#And yes I have explicitly stated and is pinned in our messages that I do not like him and I will never date him

[insertcoolnameherethanks]

There's this dude who I grew up with who has flirted with me for years (I do not like him and he knows this) He is very suggestive at times, which I dont like, but I helped talk him through his depression and helped give him relationship advice. While he was in his last relationship he never once flirted with me (or at least when I thought he was he claimed that he was joking) and asked me advice on how to ask her to marry him (turns out she was cheating on him and they broke it off).

Of course he messages me only at night. I feel...gross

[mental-illness-bingo]

TW Sophieinwonderland, cult discussion

For anyone with expertise on cults, does it seem to you like sophie may be going in that direction? Reading their recent posts after *that* post, it sounds to me like it’s going there - whether or not she intends it to.

Her posts constantly include her not just advocating for endos and attacking anti-endos, but actively trying to pressure people to be plural. She’s probably successfully making some people realize they’re a CDD system by traumatizing them with the things she posts. She’s definitely trying to get a group of people behind her and encourage them to follow her and get even more.

She talks about how wonderful she thinks it is being plural, and REALLY wants everyone else to be in on it. So much so that she’s willing to make it seem like people were toxic to their imaginary friends as kids for trying to control them and then shoving them away. In her pinned she has something she wrote where she actively says that she’ll convince “at least one of you” that your imaginary friend from childhood is sentient and you just forced them to hide.

She literally said, and this is a quote “Speaking as the person who started The Future is Plural, and a tulpa, more created systems (and tulpas specifically) have always been baked into the slogan. Yes, it's about acceptance. But acceptance will result in more created systems. And more created systems will lead to more plurals. Higher numbers of plurals leads to more power. And more power will let us spread more acceptance.” That post was tagged with “we are legion”.

And then there’s that post where she actively was asking for ideas and articles she could use to make a fake conspiracy theory to use as “a Trojan horse in the conspiracy theory community” to convince them everyone was plural before a coverup happened. Dragging Egyptian mythology into it too, which is incredibly disrespectful. She is actively making up fake stories of some past where there were a bunch of people like her and the group she’s creating and that everyone not like them is either secretly like them or is against them and actively trying to cover up their existence. This fake past (that she openly posted about making up to infiltrate conspiracy theorists and get them to believe) that she’s then going to try to use to get even more people to join her bc she’s “awoken” something in them.

I definitely don’t think she’s there yet; like I said I think it’s just going that way. Especially with that explicitly stated desire for power which she would then use to spread her message further which would get more power for her and her followers and so on in that cycle.

BITE model analysis below the cut (idk if there’s a more recent version than this as I stepped away from learning about cults a while ago bc I just wasn’t there in my religious trauma journey to hear so much about catholic adjacent ideas)

I’m not at all set in stone on this idea. I just want to know if I’m reading too deep or if this really is why her followers saw that post playing into paranoia and threatening anti-endos as somehow the same as not believing in endos and how they think blocking her is some extreme offense. Someone on my post asking what it was she said in that post that went around (I hadn’t seen it since I had her blocked already) said that I shouldn’t judge her by that or by anyone else’s opinion on her. It was giving “if you just meet and talk to our founder, you’ll understand why we do everything we do” vibes and I wanted to look deeper into it. You are/gen encouraged to counter or disprove this with actual critical discussion. “She’s not making a cult you’re stupid” isn’t critical discussion. “Here’s why I don’t think you’re right” is.

Please note, for the analysis using the BITE model I will be phrasing things using what she says. I do not believe any of what she says but it’s easier to communicate using her terms and more effectively explains it rather than shoving “supposedly” and “what they call” into every single sentence.

B/Behavior control:

Promote dependence and obedience ✅ - you’re “pluralphobic” or a “sysmed” if you disagree with her trying to push people to become plural and force this idea of a future she has where everyone is plural. Even if the actual singlet involved doesn’t want to, she then pushes the idea that you’re actively emotionally hurting someone by not following her ideas, someone you cared about as a child. Imaginary friends are often foundational to children’s emotional attachments as it allows them to freely practice social interactions and connections without risk of messing up, so attacking someone’s feelings towards their imaginary friends is likely to drag them to her side whether they want to or not.

Modify behavior with rewards and punishments ✅ - anti endos are threatened on that post with emotional harm and told there isn’t a way they can escape it unless they stop being anti-endo and start pushing plurality with her.

Dictate where and with whom you live, Restrict or control sexuality, Control clothing and hairstyle, regulate what and how much you eat and drink, deprive you of 7-9 hours of sleep, exploit you financially, restrict your leisure time activities, require you to seek permission for major decisions ❌

Requiring major time spent on group indoctrination and rituals, including self-indoctrination on the internet ❔- while not exactly required, sophie isn’t unclear on her message that you should be putting pressure on people around you to be first accepting of and then consider actually being plural. She also has EXTENSIVE reading in her pinned post and recommends various other sources throughout her posts

I/Information control:

Deliberately withhold and distort information ✅ - any sources that go against endogenic systems are from “bigots/sysmeds/pluralphobes” and the only things you should be listening to are the few and far between biased “research” she’s found pointing to the existence of endogenic systems. For the most part, these don’t exist so instead she appropriates tulpamancy which is a closed practice separate from any definition of a system (according to people who are part of the closed practice I’ve seen speak on this), which does have research into it being that it’s a long standing religious practice.

Forbid you from communicating with ex-members and critics ✅ - the paranoia inducing post directly states that she will get your friends and family to stop speaking with you without ever telling you why. She claims she will entirely isolate anti-endos and destroy their support systems.

Restrict access to non-cult sources of information ❔- not that I’ve seen other than trying to pressure people into thinking they’re biased against them and therefore inaccurate.

Compartmentalize information into insider vs outsider doctrine ✅ - everything she’s doing is Us vs Them, pro-endos vs anti endos isn’t a discussion anymore it’s a *personal attack* and shouldn’t be discussed it should be eradicated. This isn’t a conversation to her at this point, just a way of leaning into her desire to push fake plurals even further.

Generate and use propaganda (“the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”, Merriam-Webster) extensively ✅ - literally her whole blog on tumblr and on whatever site it is those links go to

Use information gained in confidence against you ❔not to my knowledge

Gaslight (“to psychologically manipulate (a person) usually over an extended period of time so that the victim questions the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability”, Merriam-Webster) to make you doubt your own memory ✅ - the whole concept about how she talks about imaginary friends and the idea that they were people you emotionally mistreated (haven’t seen her use the word abuse but wouldn’t put it past her) is based on trying to convince people they weren’t really imagining them. She tries to use things such as dreams to prove something can be autonomous within your own head and drives this idea further by attempting to reshape childhood memories. All children at some point believed their imaginary friend was separate of them because it’s the subconscious trying to help you run simulated social experiences, but sophie wants you to believe your subconscious isn’t responsible (and in fact doesn’t - at least in the post about sentience in her pinned - acknowledge the subconscious at all) but an entire other person in your mind. There’s a reason children realize these aren’t real people right as they hit the age where they can both understand reality’s fiction and when they realize they’re capable of imagining things at all (both fundamental developmental milestones). It’s just that they aren’t capable of understanding that they’re in control of it yet because their neurology allows for playing pretend but not for comprehending pretend.

Require you to report your own thoughts, feelings, and activities to your superiors, encourage you to spy and report on others’ misconduct, big brother surveillance ❌

T/Thought control:

Teach you to internalize group doctrine as “Truth” ✅ - as I’ve mentioned earlier in the post, she marks all sources that agree with her as correct and all sources that disagree with her as incorrect AND bigoted against her and people like her. If you are to avoid her threats, you have to agree with what she considers the truth, regardless of the vast majority of psychological studies that say different.

Instill black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil thinking ✅ - extensively covered above

Change your identity, possibly even your name ✅ - she wants singlets to believe they’re someone else. Multiple someone elses. All with different names and opinions but most importantly all who have been shoved away by you and want to be free to do what they please which just so happens to align with her desire to push more people to do the same.

Use loaded language to stop complex thought ✅ - most examples of this are rephrasing something to put emotional weight against disagreeing with it. One such example given when I looked it up was the transfer from anti-abortion to pro-life. This is all over Sophie’s posts. She’s got three different terms she’s throwing around all emotionally loaded to make you feel disgusting for disagreeing. Sysmeds (which she constantly pushes to conflate with transmeds and actively compared anti-endos to homophobes), pluralphobes, and outright use of the word bigot - all used to replace the term anti-endo and make it seem disgusting and horrible and just morally Wrong to be anti-endo.

Induce hypnotic or trance states to indoctrinate ❔ - she does seem to push some methods adjacent to meditation but I wouldn’t call it a trance state, though she does heavily believe in forcing people to dissociate and create systems that way so up to you if you see this as a yes or no

Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thought and reality testing ❔ not in any classic cult way I’ve seen where they have a phrase of some sort to stop those thoughts, but the fear of punishment technique is in place. Her followers saw how she spoke to anti-endos. The threats weren’t released in any isolated way. The people who agree with her saw what would happen if they changed their minds. I’m willing to bet it didn’t just cause paranoia in people already on the anti-endo side.

