of the original Latin gods so that they would look and act more like the Greek gods. 

However, the copying process was far from perfect: the Romans kept around many of their important gods they could not find equivalents of (such as Janus), had to completely invent new spots in their religion for gods they did not find equivalents of in their own cults (such as Apollo), the newly formed Greco-Roman gods still kept primitive Latin and Italic particularities that led to a divergence from their Greek model ; and finally, the Hellenization of the Roman gods led to massive shifts in divine relationships and positions, that also led to conflicts in characterization (such as Saturn, who was an important and benevolent deity, and that the Romans had to equate to a non-religious villainous figure, the one of Kronos).

POINT 3: Romans were farmers and soldiers

The pre-Roman civilization(s) was an agricultural one. It was a community of farmers of various kinds, living in the countryside and the wilds, and who relied heavily on plants, crops, the cycles of nature… And this led to a lot of the early Latin deities being nature or agricultural deities. Then the early Roman civilization gained geographical and political power through wars and conquests, and another big social group was introduced: the military. So, the Romans gained gods more focused on weapons, soldiers, armies, victory and defeat. And these were the original Roman gods, the core Roman religion: agricultural gods and war gods. Even after the Hellenization, even as the Roman gods became copies of the Greek gods, they kept this intense focus on either nature/agriculture, either the military and everything that came with it – such as politics. But with the advance of the Roman Empire, a third element could be included: urbanism. The Greek civilization was spread across numerous islands and state-cities, and it relied on a shared language, a shared religion, shared customs. The Roman civilization? It was all about Rome. It was about living in Rome, having the customs of Rome, being born in Rome. It was all focused around this one city versus the rest of the world, this one city that became the center of the world – and as a result, the Roman gods also reflected this aspect of the civilization by becoming very urban and city-focused, more than the Greeks. God of the farmer, god of the soldier, god of the city. This is why the Roman gods are more naturalistic, militaristic and urban than the Greek gods.

But this all leads to another massive difference in religions that I will talk about in my next point (which is in fact just a continuation of this one)

POINT 4: Roman religion is rituals. Just rituals. Tons of rituals.

Roman religion is a ritualistic religion. The “farmer and soldier” mindset on which the Roman religion was based led to a very… let’s say pragmatic, down-to-earth religion, all centered about rituals. In fact, this ritualistic nature is precisely the reason why Roman religion thrived in the Antique world until the arrival of Christianity. Given it was ritualistic in nature, all you needed to do to be “part” of the religion was to simply practice a set of rituals for the gods. Offerings, sacrifices, festivals, temple-building… 

The Roman religion didn’t rely on something like a dogma or a belief. It was all about the acts, the rituals, about a regular worship – but not about a specific faith. This is why, as the Empire grew, new gods from foreign lands kept being added to the pantheon; and this is why the Roman religion kept syncretizing itself with other cultures, and why the Roman empire could allow the conquered nations to keep their religion as long as they practiced the Roman cults alongside it and recognized them as just as valid.

Because Roman religion was all about practicing rituals, and as long as you practice the rituals, the gods are pleased, and as long as you practice the rituals, even if you do not believe in them, you are part of the religion, of the community and of society that go alongside it. Roman religion was very social (again, the “urban god” part). This is why it was so lax and inclusive when confronted to gods and worships different from its own. And when Christianity arrived… They were confronted with an entirely different model. A dogmatic religion, a religion based on belief and faith – a religion that, as such, could not work in the same syncretism-and-expansion project ; a religion that excluded all other religions as “false” and “incompatible” with their own worship. Christianty wasn’t just about honoring a god by rituals but about believing in a god in such a way you couldn’t admit anything that would contradict your beliefs… Cue to the Roman persecutions of the Christians.

Anyway, I got carried away here. The important thing is: Roman religion is a ritualistic religion. And the consequence is that the Roman gods were, for a very long time (and still were, until the end), ritualistic gods. The reason the Hellenization of the Roman gods worked so well was because the early Romans did not have any… “mythology”. They did not have any myths. Look at the legends forming Roman religion: 90% of them or so are Greek in origin. The purely Roman legends are a minority, and mostly tied to actual historical facts. Early Romans did not think of the gods as creatures with personalities or humanity, and even less as beings able to have adventures or be the characters of stories! For them the gods were abstractions and personifications, entirely centered around rituals and offerings and specific festivals – forces of nature and manifestations of a ritualistic power. But the Greeks were storytellers, and when the Romans saw this extensive, carefully-crafted universe of legends and tales, with each god having specific relationships and personality, they gobbled it up and imported it all to fill their own void when it came to myths.

Even then, it is something you will notice if you look at the Roman gods – even after their Hellenization, they still stayed extremely ritualistic. Take the epithets of the gods. In Ancient Greece, these epithets usually depicted the essence, appearance or power of the gods, and were used in a quite poetic way. In Ancient Rome, the epithets of the gods almost always describe the different aspects and functions of the gods in religion, each nickname or title being about one of the jobs of the god or what a deity does. No “gray-eyed”, “white-armed” or “fast of feet” in Rome, oh no, we are talking of things like “Purifier”, “Protector”, “Judging”, “Ruling”. Similarly, a god in Ancient Rome is defined first and foremost by the rituals, festivals and religion around it – the myths and legends are just fancy ornaments and pretty stories. Which leads to a lot of minor or secondary Roman gods having no tales or personalities of their own, and being solely defined by a specific rite or festival. Ritual first, myth later.

[  As an addition, if you want some temporal indications, the Hellenization of the Roman pantheon is said to have “finished” somewhere between the third and second century BC, the third century being the most talked about due to it being the century of Enius’ record of the “twelve great gods”, obviously based off the twelve Olympians of Greek mythology. But the Hellenization was actually said to have started at quite an early time, due to the Greeks interacting frequently and having some religious influence over the main civilization that preceded the Romans: the Etruscans, whose religion served as a “foundation” and “basis” for the future Roman religion. This light-Hellenization of the Etruscans is thought by certain to be a “proto-Roman Hellenization”, an indirect and minor Hellenization of the early Roman religion that paved the way for the “true Hellenization” of the Roman gods later on. We are here talking mostly about the Greek colonies founded during the 8th century BCE in Sicily and meridional Italy (the 8th century being the same century at the end of which Rome was founded): the colonies of the Euboeans on both sides of the strait of Messina; the founding of Syracuse and Taranto by the Dorians; or Sybaris, Metapontum and Crotone by the Achaeans. Apparently this colonized part of Italy was even called “Great-Greece” by the Ancient Greeks, the same way we have Britain VS Great-Britain).]

EDIT:

I was asked about the sources I used for my “Roman gods are not Greek gods” series, and so I will add them below. In this time of massive misinformation, actual sources are always dearly needed. Note that I literaly just pulled them off my shelves to write quickly those posts - these posts are NOT deep-down, scholarly, expert dives on the Roman religion. I am just a person who enjoys talking and reading about this and wants to share basic knowledge.

So, beyond looking at Wikipedia articles (because Wikipedia does have a lot of useful info, when properly sourced) and at Theoi.com articles (they are mostly about Greek texts but they do have a lot of Roman extracts, sometimes exclusively Roman ones), I mostly use for these posts three French books of mine. While each has been a reference in their time, each one is incomplete or flawed in a way and so I need to use them simulatenously, plus a side fact-check, to get things right.

Source 1: “Mythologie générale” by Félix Guirand - it has an entire section about the religion and mythology of Ancient Rome. Advantage: Very complete and very scholarly. Disadvantage: It is old, and thus aged badly in some ways (some points later discovered to be false for example).

Source 2: Dictionnaire de la mythologie grecque et romaine, by Joël Schmidt. Advantage: As scholarly as the previous one, but more recent. Disadvantage: It is a short dictionnary meaning it keeps every article as concise as possible and doesn’t offer much, even though it goes straight to the point.

Source 3: Edition Atlas ‘ La Mythologie (book-form of the Atlas collection “Mythologie”). Advantage: It has two full and extensive parts for both Greek and Roman mythologies, with different articles for each deity (one for Hermes, one for Mercury ; one for Hera, one for Juno), meaning they take their time exploring each deity on its own. Disadvantage: It is meant to be for a non-scholarly audience, so it has a bit of vulgarization to it ; plus the book-form lacks many of the articles in the originally published collection, and while I do have some of those extra-articles, others are missing.