Allow only positive thoughts ❌

Use excessive meditation, singing, prayer, and chanting to block thoughts ❌

Reject rational analysis, critical thinking, and constructive criticism ✅ - extensively covered above

E/Emotional control:

Instill irrational fears of questioning or leaving the group (phobia indoctrination) ✅ - more of what I was speaking on above; her followers also saw the threats that anti-endos got. This could very well keep someone on her side for fear that she would cause them isolation and emotional harm if they were to disagree with her.

Make you feel elitist and special ✅ - all over her page she talks about how great letting your imaginary friends take over is and how being plural is such a great thing. I’ve seen her reblogging things going all the way to saying extreme pain was made bearable (from 100 to 10) from one of their “headmates” holding their hand. This has neurological basis in CDD systems but it doesn’t have any basis without the different usage of the brain that comes with a CDD system. It’s basic “mind over matter” but it’s being rebranded as some special thing they could do because they fed into this. She convinces them they’re better than others who continue to shove away their imaginary friends. She also says they’re better than all anti-endos because they aren’t being bigoted. The future is plural is pushed because being plural is better in her mind.

Promote feelings of guilt, shame, and unworthiness ❔- not to her followers which is what I think this refers to? She does this to people who don’t agree with her though and to an extreme degree (The Post, you know the one)

Elicit extreme emotional highs and lows, label some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, or wrong, teach emotion-stopping techniques to prevent anger or home-sickness ❌

Threaten and harass your friends and family ✅ - if we are to believe her, this is what she would do given the opportunity. This is what she threatened to do. I have no doubt that she would absolutely do this to any anti-endo in her real life. It’s not a risk to us because she has no access to our information and our families. But given that access? I don’t think she’d be above trying it (at least until it got her in trouble where she would go whine to a judge about how they’re mean to the people she supposedly made up and decided to keep in her head)

Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve ✅ - just as she tried to make anti-endos believe she’d isolated us, so too would she do to one of her followers who became anti-endo. She wants anti-endos to believe we have no support network so we join her side. By extension, that likely means she wants pro-endos to believe that they would have no support network if they became anti-endo.

Teach you that there is no happiness or fulfillment outside of the group ✅ - she has several things she’s reblogged or posted from her asks discussing how miserable anti-endos must be, one even claiming that the reason we’re anti-endo is because our system wants us to continue doubting the existence of our alters so they push away her beliefs. She either firmly believes herself that we are all miserable and mean or she knows better but wants her followers to believe it.

There’s a lot of X’s there. She’s definitely not there yet I don’t think, and I don’t even know if there’s sufficient evidence to say it’s going there. There IS sufficient evidence in the way her followers reacted to and defended that post (or completely ignored its existence while continuing to follow her and act like it was completely normal) to say that people are being swayed and controlled by the ideas she’s pushed. There’s a reason we have to do so much damage control on that post - because she wanted people to be scared and enjoyed that it worked.

She is, bare minimum, high on a power trip. She’s willing to avoid blocks and harass people to get her message across, and the message is that no one is to disagree with her.

I don’t agree with and don’t appreciate the existence of the endogenic “system” community, but Sophie isn’t representative of all of them. She’s her own issue separately and maybe more pressing than them.

I don’t know what if anything can be done about this if it is the case. I just know that I saw a pattern I recognized from an old hyperfixation on cults and some… experience from a short period of my personal life dealing with this kind of thing and I wanted to see if others see it too.

Edit: addition based on something I saw on the sophie filter blog (avoid this at all costs it’s intentionally triggers and traumatizing to read AND is used to intentionally filter everything terrible people on the internet have sent to her into one place to try and make anti-endos look like a hate group)

If you don’t do what she says, you are punished. If you post in tags she decided were theirs, you are punished. “Stepping out of line” is the phrase she chose to use.

[the-cantina]

Masterlist | The Bad Batch | Clone Squads | Delta Squad

Ah yes, the famous pinned post

Hey hi, hello there, welcome to my corner of deranged thirsting in this site of hell <3 I am a Brazilian adult that answers to she/her pronouns, and if you must call me by something, you can use Mire!

I’m here to write about everyone’s favorite army of sweethearts, and hopefully connect with people who like them, too!

What do I write about?

❥ I write x reader fics and headcanons, mostly in the NSFW realm, and with f!reader in mind. And, as a dominant person, in most of my works the boys will be written in a range of submissive roles and/or traits (ex: Crosshair as a brat, Hardcase as a rope bunny, etc.). If this is not your thing, that’s alright! There are plenty of simply amazing writers who write them into dominant roles, but I am here to feed my people.

❥ The clones I write are physically based on Tem. Meaning, they are people of color, and will be described as so (hashtag unwhitewash all clones lives and thrives in this blog <3) ❥ Unless explicitly stated, I do my best to keep Reader’s appearance 100% neutral, but I’m only human, sometimes let it slip and lean on black-coding her. If that happens, feel free to message me and point it out, and I’ll fix the warnings at the beginning.

What I don’t write? (this is more of a guideline for requesting stuff, so read it if you plan on ever making one!)

Of the things you won’t find in my works, there aren’t that many (I’m pretty shameless and a freak, hah), but those are: ❥ Submissive reader: self-explanatory. I don’t have a single submissive bone in my body. Not only I wouldn’t even know from where to begin, I also wouldn’t be able to get into the mood and flow to write or enjoy it. - For this reason, Wolffe, Cody and Boba are the clones I do not write for. I personally can’t see them as anything but dominant partners, writing them as any other thing would be too OOC for me. ❥ Spit-kink: Yeah, a pretty innocuous line to draw in the sand, but we can’t really control our icks :v ❥ Pregnancy, mommy/daddy kink: Anything parenthood related or adjacent, really. - Except breeding kink. This one is encouraged. (It’m that dog + toy meme, you know: “Pls breed?? No pregnancy!! Only breed.”) ❥ Clonec*st: Don’t. Idc if it gets you going, do not bring this to my inbox. I will write poly!clones x reader just fine, but in my works the boys will never interact – romantically or beyond – with their siblings. (and if this is coming off as an aggressive statement, that’s because it is.) ❥ Potty play: No water, no mud. ❥ Non-Con: Not even consensual non-consent. ❥ Not exactly a do not write, but any ‘unorthodox’ kink, if written will be posted directly on my ao3, so if you request something like that (and you know what I’m talking about), that’s where I preach the devil’s gospel :v

Masterlist | The Bad Batch | Clone Squads | Delta Squad

[icephas]

Part of  God’s Family

Lesson 1, December 31 - January 6

Sabbath Afternoon

Read for This Week’s Study: Galatians 3:26, 29; Psalms 50:10-12; 1 Chronicles 29:13, 14; Philippians 4:19; 1 John 5:3; Matthew 6:19-21.

Memory Text: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” 1 John 3:1

As Christians, an amazing feature about our relationship with God, is that He trusts us to manage His affairs on the earth. At the very outset of human history, God explicitly delegated to Adam and Eve the personal care of a flawless creation. (See Genesis 2:7-9, 15) From the naming of the animals, to keeping the Garden, and to filling the earth with children, God let it be known that we are to work on His behalf here.

He also blesses us with resources, but we are the ones whom He has entrusted to manage them, such as to collect money, to write the checks, to do the electronic transfers, to make the budgets, or to bring our tithes and offerings to the church on Sabbath mornings. God encourages us to spend the resources that He has given to us for our own needs, for the needs of others, and for the advancement of His work. Incredible as it may seem, we are the ones whom God has entrusted with raising His children, building His buildings, and educating the succeeding generations.

In this week’s study, we will explore the privileges and responsibilities of being a part of the family of God.

Sunday, January 1 - We Are Part of God’s Family

“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family pin heaven and earth is named” (Ephesians 3:14, 15). What imagery is evoked in this verse, and what hope is found there?

Early in Jesus’ ministry, He states, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” (Matthew 6:9). Later He repeats the same prayer privately to His disciples (Luke 11:2). Jesus told us to call His Father, “Our Father in heaven.” When Jesus encountered Mary after His resurrection, she wanted to embrace Him. Jesus said to her, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17).

Because we have the same Father as Jesus, He is our brother, and we are all brothers and sisters in the Lord. Jesus became a member of the earthly family so that we could become members of the heavenly family. “The family of heaven and the family of earth are one.” — Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 835.

Read Exodus 3:10; Exodus 5:1; and Galatians 3:26, 29. What do these verses say about how God relates to us? Why should this be so encouraging?

In contrast to a view of creation in which we are deemed the mere products of cold, uncaring natural laws, Scripture teaches not only that God exists, but that He loves us and relates to us in such a loving manner that the imagery of family is often used in Scripture to depict that relationship. Whether Jesus calls Israel “My people,” or us “sons of God,” or refers to God as “our Father,” the point is still the same: God loves us the way family members are supposed to love each other. What good news amid a world that, in and of itself, can be very hostile!

Imagine a world in which we treated everyone as family. How can we learn to relate better to all human beings as our brothers and sisters?

Monday, January 2 - God Is the Owner of Everything

Read Psalm 50:10-12; Psalm 24:1; 1 Chronicles 29:13, 14; and Haggai 2:8. What’s the message here, and what should this truth mean to us and how we relate to whatever we possess?