[nerdygaymormon]

hello! o/ im a queer teenager from canada! i lead my highschool's gsa and am very active in the queer community around us. we raised $800 for the Trevor Project last year, raised $500 towards a chest binder breakroom at our school and are officially putting on the school's first all-age queer prom this may!

however, im very confused at the moment. i grew up in an atheist household and have never really found myself believing in God or anything religious. while i still dont think i believe ALL of it, lately ive been doing a lot of thinking after finding an old pocket bible that belonged to my great grandmother (she practically raised me but i never knew she was religious, she never mentioned it at all) and flipping through it and reading her flagged scriptures (i believe thats what theyre called, forgive me if im wrong), etc.

i then resorted to the internet and have been doing a bit of research and am now very conflicted about my feelings and beliefs. i now have moments where i genuinely believe there is something/someone divine out there. i find myself... almost talking to it, sometimes? i dont really know how to describe it. i even tried praying the other day for the first time in my life. (i probably didnt do it right if theres a proper way, but the point is i did it and i surprised myself.)

even though i have these moments, i still have times where i doubt it all. aside from the occasional joke, ive always done my best to be respectful of people's faith, but never saw myself believing until now. and when i say believe, like i said before, it isnt all of it. (like the creation of the world, etc)

i feel sort of fake in a way i dont know how to describe because of my conflicted feelings and how i dont believe everything. there are a lot of things i want to say about it but i really cant pull words from the emotions and i keep trying to. i also dont really have anyone in my life who i can talk to about this stuff. my family will not take me seriously and none of my friends and teachers are religious.

i dont know if you take asks like this, and its totally fine if you dont, but if you have any kind of advice it would be greatly appreciated.

sorry for the long ask, but thanks so much! hope youre having a wonderful day my friend 🤍

Congratulations for all you accomplish for queer students at your school! That's amazing!!!

That you find some aspects with religion resonates with you shouldn't be surprising or upsetting. Humans have been creating and practicing religions since before there was recorded history. There seems to be a need that is satisfied by religion.

In a broad sense, religion does 3 thing:

1. It provides an explanation for natural phenomena. Why is the ground shaking? Why did the sun go dark temporarily? Why is there a drought? Why is dad sick? Why did a hurricane pummel New Orleans?

2. Religions provide meaning to life. Religion provides answers for what is the purpose of life and what happens when we die. Religions are a vehicle for passing along the wisdom from past generations from hundreds and thousands of years ago.

3. Religion helps humans build community and encourages cooperation among those who believe. Religious belief also helps people develop self-discipline. Unfortunately, religions also have been used to define who is in a community and who is not, and this has led to a lot of harm and even wars

Beyond all these macro reasons, religion is experienced at the individual level. An individual prays and receive comfort and answers and feels a larger entity cares about them. Their faith gives them a purpose. They have a community that is meaningful in their lives. This is part of the truth of their lived experience and can't be easily quantified. It's what makes religion still relevant in the lives of many people today

[ashcroft-writes]

Calamity Horizon for the ask game? O.o I'm so curious <3

Oh oh! So, I couldn’t find a second snippet from my fic that didn’t give too much away—but I can answer with a tiny bit of lore/worldbuilding that I’ve been working on! :D

Part of Calamity Horizon involves a plot that takes place in a city founded by Duros settlers at the very edge of Republic Space. It was created as a mining colony centuries past, and powerful economic interests hold the most sway there still. But I hadn’t yet fleshed out my thoughts on colonial Duros culture and how it differs or relates to what I was writing both on Duro itself and its satellite cities. After all, the Duros expanded out from their home sector a great many years ago, and I assumed that disparate colonies probably had their own ways of thought that had risen in the years since.

Probably my favorite facets of this worldbuilding have to do with spirituality and how they view history. For the homeworld Duros that yet remained before the attack in Homeworld Elegy, they clung to a lot of old ways most of the outside Duros had long abandoned, such as the tradition of the river rowers and their funeral rites. There was an idea of glory days existing back in the monarchy (long since replaced,) when the homeworld was of great importance to the galaxy, the Duros a guiding light of technology and political power, and even the most washed out contemporary villages often housing great religious centers, political networks, and vast ship yards. One might have still found images of the important monarchs treated with respect around the towns, and many residents clinging to their ancestral land would have claimed a bloodline from the old royal courts (some truly, and some not.)

Indeed, Duro was also one of the last holdouts in my story of a really old form of a once-common star-based Duros faith. There are still cultural and linguistic underpinnings of this sprinkled throughout Gunslinger's Paean—for example, a tradition to say one was born under certain constellations, lending astrological significance to one’s life (for example, when Bane thinks about how the Explorer’s stars were his, or when we see the economic blessings in the signs of The Miner on the governor’s seal.) Or, another example: some Duros utter “by the stars” as a soft expression of disbelief.

For most Duros in general, these things are just part of the common language and culture, and don’t really make them modern-day adherents of such a faith. Bane in particular, I do not write as having much truck with the old religion, whether he was from the homeworld or not. In fact, some satellite-city Duros don't understand the earnest belief in such things, finding a dogged insistence on near-dead modes of thought to be one of the things that makes homeworld Duros a bit difficult.

But, this doesn’t mean those ancient thoughts didn’t give rise to other things elsewhere in the diaspora. In the colonial city I’m writing, one doesn’t find any torches burning for the old monarchs, but one can find a little star temple in the downtown's heart. Homeworld Duros might find its architecture entirely different, its rituals bereft of certain steps, and its believers emphasizing different things in the practice, however. It’s become more of a personal faith, no longer meant to rally the people in a communal push towards greatness, and often isn’t taken literally. Still, it provides guidance and comfort for some, and in the wake of Duro’s downfall, for refugees, it is sanctuary still.

Unfortunately, just like on depleted and polluted Duro, the colonial leaders that grew incredibly wealthy and powerful on the riches of the land never really learned the lesson of moderation in regards to their new home’s resources. Slowly, their mines start to run dry, and they need to turn to… other means to keep their power base stable.

And in such places, there’s always someone willing to pay to get certain unsavory jobs done.

Hence some good plot seeds for both Calamity Horizon were born, AND a little short story in Summer's End about Bane doing a job there in the early stages of his galactic career. It’s actually one of my fave pieces in that collection, and introduces some lore and characters that really drives Calamity Horizon forward later. :D Cured a bit of writer’s block I had during this development something fierce! And there’s other little stories there too that reference some of these ideas.

Aughghgh and this doesn’t even get into the songs, the dances, etc. I’ve got. I’ve got so much. Too much 😂 I hope this tiny peek under the hood is fun though!! I’m tinkering with the stories today as well to keep them moving forward to the finish line. :D

[userdogmeat]

Faith, Hope, and Love

@falloutober 8

cw: religious content/discussions

“You ever went to one of those, General?” He asked with a tip of his head, directing her attention to the decaying Concord chapel that stood at the end of their patrol route. A symbol of the past and long dead tradition.

Nora nodded matter-of-factly, “I went to that very one.” 

It was hard not to sound impressed at Nora’s casual revelation, “No kidding.”

“Every Sunday.”

“I didn’t peg you for the religious type.”

Nora chuckled as she shook her head, “No - no,” she corrected, “I’m not - I wasn’t, never was. But - uh, Nate was, shockingly enough.”

He couldn’t help the way he soured at the mention of his name. Nate, her dead husband, the one Nora refused to talk about. “Interesting,” he nodded, he hoped that the conversation would end there - the way most of their conversations did if they weren’t directly about Minutemen business. 

Preston wasn’t quite sure why they hadn’t really bonded. Sure, he hadn’t made much of an attempt other than the usual casual pleasantries and small talk but talking had never quite been his forte and apparently, it hadn’t been hers either. He’d known her for nearly seven months now, they’d fought side-by-side together on more than one occasion, they had reclaimed the Castle, rebuilt Sanctuary, and yet, here he was eager to kill the conversation he had just started just moments ago before Nora did it for him. 

She had been so quiet during their travels together, only willing to indulge on the basics of who she was - or had been. Nora was a lawyer, a desperate mother in search of her infant son, and a widow to a soldier - a religious soldier. Had that been common before the war? He had so many questions for Nora - questions that he was confident she’d never answer in conversations that they’d never have.

“He was Italian,” she said simply, her voice pulling him out of his thoughts and drawing his attention to her, “Nataniel De Luca.”

“Italian?”

Nora glanced over at him, her expression just as curious as his before chuckling. “I forgot that that’s not a thing anymore, I guess. Italians and their Catholicism, or whatever. Italians,” she began to explain with an awkward pause, her fingers tapping at the rifle slung at the ready in front of her, “they're from Italy - obviously - which is a country in Europe, and they are - were - for the most part Catholics, which was this huge religion and Nate’s family. They were - uh, they were pretty devout Catholics. Church every Sunday, only fish on Friday’s, the rosary every single evening kind of Catholics.”