The book of 1 Chronicles, starting with chapter 17, records King David’s desire to build a house for God. He shared this desire with the prophet Nathan, who responded, “Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee” (1 Chronicles 17:2). But that night the word of God came to Nathan and instructed him to tell the King that, because he was a man of war, he couldn’t build God’s house. His son would do the work instead. David asked if he could, at least, draw the plans and prepare the building materials. When David was granted this request, he spent the rest of his life amassing a tremendous amount of hewn stone, cedar, iron, gold, silver, and brass “without measure.” When all of the building materials had been prepared and assembled at the building site, David called all the leaders of Israel together for a ceremony of praise and thanksgiving.

In 1 Chronicles 29:13, 14, in King David’s public prayer, what did he say was the real source of all the building materials that he and the people had spent time and money preparing? Of course, in essence, he said, “We really can’t take any credit for all these special materials because we are just giving You back Your own stuff.”

The point is important for all of us, whether rich or poor (but especially the rich). Because God made everything in the beginning (see Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Ps. 33:6, 9), He is truly the rightful owner of all that exists, including whatever we possess — no matter how hard and diligently and honestly we have worked for it. If not for God and His grace, we would have nothing, we would be nothing; in fact, we wouldn’t even exist. Thus, we must always live with the realization that, ultimately, God owns all that is, and by praising and thanking Him for His goodness to us, we can keep this important truth before us.

“But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort?” (1 Chronicles 29:14). What beautiful principles are expressed in these words, and how do they reflect what our attitude toward God should be and our attitude toward what we possess?

Tuesday, January 3 - Resources Available for God’s Family

God’s greatest gift to His children is Jesus Christ, who brings us the peace of forgiveness, grace for daily living and spiritual growth, and the hope of eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that he agave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16). “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12).

Salvation, then, is the foundational gift because, without this gift, what else could we get from God that in the long run would really matter? Whatever we might have here, one day we will be dead and gone and so will everyone who ever remembered us, and whatever good we did will be forgotten as well. First and foremost, then, we must always keep the gift of the gospel, that is, Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2), at the center of all our thoughts.

And yet, along with salvation, God gives us so much more. To those who were concerned about their food and clothing, Jesus offered comfort by saying, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33).

Read Psalm 23:1, Psalm 37:25, and Philippians 4:19. What do these verses say about God’s provision for our daily needs?

Also, when Jesus talked to His disciples about going away, He promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to comfort them. “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:15-17). “He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

Then the Spirit Himself gives amazing spiritual gifts to God’s children. (See 1 Cor. 12:4-11)

In short, the God in whom “we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28), the God who “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25), has given us existence, the promise of salvation, material blessings, and spiritual gifts in order to be a blessing to others. Again, whatever material possessions that we have, whatever gifts or talents we have been blessed with, we are indebted in every way to the Giver in how we use those gifts.

Wednesday, January 4 - Responsibilities of God’s Family Members

We all enjoy the spiritual and temporal blessings and gifts that God gives us. How comforting to know, too, that we are “part of the family.”

Read Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37. What does this mean, and how do we do it?

How would you love God with “all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37)? Interestingly enough, the Bible gives us the answer, and it’s not what most people expect, either.

Read Deuteronomy 10:12, 13 and 1 John 5:3. Biblically speaking, what is our proper response in our love relationship with our Father in heaven?

Keeping the law? Obeying the commandments? For many Christians, unfortunately, the idea of obeying the law (especially the fourth commandment) is legalism, and they claim that we are called, simply, to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. However, God is clear: we reveal our love to God and to our neighbors by, yes, obeying His commandments.

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). We are used to looking at this verse as, well, we love God and, therefore, we keep His commandments. That’s fine. But perhaps we can also read it as “this is the love of God,” that is, we know and experience the love of God by keeping His commandments.

In Matthew 7:21-27, Jesus said that those who hear and do God’s words are likened to a wise builder who built his house upon the solid rock. Those who hear but don’t obey are likened to a foolish builder who built his house on the sand — with disastrous results. Both heard the word; one obeyed, one didn’t. The results made the difference between life and death.

Think about the link between loving God and obeying His law. Why would love for God be expressed that way? What is it about keeping the commandments that, indeed, does reveal that love? (Hint: think about what disobeying His law causes.)

Thursday, January 5 - Treasure in Heaven

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt. 6:19-21). What crucial truths is Jesus speaking here?

Who hasn’t read story after story of those who had amassed great wealth, only somehow to lose it? Our world is a very unstable place: wars, crime, violence, natural disasters, anything can come in a moment and take away all that we have worked for and, perhaps, even what we have honestly and faithfully earned. Then, too, in a moment, death comes, and so these things become useless to us anyway.

Of course, Scripture never tells us it’s wrong to be rich or to have amassed wealth; instead, in these verses Jesus warns us to keep it all in perspective.

What, though, does it mean to lay up treasure in heaven? It means making God and His cause first and foremost in your life, instead of making money first and foremost. Among other things, it means using what we have for the work of God, for the advancement of His kingdom, for working in behalf of others, and for being a blessing to others.

For instance, when God called Abram, He planned to use Abram and His family to bless all the families of the earth. God said to Abraham, who “was called the friend of God” (James 2:2), “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:2, 3).

“So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal. 3:9). We have the same challenge presented to us as was presented to him.

“Money has great value, because it can do great good. In the hands of God’s children it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, and clothing for the naked. It is a defense for the oppressed, and a means of help to the sick. But money is of no more value than sand, only as it is put to use in providing for the necessities of life, in blessing others, and advancing the cause of Christ.” — Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 351.

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt. 6:21). Where does your heart tell you your treasure is?

Friday, January 6 - Further Thought

“The heart of God yearns over His earthly children with a love stronger than death. In giving up His Son, He has poured out to us all heaven in one gift. The Saviour’s life and death and intercession, the ministry of angels, the pleading of the Spirit, the Father working above and through all, the unceasing interest of heavenly beings, — all are enlisted in behalf of man’s redemption.” — Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 21.

“If you have renounced self and given yourself to Christ you are a member of the family of God, and everything in the Father’s house is for you. All the treasures of God are opened to you, both the world that now is and that which is to come. The ministry of angels, the gift of His Spirit, the labors of His servants — all are for you. The world, with everything in it, is yours so far as it can do you good.” — Ellen G. White, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 110.

Discussion Questions:

1. With all of these awesome gifts that God gives His children, we are compelled to ask, as did the psalmist, “What shall I render to the Lord for all His benefits toward me?” (Ps. 116:12, NKJV). Make a list of the blessings and gifts of God to you in your spiritual and temporal life, and be ready to share it with your class. What does this teach you about how thankful to God you really should be?

2. Though we think about God, and rightly so, as our Creator, Scripture over and over teaches that He is our Sustainer as well. (See Heb. 1:3; Job 38:33-37; Ps. 135:6, 7; Col. 1:17; Acts 17:28; 2 Pet. 3:7) From the galaxies in the cosmos, to the beating of our hearts, to the forces that hold together the atomic structures that make up all known matter, it is only God’s sustaining power that keeps them in existence. How should this biblical truth help us understand just what our obligations are to God, in terms of how we use whatever He has given us? How does this reality help us keep our life and the purpose of our life in proper perspective?

3. The lesson talked about why, of all God has given us, Jesus and the plan of salvation is the greatest gift of all. Why is that true? What would we have if we didn’t have that and the great hope it offers us? An atheist writer depicted humans as nothing but “hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.” Why, without the gift of the gospel, would he have a point?

[aijee]

tw // mentions of rape

imo u shouldn’t stop updating bc of the accusations against mg. headlines were fucking misleading, i actually thought he raped someone at first bcos of the word choice. ure writing about his public persona, not him irl. we dk him either way so is not like ure violating something or breaking ur morals or whatever. op literally stated that mg never made any comments towards her or touched her in any way, he just made jokes that made her uncomfortable but never directed to her, she explicitly said that mg was not the cause for her to go to therapy & the bullying accusations have been proven to be fake. i-carats decided to translate the new SA accusations without being fluent in korean and that caused a huge misunderstanding, that’s why k- and j- carats have been calmer about it. u shouldn’t believe the screenshots of the other op either bcos there has also been a lot of inconsistencies of them, like the time stamp with the battery issue, etc. due to some mistranslations, all of us thought that the chest touching person was a girl when it’s a guy, inconsistencies like that make the this op more invalid cuz with changes happening constantly, the story becomes less believable, hope yk what i mean. fuck i-carats for mistranslating and blaming him for everything, and for making this issue more complicated than it has to be, like with the chest op. they’re even the cause some ppl don’t believe anything. sorry if i sound like an asshole but i’m mad. if he did make the comments, i believe he’s most likely changed. i used to make rape jokes but now i definitely know better. pretty sure he does as well, yk how the treats ppl now, how gentle and kind he is now, etc. however, if he did touch the guy, obviously i will not support him anymore. i’m not trying to defend him but i’m clearing some things up. hope ure neutral abt this. have a good day & really hope u don’t stop updating.

Thank you for your honesty and raw feelings, anon. It’s okay to be mad and have feelings, especially when those feelings aren’t exactly good feelings. Unrelated to the actual Situation(tm), my therapist told me something like, “Try thinking of feelings as just feelings. They come and go. They aren’t necessarily reflective of you as a person.” I thought that my bad feelings or opinions of others prevented me from being good or a functioning person. Fact: people are multifaceted as hell and that’s valid.