Preston listened intently as she continued, he hadn’t heard this much ever come out of her - let alone about a topic like this.

“And don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t like I minded. It was just something that I didn’t grow up with but it was fine. It gave me something to do, provided a community that I never really had growing up, I liked it.” 

He could hear the uncertainty in her voice, the way she was still trying to convince herself two-hundred years later. 

“I had to if I wanted to marry him.”

Preston shot her a pointed look and Nora quickly shook her head, “No! He wasn’t forcing me, he never would’ve - maybe his family was - but it was the church that demanded it. If we wanted to get married by the church - ,” she pointed to the building ahead of them, “if we wanted to get married in that church, then I had to go.”

“You got married there?”

“Mm-hm,” she nodded, “we were going to baptize Shaun there, too.”

Were.

Preston felt her pain radiate into him, his own chest aching as Nora blinked back tears that had begun to well into the corners of her eyes, the way they always did when her baby’s name was brought up. It was one of the reasons Preston never asked, he knew just how much it hurt her.

“Do you mind - ,” she started, pausing to wipe away a fallen tear, “do you mind if we go in for a second?”

“No, not at all.”

Preston stepped into the chapel before her, his laser musket drawn high as he scanned the nave for any unwanted surprises. It was surprisingly empty, spare for the debris that had accumulated from centuries without care.

“It’s clear,” he called back to her, offering his hand to guide her in.

Nora took in a shaky breath before hesitantly taking his hand. He squeezed it gently as he cleared some of the ceiling rubble away out of their path with his boot, only letting go after Nora had. He stood and watched as Nora took a few hesitant steps forward, her fingers gliding over the pews armchairs and pulling up streaks of dust from the dark wood until she finally stopped.

Preston watched as she kneeled next to the pew, her lips uttering words that he couldn’t quite make out as her fingers tapped her forehead and chest before taking a seat without a sound. 

They were like this for quite some time, her sitting in the pew just a few rows from where he was standing and for the most part he watched her: the way she just sat there, staring at the empty pulpit. It wasn’t until he saw the shake of her shoulders that he moved, quickly stepping forward to stand at her side.

“Hey,” he whispered as he climbed into the pew next to her, careful to not startle her, “talk to me.”

“I miss them, Preston,” she cried, tears now flowing freely, “I miss my family.”

His hand fell quickly onto her back, a tender hand rubbing small circles into her back as he tried to soothe her, “I know, Nora. I’m sorry.”

Nora fell into him, her head resting against his chest as he tightly pulled her into him and she cried, his free hand brushing the hair that began to stick to her tear-stained face while loud sobs filled the chapel as Nora wept for her husband and baby. 

Preston held her close for as long as she needed, perhaps for as long as he needed. He’d never been one for physical affection, never once straying past a good pat on the back with his Minutemen comrades but this - this - right here, right now. It was what the moment required.

He stared ahead at the pulpit at the end of the nave’s long corridor, his eyes fixated on the crumbling statue of a woman holding a baby that stood a few feet behind it. And it wasn’t Nora and Shaun but just an unknown mother and her beloved baby boy, a beloved baby boy that the mother must have held and loved, the same way that Nora had loved him. And so it was Nora, the unknown mother who had never held faith but had always loved her son. And he knew right then and there that he would do anything to help her get him back.

[fuckyeahalfredmolina]

...Speaking of Instagram (Or Social Media)

*warning long post ahead*

There’s another GIF at the end of the post

There’s nothing more I hate than people gatekeeping something. Or trying to shove their ideology down other people’s throats. I’m not talking about human rights and beliefs such as feminism or being an LGBTQ+ community ally because these are the things you believe in and stand up for. I’m talking about people projecting their own insecurities on others and trying to police how they think and act. 

There’s a reason the Ask button is disabled (yes I did it on purpose, it’s not a glitch) and the fact that I don’t check the notes nor follow anyone. 

As someone who was in a lot of fandoms on platforms that don’t even exist anymore and witnessed the rise in popularity of multiple celebrities, there are always dumb fans who ruin the fun for the rest. Always. This fandom is no different.

But just before I start, I want to link this study because it will help in understanding what I’m trying to say:

People Who Worship Celebrities Have Lower Cognitive Abilities, Study Suggests

For probably a year now, I’ve come across so many fans who try to forcibly shift the fandom in its entirety to fit their outlook. And try to make Freddino something he is not. This could be done in a respectful manner or even a fun way but no - those type of fans are borderline unhinged to say the least.

I’ve witnessed fights ensuing over trivial matters that are completely based on pure speculations or over things that are just personal opinions. 

How dumb you have to be to get upset over something someone said and it doesn’t harm anyone? How much years of brain development do you need to understand that everyone thinks differently and everyone has the right to say their piece? And most importantly: how hard is it to understand that you don’t have to chime in with your unsolicited opinion over every fucking matter? 

Social media really made people think that they have to have a say in what other people share and that what they think is important. It is not. Especially when a person is in their own space/platform/domain and didn’t specifically ask for opinions. Because of that, I’m not interested in interacting with anyone in this fandom on this platform. I’m just here temporarily to have fun and talk about Freddino in a way I like. It is okay if you don’t like what I share. I’m past the age where I look for social approval especially from people I don’t know. If one thing the internet has taught me is that  anonymity brings out the worst in people.

Previously, there were many message boards and platforms where we gathered as fans of Freddino, most notably IMDb message board (the website had a message board for every single person and every movie) which was one of the best places to talk about Freddino, his work, and life. Back then, it was so much fun! We could discuss anything and share everything we like. Of course there were annoying people, but not the extent that is happening currently. 

I’ve seen sheer absurdity by people who obviously still don't have their shit together or their prefrontal cortex is not fully developed yet or still need years of life experiences. Or probably just dumb. I use the word dumb, not stupid because to me stupid is a term I use for endearment. 

Here are a few things I’ve seen and I was taken aback by the unintelligence that the people exhibited:

-Salma Hayek and Harvey Weinstein:

There was an upsurge in this matter though it happened in 2017 but as you guessed - it’s the new fans who made a big deal out of it. Some blamed Freddino or questioned his stance on this matter or the #MeToo movement in general. Until someone dug up an old video of him talking about it and supporting Salma. Still, some people continue to make a fuss about it. Going around attacking him based on something unrelated to him that happened years ago is ludicrous. 

-Why does Fred talk about p*rn a lot?

Personally I dislike p*rn for myriad of reasons unrelated to religion or stigma (you can Google how predatory the industry is or the psychological effects of p*rn if you want to read more) but if Freddino watches p*rn, what is the problem? He likes to joke around and this topic is fun to him. Also these videos are old so maybe he changed his stance. Either ways, there is no problem unless you view p*rn or s*x workers in a bad light. And frankly that is “A You Problem” you need to keep for yourself. 

-“Don’t sexualize Fred! He is a human!”:

Oohhhh this one is my favorite! While I agree there’s a degree of sexualization happening in Hollywood, it is natural at the same time to find someone sexually attractive. Did we go out of our way to solely sexualize him? Did we stalk and harass him in any way? Are we focusing on his looks and ignoring his career? Do we acknowledge his acting chops or just stare at his titties?

The one person who I’ve seen cry the most about sexualizing Freddino is the same person who has written unhinged posts about meeting Freddino and how they spend their day “Reality Shifting”. Google this term. No seriously, do it and read about it from a psychological standpoint.

-Body Shaming:

This is where a lot of people are projecting their insecurities on Freddino. “Stop talking about his boobs! Fred is not fat! Don’t shame his body!” - when Freddino himself used to joke about nothing but his “moobs” in Spider-Man 2? A lot of his interviews are lost and so many information and websites are not available anymore during the era when the movie was released. He still openly talks about his figure, he’s not ashamed whatsoever. Actually, he comes off as confident. It’s you (I’m using generic you here) who actually have a problem and projecting your problem onto Freddino. Having a meltdown and fighting people because they said Freddino is fat? Guess what? He IS fat! And it’s totally okay. Because that’s how people actually look. He’s normal. He looks like a lot of people around us-- he looks like us.