Re: morals, that’s fair insight for sure. I think my hesitation comes with the inherent visualization and association of that persona with the person himself, if that makes sense. E.g. when I’m reading RPF, I still visualize the faces of the individuals involved like actors in my mind. In that sense, perhaps it’s a personal discomfort mixing with morals with regard to writing RPF with a certain name and face in mind, who happen to be attached to a persona/person attached to allegations that may or may not be true. In short, it’s messy and vague and I’m still in the middle of figuring things out myself.

I have and always will be a proponent of professional, paid translations—as in, looking towards people who translate for a living. Professional translation is extremely serious work; imagine how important it is in medicine, law, business? There is always a doubtful voice in my head towards fan translations, regardless of the content. That’s not to undermine the hard work of people learning another language, engaging in content they enjoy, wanting to share it with people, etc. But in very serious cases that could possibly really, really hurt people, I will never fully trust translations I can’t pin to a reliable source. It’s easy to reflexively trust fan translations since they objectively control so much of international fans’ consumption of content. It’s also easy for international fans to fixate on wordings in translations when suddenly the faves are doing something questionable (Do we question fansubs on casual videos? Not really). In reality what we need to focus on is the ideas presented, because translations will never be 100% accurate, especially those done by fans.

If it gives you any perspective, an interesting problem for POC’s healthcare experience is that bilingual kids of monolingual parents are often pinned as the “translator.” Yes, they’re able to communicate in multiple languages, but the specificity of the information presented, and the importance of detail, can be lost in translation, even for those who grew up learning two languages natively. Why? Because they don’t learn the minutiae of translation. You’ll often see professional translators constantly using references, relearning things over and over again, etc. Normal multilingual people focus on getting messages across, not those tiny, tiny details. Food for thought.

How people approach, perceive and interact with people attached to abuse is a very messy thing. There is very rarely a “right” answer. I fully support your approach with whatever happens, whether it stays the same or evolves. For my two cents, I think it’s important to remember that the most important relationship in this moment remains that of Mingyu with the potential victim(s) involved; we hold our relationships with our faves so sacred, but I’m just putting that out there for some more perspective I personally think is important. And a third cent: there are people really close to me in my life who have, frankly, abused me. That’s partly why I’m seeing a therapist. But that doesn’t mean I fully reject them, or will never harbor good feelings towards them ever. Abusive behavior can still be exhibited by fundamentally good people, as paradoxical as that sounds. People are capable of growth; goodness and badness aren’t necessarily inherent and unchangeable. I fully respect and admire you for owning your emotions like that! That can be hard to do comfortably.

I’m not invalidating your response whatsoever! At least, that’s not my intention. I just wanted to present some things to think about. It’s also okay if your opinions don’t or do change. It’s still pretty early in the fiasco.

[ivadeshin]

Careful Steps (Essik/Caleb) (2/n)

(previous chapter here. Or, catch up over on ao3.)

“Scribe Indril.”

She looks up from a sheaf of papers, straightening as soon as she recognizes him. “Shadowhand. I trust you’re having a good morning.”

“I am, and wish you the same.” Essik pulls his report from his cloak, laying it respectfully on the side of her desk. “I have no doubt that the Empress is using your capabilities to their fullest, and that your schedule is quite full, but I still find myself requesting your specific review upon these documents.”

The reports of his co-mingling with defectors, he does not say. She does not say it either. Rather, she picks the report up by the corner, scanning the top for a few key words before nodding and filing it away in one of her many complex wooden slat organizers. “I will be happy to intake all of your reports for the foreseeable future, both of your interactions with the group and otherwise.”

Otherwise. “Thank you.” Essik bows very slightly at the waist, as much as one of his stature could to a Scribe, and takes a breath. “I knew you would understand the issue of discretion applicable here.”

Scribe Indril takes a careful moment to compose her words, giving Essik an uncharacteristically knowing look. “As long as the information exchanges are made explicitly clear on the documentation, I see no issues moving forward.”

Knowing the right people is everything. “I am in your debt.”

**

“The Kryn silhouette suits you,” Essik says as they enter the restaurant, indicating Caleb’s coat and noting a curious red tinge to the human’s ears. Caleb’s exotic pink-white skin is both extremely telling and extremely perplexing - such a flush may be indicative of pleasure, or perturbation at an inappropriate comment. Caleb’s expression offers no help at this moment.

“They are nothing special,” Caleb deflects, lifting his chin - this seems to be a common gesture for indication, however informal - toward Essik’s cloak. “I, we, you know. Dressing in our Emipre-styled clothes from back home did not seem... prudent.”

“A wise observation.” Essik sheds his outerwear and hands it off to one of the staff. “If you are interested in speaking with a tailor, I have one not far from the Marble Tomes Conservatory that has been in high regard for several generations now.”

Caleb smiles through what is definitely an embarrassed grimace. “I’ll get something nicer before the next time we go out somewhere,” he promises, and Essik internally berates himself for making this man feel self-conscious.

**

The first two courses go splendidly. The service is exquisite, although Essik notes that this is the first time in the last fourteen years that the owner has not come personally to visit his table.

In the delicately arranged candle light, the human’s exotic hair color is displayed at its best, capturing the rich golds and coppers and reflecting them with every movement of his head. Even the light stubble on his jawline catches the light. His eyes are, fascinatingly, the color of aquamarine stones.

“I don’t mean to press,” Caleb says. He sounds more stilted than he has the rest of the night. (Essik has been quite pleased with how much the human had seemed to relax up until now.) “And, I certainly don’t want to sound unappreciative of this good food or drink-”

“Please,” Essik says, lifting an open hand in invitation. If Caleb actually asks for something specific, that means that Essik will have an opportunity to provide him with it, and please him in some way.

“Only, my spellbook is in my coat in the cloak room down there, and I don’t know if you brought yours, or when we were meant to study tonight.”

Caleb is yet again focused on work. Essik suppresses a flash of disappointment. “Rather than copying new work, I thought it prudent that we practice tonight instead.” He collects some marinated pheasant on his fork, dipping it lightly in one of the sauce bowls. (Caleb has not repeated his error from the first night.) “I have had the front room cleared out so that we may have enough space to work.”

“The front room. Of your house.” Caleb sounds strange. Essik is unable to detect whether it is anticipation or just hesitance.

“I apologize that I do not have a larger space for us. A human using dunamancy, if seen by someone uninformed, could cause quite a panic.”

Caleb pauses, but then he inclines his head. “I’m very grateful that you’ve opened your home to me.”

“Please think nothing of it.” Essik lifts his chin just an inch, brushing a long strand of white hair away from his cheek. “You are most welcome in my home.”

**

Nothing comes of the evening practice.

**

Shadowhand Essik’s reports faithfully recount all relevant context. Caleb does not discuss much of his personal history with the Empire, nor anything of strategic value - Essik does not ask - but the human does recount several non-strategic details, such as the Zemni Fields’s changes throughout the seasons, common past-times, and specific festival foods. Essik finds the descriptions of the various dishes interesting, and finds it acceptable to give only very brief summaries of these discussions in his official documents.

Caleb’s questions must always be reported, but these are often summarized and grouped together very easily. Caleb is obviously very careful not to ask anything that would make him sound overly interested in military activities, ports, teleportation capabilities, etc. When he asks about Xhorhas, the questions are broad and simple, those of a tourist. Essik answers them happily. When Caleb asks about Essik’s personal experiences in the land, Essik is even happier to answer, and finds himself fascinated every time he is able to make those strange blue eyes light up in interest.

**

Other intel that is not necessary for the forms: which foods Caleb Widogast prefers (rice, white fish, oxtail, plum sauces, any roasted vegetables so far), which wines (red, as does Essik), or that Essik has reached out to the Marble Tomes for light sociology knowledge on Empire natives. He is very sure that the mixed messages he is receiving are a fault of his own, and that more effort is required.

**

It is several days later, after the fourth report, that Scribe Indril stands from her desk when Shadowhand Essik enters her office.

“Shadowhand,” she says respectfully. “I trust that this afternoon finds you well.”

“And you.” Essik’s hand hovers over the opening in his cloak, unsure if she wishes to receive anything from him. Indeed, she rounds the desk, opening the door Essik just shut and turning the small metal dial on the front to indicate that a private meeting is taking place. Essik’s heart goes perfectly still in his rib cage, not beating as Scribe Indril shuts the door, returns to her seat, and indicates for him to take a chair.

“In order to not be disturbed,” She explains, leaning to the side and unlocking a drawer in her desk. She pulls out what Essik recognizes as his most recently submitted report, and makes sure not to display any particular reaction. “I have no suspicions of maliciously exempted content, Shadowhand Essik,”

He can breathe once more.

“But I must also run checks for clarity of word, and I admit that I have some questions. I apologize as these may be a display of my own ignorance.”

Essik will endure any amount of nitpicking in this moment. He is just grateful that something has not led to a formal inquiry. “Please inquire as much as you need. I am still in your debt for making sure these are handled personally.” There are several Scribes, it is known, who keep operational knowledge very close to the chest, but are happy to gossip about matters considered unimportant to the mission. This would surely qualify.