Social Media really ruined people’s perspective regarding bodies and I’m glad I was born before all that craze (Google Social Media and Body Image). I’m not saying that this problem is exclusive to certain demographic groups or that old(er) people can’t have body image issues because of course they can but I believe when you’re basically born into the era of social media and perfect body depiction, it affects you deeper. This problem is so prevalent now more than ever. So people go around and demand others adhere to certain rules they have put for themselves based on their insecurities or beliefs. You see people on social media with *perfect* bodies and expect everyone who doesn’t look like that to be defenseless or a victim or need special treatment? You may be the one who needs a special treatment and likes to be addressed in a certain way but does that apply to everyone? If a certain word (if it isn’t a slur) hurts you and you don’t like it being used to describe you, does it mean it will hurt another person?

Some people like to argue semantics and say “don’t call him fat, use the term overweight”. It’s the same thing, you’re just projecting and actually defending someone over something he has no problem with.

- The Pronouns Battle:

I’ve seen horrendous fights over what pronouns Freddino uses. Pronouns are important no argue about that, but did he say what pronouns he uses? If he did, then great, if he didn’t, why are you speculating? Why lose your shit fighting people? Hell, why does it matter to you? He can use whatever he likes, why are trying to specifically determine his choice?  This was such an amazingly disgusting thing to witness because it showed me how some people invest in celebrities’ lives and how much they try to forcibly connect to them. 

I mean I did start a silly blog and I’m sort of investing an hour or so daily but I don’t go out of my way fighting people over something that isn’t related to me. It’s one thing to look up to someone famous but it’s a whole different thing to claim they are like you and you have similarities based on your false narratives. This leads me to my next point:

-“I know Fred! I truly do!”:

Nope, you don’t. Yes even if he “changed your life” and even if you really feeeel it in your heart that you do -you don’t. Whether you’re a new fan or an old one, you simply can’t know someone based on what they chose to show the world as an actor and entertainer. Believing you know someone because “you feel it deep down” is such an immature way of dealing with people and this will get you hurt. We all think he’s funny, sweet, gentle, sexy but we can’t claim to actually knowing him as his family and friends do. This is such a weird hill to die on and I’ve seen so many immature people chose to do so.

-Harassing other fans around because “that’s so mean” or they didn’t get the joke:

I once joked that I want to live inside Freddino and I’ll share the rent and utility bills. It’s an obvious joke, right? Right? WRONG! One fan went ballistic on me and cried over a joke they didn’t understand.

Many others try to police how people speak of Freddino and will not accept any criticism or a lighthearted joke or any comment that doesn’t adhere to their own views. God forbid someone isn’t worshiping your favorite actor and sees them as a normal human being with flaws.

And how about you allow people to say what they want, granted that they are not being awful? I’ll never use slurs or insults regarding sensitive matters but it’s totally fine to joke around. I call Freddino many things as a sign of my love and admiration because it is okay. I’m not accusing him of murder or diminishing his value as a human.  If this concept is so hard to grasp and if your prefrontal cortex is not fully developed, please log off or try not to bother people. He’s a grown man and doesn’t need you “defending” him. Both of us are insignificant to him, it’s not like he’ll acknowledge your existence for defending him over something so trivial. God some of you need a lot of growing up to do. I’m pretty sure someone must have had a complete meltdown over one of my posts or will in the future.

Do you know how ya’ll sound like when you take things seriously and start defending a celeb over something everyone else understands it is a joke? How absolutely smooth-brained you appear to be for “fangirling” in an obnoxious way? Have a look and if you don’t see anything wrong with what those fans said then yup - you’re one of them:

Tom Holland's Rude Fans Insult Sebastian Stan & Anthony Mackie Shuts Them Down

There’s a reason a lot of Discord servers and many places actually have kicked out a lot of sudden, new fans of Marvel and/or Spider Man or superheroes in general. So much drama, fuss, hurt over basically people sharing their opinions and engaging in conversations. This is not “passion”; this is mere obtuseness.

The silliness from some of the fans is ridiculous. However, to not contradict myself, I’ll never gatekeep so you do you boo but you do that away from me though.

Please stop being dumb. Thank you.

[sunshineandrosesnoraincamemyway]

There are several different areas of how youth ministries work that I have major issues with.

teenagers are taught appallingly little theology. We got three sermons on David and Bathsheba in a year telling us not to have sex, but not a single one on the process of sanctification. (like, seriously is that the only story in the Bible that you can find to teach this lesson with? Last I checked there was an ENTIRE BOOK about not awakening love until its time. I digress). No real theology is taught, everything is overly simplistic with the flimsy excuse of "keeping the messages simple in case someone who has never heard the gospel is in the room." They are supposed to be preparing students for adulthood, but they give the group with the most questions the least amount of answers

There is also little to no Church history being taught. In tenth grade I studied Church history for school (because I was homeschooled and feel called to missions, more on that later) and I would bring up that I was learning about Athanasius, or the Counter Reformation, or Dietrich Bonhoffer, and my friends had never heard of these people and events that helped shape what we believe and how it plays out in our lives. I'm not saying I expect them to be an expert, but to have no familiarity with those who came before us is mind boggling to me.

There are no resources or help for students feeling a call to ministry. I have felt a call to international missions since I was eight years old, and I go to a church with a huge emphasis on missions. So you'd think they'd be excited and jumping on the opportunity to teach me what that looks like, help me figure out ways to start preparing so that I'm making the most of my time, right? Wrong. I was told that it was cool that I felt this call but I was acting like i was better than everyone else and I needed to focus on the lessons they had and I had time to figure out my calling when I was older. I'm thankful that my parents have ways encouraged me in this calling, and I was able to create my own plan to prepare me as best I could for a life of missions. (i won't go into what exactly the plan was here, but I believe it was a wise one and I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.) I look at my peers and my friends who are still in youth, and there are so many who are feeling a call to ministry, and they are coming to me for advice. We are the all or nothing generation, there is no more sitting on the fence. Imagine what it would look like if we took our youth seriously when they say they feel called to ministry! I've graduated now, and if I had taken the advice of those who told me I was too young to know of I was called to missions to not I would have missed out on over ten years of studying the Bible, how to communicate the gospel to people of other religions, praying for people groups where no one knows Jesus. TEN YEARS! How is this acceptable?

Anyways, TLDR the only reason I know what i do of the Bible is because I took it upon myself to study, and the sad truth is most students don't even know enough to make that decision. We have the reverse problem of 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, where students are longing for solid food, but we are only fed milk.

[play-now-my-lord]

it is reasonable, i think, to look at elephant behavior and conclude that they have a spirituality. they have concern for the bodies of the dead, which few animals share - and humans are among them, and this concern for the bodies of the dead, which is called "ceremonial burial" among humans, is generally viewed as a precondition to human religion.

it is possible, although perhaps unlikely, that the spirituality of the elephants is a post-Axial Age one. i'd prefer to discard that idea, i don't think they proselytize or have a universalizing spirituality. i think they have stories - they communicate with each other, and probably with some degree of abstraction; and they see in animals that aren't themselves the qualities they see in themselves. this includes humans, who are frequently buried (whether dead or merely severely injured or unconscious) by elephants, and treated with respect commensurate to the respect elephants treat the bones of elephants they don't know. this is all a long-winded way of asking: what role do we play in their mythology? making reasonable assumptions about oral history's ability to transmit memory, they probably do not collectively remember our early days as pursuit predators, relentlessly tracking spoor, apparently omniscient and endlessly persistent, denying animals much bigger than us rest until they are ready to be killed. rather, the horizons of their memory are likely to be within this millennium, and even more likely to be within the horizon of the arrival of gunpowder weapons.

there is likely an ancient substrate of myth that views humans as a sort of psychopomp, a metaphor for the endless pursuit and hunger of death. i doubt this relationship is seen with tremendous malice; we are dangerous, even deadly, but hating us would be foolish from a spiritual standpoint, and wouldn't accurately reflect elephants' behavior towards us as observed anyway. but in modern times, we are not just omniscient but omnipotent, and either malevolent or at least indifferent to their suffering. sometimes carrying off their dead for meat and leaving behind bleached bone, sometimes simply tearing off their tusks and leaving them to rot in the sun.

this relationship becomes more intense as you approach the human world - farms, fences, villages. the closer you live to them, the more likely you are to encounter their artifacts, and the more likely you are to be rendered into one, at the cost of your life.

i believe humans, in the mythology of the remaining wild elephants, are a sort of combination psychopomp and end of days. (the concept of 'the end of the world' is older than the axial age, a constant fixation for creatures capable of understanding the future and its relationship with the present and the past.) where before we were the gentle hand of death ushering them to what comes after, now death has grown hungrier and hungrier, and its harriers have become more powerful.

(what, then, would the mythology of captive elephants look like? tame elephants? so many questions. what would the mythology of a people look like if they lived, breathed, and worked in the domain of the dead?)