Scribe Indril nods and pulls out a dark blue quill, hovering over a few lines halfway down. “Shadowhand Essik, in paragraph fourteen you state that you have again... please pardon me...”

“Speak freely.”

Scribe Indril adjusts the long silver pin keeping her hair back. In this moment, she looks very young, Essik thinks, although he would not be so disrespectful to her station as to say so. “You state that you invite Mr. Widogast to taste the wine you are drinking from your glass.”

“Correct.”

“You have done this in the past.”

Essik thinks back. “Since our second time eating together, I have done this.”

Scribe Indril nods and moves her quill further down the lines. “Mr. Widogast accepts the drink, thanks you, and does... not offer you the same?”

Essik keeps his back straight and his face impassive. “It is my understanding that many of the social norms we assume to be universal do not, in fact, reach as far as the Empire.”

Scribe Indril shoots him a very disbelieving and compassionate expression. “You also ordered his meal for him, and he accepted this. I’m not sure I understand why this was noted.”

“Ordering a meal for a dining partner is an Empire gesture. I recently gleaned this tradition from some texts.”

Scribe Indril considers this. “I suppose there are many customs which seem normal to those who live with them,” she says finally.

“Indeed,” Essik agrees, and does his best to keep the weariness out of his tone.

“Finally.” Scribe Indril clears her throat and glances at him with what appears to be an apology in advance. Essik steels himself. “There have been several visits to your home.”

“Yes.”

“If there has been....” Indril spins her quill between her fingers, lips pressed together. “Any sort of physical contact, I am obligated to inform you that it must be noted in your reports, and that omission of such content could be viewed as something that would require investigation. I understand that there is a specific sensitive nature to such encounters which requires brevity, but-”

“If such an event occurs, it will not be omitted from my reports.”

Scribe Indril looks at him with open surprise.

Shadowhand Essik remains perfectly still.

“No such event has occurred at this time,” Scribe Indril concludes uncertainly.

“Correct.”

Scribe Indril looks at Essik Theylas, Shadowhand to the Bright Queen, then down to the report, then, after the uncomfortable silence as she unlocks another drawer to access his previous reports and scan them, back to him.

“I do not understand humans,” she declares in a stilted formal tone. “Thank you for your compliance, Shadowhand. I wish you a peaceful day.”

“And you.”

[silverquillsideas]

Salmon and others were openly discussing rape and talking about drawing rape and there were people in the replies talking about how seeing a “rape drawing” changed the way they consumed content and shipped things (they meant that they liked the rape btw). If she hasn’t gone back to private, you can probably find those for yourself since they’re pretty recent. I thought you seemed nice but I’m really disappointed in you. Will be unfollowing and blocking.

Hello! I was debating on how (if at all) to answer this, since you seem to have already made up your mind to not hear anything further about this issue altogether.

But I do have a few things to say, regardless, because I found specific phrases you used, to be sketchy/unclear at best.

Warning tho : this is going to delve into a discussion of "rape and sexuality" from a real life perspective, since the fandom seems so bent upon drawing parallels to reality and compare fiction and irl examples. If you find that uncomfortable, block the tag "tw:rape" and scroll past.

_____

So, my first point of discussion : "Salmon and others were openly discussing rape and talking about drawing rape"

Putting aside the issue of the subject matter of the threads for a second, I'll focus on the other part : about *posting publicly*. I talked to three separate followers of the twt artist, who also happen to be my tumblr mutuals, and they basically confirmed the same thing : there was no "open discussion", in the sense, that, they did so either on Privatter (assuming you know how it works) or they did in the comment threads on their *personal twitter account*, and only those who were willing to engage in such a discussion, went ahead and joined. They did not encroach on anyone's space and invite them in forcefully.

I'm putting the screenshots of conversation I've had with one of my friends regarding this, and as you can see, none of it was *open for public viewing*

Also, here's the artist's own message that's pinned to their account :

Let me put this in perspective : suppose you're not into kpop (I picked a random example, btw) and find it weird and flamboyant, and you generally avoid it altogether. While scrolling through tumblr, you stumble upon a hardcore kpop blog, you're totally put off by the contents and you complain to your mutuals about how ABC person indulges in kpop and you found it weird and unappealing.

But my point is, there was nothing public about the said blog or account, because, by nature, every blog or account is a person's private space for expression of ideas. Yes, tumblr, twitter and other social media platforms are all *public* in the sense that they are hosted on public domains and anyone with an access to the Internet can stumble upon any website or blog listed therein. But, you, being a responsible, well discerning person, willingly stepped onto a personal blog or acc on which the owner was likely to present their own views, and started complaining about what you found there. Your statement implies, that you willingly browsed through the comment threads until the point you spotted these uncomfortable discussions and you voluntarily exposed yourself to the same.

My second point : "there were people in the replies talking about how seeing a "rape drawing" changed the way they consumed content and shipped things (they meant that they liked rape btw)"

I find it highly confusing how you generalised something as sensitive and complex as psychological behaviour on behalf of a bunch of strangers you never actually interacted with (or confirmed their views on the said matter) and proceeded to label them as "people who liked rape".

What does the statement "liking rape" mean anyway? And, does anyone who talk about or discusses rape, in the context of fanarts and fanfiction, and that too, "rape fantasy" in this case, (but I'll get to it in a moment) automatically becomes someone who likes the act? Or condones it happening in real life, to real people or situations? I'm curious as to which aspect of rape they talked about 'liking' (since your statement implies they explicitly stated so) : was it the pain, the trauma, the physical and psychological stress, or the violence and the sense of dominance over a helpless, real life person?

If you do have an answer supported by evidence, let me know, I'll modify my response gladly.

It brings me to my third point : these artists or the people who commented, were discussing, not about real life rape, but a fantasy situation in which they put two fictional characters together and made a fanart of them (the composition of the art in question is described in the conversation above).

Deriving pleasure from the actual act of rape or sexual violence is a pathological condition and needs medical or psychiatric treatment.

Deriving pleasure or indulging in paraphilic sexual fantasies, however, is not uncommon. I'll redirect you to @iamtrashforash 's post here that describes this issue more coherently. I'll also point you to articles written on PsychologyToday, based on research done on this specific topic of "Rape Fantasy" that I found, and I think everyone should have a look at them :

Article 1

Article 2

If I remember correctly, the actual comment I saw in the screenshot circulating around, regarding the controversy, went something along the lines of "I love seeing Ash's pained face in this situation", and that's what made people lose their minds. There was outrage over "How could you do that with Ash, a CSA survivor? It sends a bad message to them, it's triggering, it's disrespectful, you are disgusting, etc etc."

But, my own conversations with three people who are in real life CSA survivors, two of them who reached out to me in my DMs over the last two days, have given me a very different idea about what these people actually think regarding the art. Here's the hot take : they did not find it disturbing or offensive to themselves personally.

In fact, they pointed out, that they saw it as a fictional scenario, were well aware of the differences between the artist's intent and their potential real life behaviour (FYI, none of them drew the conclusion that either the artist or the people discussing it, "liked rape").

The fact that the comment threads were openly talking about indulging in such a fantasy is what seemed to baffle the more outspoken and outraged people, who proceeded to harass and send hate messages to the creators. But here's the fact : these fetishes have existed for as long as humanity has, and will continue to do so, regardless of whether you crucify a handful of people in a small corner of a fandom or not.

If you're familiar with the yaoi manga genre, or any adult erotica games (I can't cite any examples bc I don't have enough details, but I do know they exist), you'll find a plethora of works where all sorts of fantasy situations are presented : rape is fetishised, there's shape-shifters (vampires or otherwise), A/B/O dynamics, even bestiality. In other words, a major prevalence of themes like dominant, aggressive behaviour contrasted with helpless, passive behaviour as far as sexual situations go. And they are thriving. They have a huge pool of audience out in the world.

Whether these fetishes are "morally right or wrong" to indulge in, is not a question I have any authority to debate, because I'm not a clinical psychologist, or a behavioural scientist.

Personally speaking, I happen to be a demisexual person. Any discussion of sexual situations or scenarios outside of my own very narrow comfort zone or mental compatibility scares the shit out of me. And I find all of the above scenarios I described, as plainly unappealing and downright weird or scary. I will never, as long as I have my faculties in control, go out seeking any of them voluntarily, in either fanarts or fiction.

My point is, this is a complicated issue, I fully acknowledge that beforehand. We, as a fandom, got attached to Ash as a character, for so many different reasons. We all love him, respect him for standing up against all odds, and fighting against his fate all his life. That's the reason why the back-lash against these depictions got so violent, I think. People are more willing to see him heal, to see him make peace with his scars and move on. The general consensus with this line of thought was so ingrained in our minds, that people lashed out as soon as something "against the norms" and "potentially harmful" came to their notice.

But, the thing is, both these outcomes, are fictional. The fandom's biggest purpose is this : we weave fiction out of fiction itself. That's why we have fanarts and AUs and headcanons and a hundred other things. And different people will find different aspects of said fictional scenarios appealing. It's why we have so many ships on one hand and unfortunately, *ridiculous* ship-wars and toxic discourses on the other. But, it's okay to accept that there'll always be differences in such a wide space where everyone is coming together. It's okay to find content you don't agree with, and simply, move on.

But, I'll repeat myself : I'm not going to persecute people, who have carefully tagged, classified, and filtered their content, being mindful of the others in the fandom, and barge on their doors demanding "why they liked what they liked" and "how could they like such a thing??". Especially because it is fiction, involving fictional characters, separated from reality.

Had it been a real life discourse, involving actual people, I'd have definitely spoken out against it.

Also, to anon, if you find my views or ideas unpleasant, or find my completely sfw multifandom blog a safety hazard, then you're more than welcome to unfollow and block me. Your mental peace is all that I ask for. :)

[sunbirb]

“I Want to Eat Your Pancreas”: The Infamous Bedroom Scene Contextualized within Sakura and Me’s Relationship

Spoilers!

I had so many questions about the infamous bedroom scene and legit pondered it for hours. There’s a lot of complexity and different interpretations of it, so here’s mine.

Background:

I Want to Eat Your Pancreas is tragic in many ways, but I found it tragic because throughout the story to the very end, neither Sakura nor Haruki were truly honest with themselves or each other about the state of their relationship.

Like most coming-of-age stories (and humans in real life), both of them were unreliable narrators. We as the audience were left to make sense of the ambiguities through other characters’ (Kyouko’s) knowledge, expressions on a 2D screen, and what was unsaid on our own. By nature of the beast, we were never the recipient to the totality of Sakura’s thoughts or the totality of Haruki’s thoughts, personal history, and emotional intelligence that would provide us with greater context surrounding the bedroom scene. Nor are we fully aware of the literary and cultural significance behind the books the movie chose to highlight (the book Haruki dropped and The Little Prince). If they were such unreliable narrators to us, could they have been unreliable narrators to each other and themselves?

Coming-of-age in real life involves many contradicting thoughts, wants, and needs that continuously sift and obscure each other based on timing, pride, the reluctance to be truly honest with ourselves and others, and the surprising moments of insight we share with each other and ourselves. This movie depicted this confusion very well.

At the same time, the movie adaptation did seem to push a romantic interpretation of their relationship more so than the manga. Given this framing, I believe Sakura and Haruki truly held a deep love for each other as people and friends—and as romantic partners but were hesitant to be honest with each other about their feelings, nonetheless act on them.

Their Feelings:

Long before that time in the story, Sakura held legitimate romantic and sexual feelings towards Haruki. However, she did not know how to handle them, nor was she brave or confident enough to express them to him in a straightforward manner. She’d noticed him weeks, months, or years before and thought he was curious but cute. She believed him to be safe and trustworthy, and likely wanted to play a game to see if he could open up to her. After they met, she consistently flirted with him. She consistently threw him sign after sign after sign after sign.

No girl would do or say the things Sakura did or said to Haruki to other men if she weren’t already interested: asking if he could be her boyfriend, saying they were going on dates, asking if he was interested in girls, wishing she could partake in a summer rendezvous and make mistakes in love aloud, inviting him on an overnight trip, arriving at said trip looking like they were going on a date, joking about sleeping in the same bed, asking him to look through her personal belongings for her cleanser, asking him to open the door and place it in the bathroom when she was showering, joking about him peeking, dressing in revealing clothes, doing her hair, buying alcohol, demanding to play truth or dare, asking him about her looks directly and indirectly, telling him to princess carry him to the bed and sleep next to her, inviting him to her bedroom in her empty house, and asking him if he had any feelings towards her again. And her facial expressions, major blushing, and voice direction! It. Was. So. Obvious. It. Was. Almost. Painful. To. Watch. Lol. She likes the guy!

At the same time, how could Sakura allow herself to fully commit to him? She was terrified of dying, knew Haruki did not want to become attached, and was possibly recovering from her treatment at the hands of her ex-boyfriend, who was implied to be abusive and controlling. As Kyouko stated, Sakura was fragile and vulnerable, yet even hid most of that and her tears from the person whom she was closest to. She had a lot on her mind and was confused!

Simultaneously, at that point in the story, Haruki felt the same way towards her (or was beginning to) but was still unsure about investing 100 percent of himself into her. He blushed and his voice softened at her dating questions and charm, though he prevented himself from fully embracing them. There is a lot to be said about what was unsaid, especially when there was no clarification about what was truth and what was lie during their game of truth or dare—he probably thought she was the prettiest girl in the class—or much clarification about his true feelings towards her, beyond a positive moment of narration about her every once in a while.

As time progressed, he chose to keep her company because he grew to care for her—but he did not want to become attached. Only after their conversation in the rain did he begin to give most or all of himself to her. He was also confused! Poor thing.

The Bedroom Scene:

The bedroom scene was a manifestation of all of this teenage angst and confusion: While Sakura was learning how to die, she was still learning how to live. She wanted to experience all that life had to offer, including love and sex, but was vulnerable enough to not follow through—but was not vulnerable enough to show her vulnerability. While Haruki was learning to live, he was learning how to love and be loved back, but also did not want to follow through.

I think Sakura fully intended to kiss and possibly make love to Haruki that night. After she was hurt that Haruki did not express any romantic desires to her, she put on an act to fool him that she, too, did not hold any feelings towards him. But that look from frame to frame, that heavy breathing, that nervous heartbeat could not have been an act. And Haruki was in shock. Before her surprise hug, he was becoming increasingly frustrated with his growing love for a dying girl, the unintentional games she was playing with his heart, the complexities of the world, the complexities of his newly awakened(?) emotions, the unwelcome realization that the world would react to him if he opened himself up to the world, and the perceived unworthiness from Kyouko, his classmates, and himself.

After her surprise hug, he was stunned that a beautiful girl expressed interest in him and was giving him major body contact—the first from a friend, nonetheless a girl and a girl’s boobs (teenage boys, lol). After glancing at the book he dropped when Kyouko questioned if he could carry Sakura’s burden, he hesitated but silently decided to try. And he closed his eyes, took a deep breath, opened his mouth, and leaned in...(yes, he slightly leans in)...only for Sakura to freak out, back out at the last second, and declare it was a joke and imply she saw him as a toy in an attempt to lighten her feelings, the atmosphere, and conceal her vulnerability and the fear that remained from her last relationship.

And of course, Haruki was pissed because no matter what Sakura’s true intent and feelings were, he felt like he was mocked and played with—rightfully so—and unleashed his confusion, anger, and newfound lust on her by jumping her and pinning her to the bed. In spite of being overcome with emotion, he was also paralyzed by these new emotions. Only after she began to cry did he realize he was scaring and hurting her and left in turmoil and shame, questioning if he was truly the right person to stay with her.

What Could Have Been:

After Sakura and Haruki make up, Sakura realized Haruki was not ready for a romantic relationship and decided to not push him any further. If she wanted to communicate her deeper feelings towards him, she would do so through a hug. By the summer, Haruki had emotionally developed enough to express his honest feelings towards her, reciprocate her physical affection, and remain in her arms to support her. Aside from his breakdown at the end, this scene was the apex of his character and emotional arc.

And if she had lived for the rest of the summer and a year? If. What if. Her life was full of if's. Haruki would have developed enough to realize the totality of his feelings towards her and been ready to confess, clarify his emotional ambiguities, and so would she. During her dying months, they would have been able to experience another beautiful dimension of life—young love. But both of them were tragically robbed of that opportunity.

The Beast of Adaptations:

Of course, this theory originates in my belief that this adaptation framed Sakura and Haruki’s relationship in a more romantic light than the novel and definitely more so than the manga adaptation. Those adaptations contain more of Haruki’s inner monologue, though it still suffers from the ambiguities and the unknowns, so I wonder how we should synthesize all of this new information to interpret the bedroom scene, if we even should. If we rely on Haruki’s inner monologue and explicit confusion and disgust with Sakura’s signals present in those adaptations for greater context, our interpretation of this scene would definitely be less romantic and more condemning of Sakura’s selfishness, self-destructive tendencies, and/or reluctance to face her fears in love.

However, we can also interpret this adaptation as a work on its own due to the nature of the beast of anime film adaptations. Haruki did not explicitly narrate his disgust towards Sakura during the bedroom scene—which contrasts work of a similar nature, such as Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, Your Lie in April, and Koe no Katachi—nor did he push her away before the kiss. Amongst several changes to the source material, these two scenes were deliberately never inserted into the film, and the author expressed disappointment in parts of its execution and implied changes in its themes and the state of Sakura and Haruki’s relationship.

The Film’s Final Message:

Regardless, we still know both of these beautiful characters were unreliable narrators, as we all are in real life. Sakura and Haruki were never able to discuss what happened that night or confess or act on their feelings for each other in this film, but their relationship was a lesson to Haruki and to us all. There will always be hurt and misunderstandings, but as long as we try to reach each other’s hearts, we can pierce through the ambiguities and vulnerabilities in each of us to elucidate our personal truths and our truths about each other.

[otnesse]

Galactic Empire and Fascism, an analysis.

After cruising through TVTropes, and discovering a YMMV entry under “What do you mean it’s not political” that implicitly compared Emperor Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith to Donald Trump regarding treatment of aliens (which, for the record, we don’t have a problem with immigration and nor does Trump, rather, we have a massive issue against illegal immigration, which is simple distinction that people unfortunately seem to miss right now especially in media), I decided to make a post regarding whether or not the Galactic Empire from Star Wars was fascist or not. Honestly, I’d say it’s not, though that being said, it has been acknowledged by George Lucas that fascism did play a role in their development via design elements. However, in that case, it was more due to Lucas mistaking fascism for conservativism (similar to how the left constantly claims that Donald Trump is “a fascist” even when he isn’t under even the most basic observations, let alone close scrutiny). To solidify my point, I’ll quote one of my most hated pieces of dialogue from the disaster that was the second season of Supergirl (shame, since the first season started out with a lot of promise, and I don’t intend to watch the third season in large part because of what the writers did by overtly going into left-wing politics, not to mention certain social issues, and overall having a very bad plotline [sure, there have been some leftist bits portrayed positively in the first season, but on the other hand, it also promoted Conservative principles as well, such as the concept of family and actually treating eco-terrorism in a negative light with the Kryptonians that acted as the main villains of the arc, not to mention it actually managed to avert feminist messaging at one point by having Cat Grant actually express remorse at choosing her career over raising her own kid she had out of wedlock, and considering she actually had a kid there, it also implied she didn’t have an abortion either. And I can tell you, she if anything would have been utterly SLAUGHTERED by the feminists clique at NOW as well as by Hillary supporters for actually expressing remorse at choosing her career over being a mother. And either way it was definitely not to the extent that this season was regarding pushing politics and social issues.]. At most, I’ll probably watch the season premiere just long enough to learn the identity of the other Kryptonian baby that had that blood ritual.):

“one misattributed quote from a candidate and you put a fascist in the White House.” – Snapper Carr, Exodus.

Considering how they showered Marsden, a blatant Hillary expy, with love, I don’t you need two guesses as to which Presidential candidate he was referring to (and quite frankly, even ignoring the Trump burns, I hated that line because of its inaccuracy in its ideology and inherent meaning: Perfect attribution of quotes does not guarantee that a fascist [and by that, I mean an actual fascist and not someone like Trump], or a communist, or any particularly evil person will be prevented from becoming president. That, and Snapper Carr with that line and prior lines in the episode came across as acting more like Mike Wallace during that Ethics of America segment where he implied he’d sell American soldiers down the river in order to not ruin his objectivity when traveling with a Vietcong unit, but I digress…). And actually, this whole quote is actually pretty relevant to Star Wars and the Galactic Empire as Palpatine had in fact been based on an American president that the left hated in a similar manner to Trump for various reasons. His name was Richard Milhous Nixon, and he was needlessly demonized, including claiming he had masterminded Watergate when in reality he had absolutely no involvement in the situation and if anything was also irritated that this had happened and demanded to know who was responsible for it, not to mention falsely pinning him to Vietnam when in reality it was LBJ and even JFK’s war before it was his war, and if anything, Nixon was the reason why America actually left Vietnam as victors (yes, we actually won Vietnam. The fall of Saigon was due to our congress stabbing our allies in the back during Watergate. The loser of a war does not head and dictate the negotiations of surrender, which we did.).

Uniforms and Terms:

First, people have said that the Empire’s uniforms and their use of certain terms (ie, Stormtroopers) made them fascist. I won’t go into full detail on how the Stormtrooper Corps aren’t the same thing as the Nazis’ stormtroopers (or at least the Sturmabteilung) in even role, let alone appearance, since I kind of already did that in full detail in an earlier post. However, while Lucas I’ll admit did mention wanting a fascistic feel for the Empire when creating the uniforms, that doesn’t mean that the Empire was actually fascist, any more than calling Donald Trump a fascist must make him fascist as well, or the fact that Ho Chi Minh quoted the Declaration of Independence makes him a Jeffersonian lover of liberty. And besides, the uniforms for the Empire were derived more from German Uhlans during World War I, which predated Nazi Germany and fascism by a significant amount of time. And quite honestly, if you ask me, claiming someone is fascist just because they happen to wear that kind of uniform is just stupid, since uniforms don’t speak to one’s political ideologies. I mean, what, are we going to claim that NYPD Commissioner Frank Reagan from Blue Bloods, Prince Eric from Disney’s The Little Mermaid, or General Pepper from Star Fox are fascists just because they wore similar uniforms (heck, Eric’s wedding outfit even resembles a Grand Admiral’s uniform)? Not to mention, they’re military uniforms, and there have been plenty of uniforms within even the Allied Powers (meaning Britain and the USA) that had similar appearances to Imperial uniforms. If anyone in the Star Wars films actually resembled fascists in terms of uniforms, and more importantly ideology, it was the First Order. The Empire, on that note, does not goose step, either, which would be a surefire sign that it is fascist (its marching style, if anything, resembles that of Geldoblame’s men in Baten Kaitos’ opening when it shows Gibari).

Military buildup:

See, one of my biggest annoyances is the conflation of military buildup, even having a military at all, and going to war as automatically making someone a Nazi or fascist. It was annoying when Paul Verhoeven did it with Starship Troopers (though at least he had the excuse of growing up in Nazi-occupied Netherlands for thinking that. Lucas should know better), and it was also annoying when George Lucas and even Hideo Kojima inferred similar things. Yes, militaries can and have done attacks on neighboring countries, and also tried to conquer neighboring countries. But that’s not their sole role. They also act as a line of defense against an opposing army, not to mention also acts in the defense of citizenry and will also aid in relief efforts should things be serious, and they also are called in to aid allies if needs be. There’s a reason why a common expression for the military is that it acts as a nation’s sword and shield. The Nazis and fascists specifically intended to control at the very least Germany and its various former nation-states, if not the world, not to mention conquered countries specifically to fund their welfare programs. Building up the military is not the sign of an incoming dictatorship or the coming of fascism. America built up its military significantly after 9/11, and it’s nowhere close to becoming fascist right now.

Nationalism and nationalization:

On that note, I also get irritated when people think merely having parades for a national holiday or prominently displaying the flag in terms of national pride and love of country makes one fascist. We Americans do that, especially those of us who are patriotic. Heck, I’ve got the American flag hanging outside my house right now, and besides which, I’ve gone around seeing some houses that have the circular red white and blue flags draped over as well. My neighborhood even has an annual Fourth of July parade that I make every effort to see and we have fireworks celebrating it. The Empire’s celebration of Empire Day is not really all that different. And besides which, being fascist doesn’t mean you actually love your country. Joseph Goebbels, the infamous Nazi propagandist, actually made clear that he, if anything, held contempt to even the mere idea of nationalism or loving one’s own country (I believe his exact words were, and I quote, “the NSDAP [Nazi Party] is the German Left. We despise bourgeois nationalism.”). And based on the fact that Palpatine was perfectly willing to forfeit his own life to get Luke to turn to the Dark Side (even going as far as to goad him into murdering him), it’s pretty clear Palpatine probably had no qualms with the Empire running without him (unfortunately, the Aftermath trilogy had Palpatine try to have Gallius Rax basically blow up the galaxy at Jakku due to not being able to rule the Empire anymore, in an explicit contradiction to not only his actions in Return of the Jedi, but also Revenge of the Sith where he tried to goad Anakin to kill him in a similar manner, not to mention mentioned in a very eager tone that Vader will soon become more powerful than either Yoda or himself).

On the topic of nationalization, the only time nationalization was ever brought up was via Imperialization, and even that was largely limited to those that had either gone against the Empire explicitly or otherwise were originally of the Separatists (at least, it was the case in the former Expanded Universe). They actually left various companies that either were loyal or otherwise had no major issues with the Empire alone, and in fact, they even managed to expand the Corporate Sector to 30,000 star systems and even managed to create the Corporate Sector Authority specifically to allow for transparent mercantilism to go on unabated, only asking for a yearly tribute in return. That kind of thing would actually be AGAINST fascism and/or national socialism, as they won’t tolerate any form of free markets at all, and would in fact point to the Galactic Empire being a pro-capitalist institution (and I mean that in a good way, obviously). If anything, the Old Republic came closer to actual nationalization as we know it via the Trade Federation (which before it became its own cartel was a branch in the main government meant to heavily regulate trade and cut down on any growth of mercantilism if the former Expanded Universe materials are to be believed). And despite what Biggs Darklighter said in that deleted scene to Luke Skywalker from A New Hope, there is literally no indication that the Empire had any intention of nationalizing any farms, moisture or otherwise (especially when the Imperial Handbook doesn’t even mention anything about moisture farms or small business proprieters, let alone nationalizing them. And believe me, considering they had absolutely no qualms against mentioning speciecide as a government policy in the handbook, if they wanted to state their aims at nationalizing something like the Lars Homestead, they would have mentioned it directly within the Imperial Handbook, especially when that book was written around the time of A New Hope in-universe.). And don’t get me started on immunity spheres established by the Empire where it is forbidden for Imperial soldiers or ships are allowed to set foot in there, one of which included the Wheel, which is essentially a space station version of Las Vegas.

Ideology:

Now, let’s get into the ideology of the Empire and that of fascism, or more specifically National Socialism, in-depth. Let’s look, for starters, at the 1925 Nazi Platform:

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

There's plenty other sources for Nazi or fascist ideology such as table talks, but this should suffice.

Now, let’s look at each of these tidbits, one by one, and compare them to various sources within Star Wars relating to the Empire:

1. Not sure why the Empire would even need to demand that as a manifesto. It’s pretty clear the Empire was pretty much united as it is. Heck, a majority of people actually voted IN the Empire in the first place during Palpatine’s Declaration of a New Order. And I don’t think Palpatine demanded for a specific group of people to be united, just the galaxy. In fact, Palpatine doesn’t even MENTION other galaxies in said speech, nor does the Imperial Handbook voice any plans to conquer any nearby satellite galaxies, not even the Rishi Maze which is the closest galaxy satellite to that of the galaxy the Empire was situated in.

2. Again, nowhere, in either the Declaration of a New Order OR any other policy (Imperial Handbook or Imperial Sourcebook) does it even imply that they wanted equal rights with the other galaxies. Not to mention since the Republic, the Empire’s immediate predecessor, actually WON the prior war, there’s literally nothing there that’s even remotely similar to Nazi Germany there, especially the revoking of a treaty (now, that being said, the First Order might have similarities there). Heck, the Empire didn’t even need to pay reparations either, since, again, they won the Clone Wars.

3. Okay, that might actually be a similarity (though not necessarily the demanding part, just colonization as a whole). However, even there, lots of countries at the time engaged in colonialism, and none of them were actually fascist.

4. No mention whatsoever about any restrictions against people holding citizenship due to being a separate species. Heck, as a matter of fact, the Empire accepted taxes from even the likes of the Ugnaughts if one of the Marvel Comics is to be believed, which implies that even the likes of aliens, while ultimately having second-class citizenship, nonetheless are recognized as being citizens and actually having citizenship. Oh, and at one point, the Empire actually managed to save a sentient alien species from being hunted down upon discovering said alien race was in fact sentient.

5. See 4 above.

6. See 4 and 5 above. In fact, probably the only thing that’s even remotely similar about this point is the bit about citizenry being the ones who choose the government, and even then, that just goes without saying for any nation. Even America demands that only citizens participate in the voting process, and we’re the farthest thing from a fascist country right now and for most of its history. And as far as corruption, well, yeah, even here in America, we demand pretty high moral standards of our politicians. It just goes without saying.

7. Nowhere was it even remotely implied that the Empire be mandated to kick out any aliens (well, both literal aliens the figurative term of being excluded from citizenship solely based on their race) if they fail to feed and clothe anyone.

8. Yeah, considering the Emperor allowed for Intergalactic Passports, not to mention the Imperial Senate as well, it’s highly unlikely he had any problems with immigration into the Empire so long as it was legalized.

9. Don’t recall the Empire mentioning anything about equal rights, actually, whether for or against them.

10. Doesn’t really mention much in terms of sources anything about the Empire actually mandating citizenry work physically or mentally for the benefit of all. It does mention making an effort to be loyal to the Empire, but beyond that, nothing that indicates that the citizenry engage in what is essentially slave labor (and I mean those who weren’t imprisoned).

11. Nowhere does the Empire even remotely mention anything about income relating to work or any unearned income, whether it be the Imperial Handbook or anywhere else.

12. Yeah, considering the Empire built up its military for defense of its Empire from any internal and external threats, I highly doubt the Empire would have even approved of what was essentially an anti-war statement in there, especially confiscating war profits from soldiers.

13. Other than the bit about Imperialism (which doesn’t even demand the nationalization of all firms, just those that went against the Empire), it really doesn’t match up.

14. Nowhere is it even remotely implied, even under the bit about Imperialization, that the Empire demanded that large companies share profits among each other.

15. Never commented on old age pensions at all, and considering the Empire makes clear they do not want anything except the most basic elements, I really doubt they’d support increasing old age pensions.

16. See 14 above. Also, the Imperial Handbook doesn’t even imply that the Empire intends to nationalize stuff like moisture farming on Tatooine. Nor, for that matter, does it even remotely imply wanting to communalize various storefronts or renting large storefronts to small tradesmen.

17. Again, absolutely no mention whatsoever, at least in the Legends universe, that the Empire ever wanted to do agrarian reforms or nationalize farms, not to mention making land speculation and ground rents illegal.

18. Other than the bit about traitors (which, BTW, even our constitution demands the death of any people who commit treason, so it’s just goes without saying), the Empire really doesn’t mention anything about waging any war on those people, or demanding for their death.

19. Other than the bit about having prisoners undergo slavery, it really doesn’t seem to impact prior laws at all, and it certainly doesn’t use materialism as a reason.

20. The only thing that really comes to mind regarding this point is COMPNOR, in particular the Education branch of the Coalition of Progress branch and possibly the Sub-Adult Unit, regarding education (which even that comes across as being more similar to the AFJROTC than, say, the Hitler Youth). Other than that, there’s no similarities at all to the Empire’s method of education compared to that of what was demanded here. That bullet point if anything comes closer to what the creed of the Umbrella Organization from Resident Evil, or more specifically the Wesker Children, promoted, or even the Jedi’s taking of younglings.

21. Other than maybe bits relating to the Imperial Military (and let’s face it, with any military, you need to be in pretty top shape to be in it, as otherwise, you won’t last very long), there’s little to suggest the Empire demanded an emphasis on “national health.”

22. Seriously? Do you really think the Empire would just abandon/gut its entire military apparatus in favor of what is essentially a citizen militia? There’s definitely no similarity here at all.

23. Ah, yeah, about that, even Freedom of the Press in our Constitution specifically states that slander is not covered under that inalienable right, meaning we don’t have the freedom to propagate lies.

a. Kind of goes without saying, really.

b. I don’t recall the Empire ever indicating that they had any particular problem with what language HoloNet sources were to be given in, or requiring specific permission to actually publish them in a different language.

c. Doesn’t mention anything about turning a profit in newspaper industries either, whether for or against it.

24. Regarding religion, the Empire largely maintains religious freedom, especially if it doesn’t act against the interests of the Empire. The only ones who receive any negative stigma are the Jedi, and even there, there have been Jedi who become dark side converts and become Inquisitorious. I won’t comment on the Christianity bit since that religion doesn’t even exist in Star Wars.

25. Other than maybe the bit about the Emperor’s absolute status, there’s little similarity regarding the Empire to that of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy with that point (and for the record, even with the Magna Carta, kings, queens, emperors, and empresses had absolute status at various points, in fact, probably the only ones I can think of where they didn’t have absolute status and were figureheads is with Great Britain today and Japan for most of the time barring of course Imperial Japan during World War II). Heck, even there, the existence of the Corporate Sector Authority and various immunity spheres shows the Empire doesn’t necessarily adhere to an absolute status regarding central authority. Heck, even there, the Emperor does in fact take advice from several of his officers rather than blowing it off out of some self-inflated sense of superiority.

So yeah, at most, there’s just below half that actually have any resemblance to the 25 planks, and even those that match up have also had similarities to those in countries that obviously weren’t fascist, communist, or anything like that. Also, there’s zero indication that the Empire even supports abortion towards inferiors or anything like that, or has any problems with disabled people (in fact, one of the Empire’s most loyal supporters was a cripple. And I’m not referring to Vader, or even Grand Admiral Teshik.). Not to mention, do you really think a fascist or communist, both of which are totalitarian ideologies, would so much as even THINK of creating something they would have little amount of control over such as, I don’t know, immunity spheres, or even the Corporate Sector Authority’s explicitly being a place of free trade and free market? In fact, you can find this and plenty of other information about these elements to the Empire here (http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/RebProLies.html).

So why is the Empire considered fascist?

To answer that question, you need to go back to the time Star Wars was being created, as well as look into the background of the franchise’s creator, George Walton Lucas.

You see, George Lucas was a raving leftist, of the stripe seen during the 1960s where they viewed protests as an excuse to riot for no real reason beyond platitudes. Heck, he even admitted as much in various interviews, including a 2012 interview with Charlie Rose on CBS, where he outright admitted that he got his left-wing views from growing up in 1960s San Francisco which was a hotbed with various radical elements, including anti-Vietnam War protests as you can see here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-lucas-billionaire-down-on-capitalism/ (the same interview also had him making some negative statements on Capitalism, more on that later). Oh, and he also at one point described his ideal movie making studio philosophy as being “the workers have the means of production” (Skywalking, p.246), meaning that at the very least he flirted with Marxism, and later on during another interview with Charlie Rose (you know the one: where he infamously compared Disney after the sale to “white slavers”) actually implied that Soviet filmmaking at the height of the Cold War was preferable to the American Hollywood model (ie, the Soviet filmmaking where you get a bullet in the head if you criticize the people in charge) as you can see here: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken-shepherd/2016/01/04/george-lucas-soviet-directors-had-more-freedom-i-had. In fact, during the Vietnam War, he outright rooted for the Vietcong to win. Back then, leftists often denounced any conservative principles as being “fascist” or “nazi-esque”, mostly because of a misnomer promoted by the likes of Josef Stalin shortly after World War II where he denounced the Nazis as being “right-wing” both to paint actual right-wing groups in a very negative light (the Nazis and fascists in reality were part of the far-left, and they merely viewed the Communists as rivals for control over the left, not actual feuding enemies in terms of ideology), and also as a CYA attempt to deflect any potential blame from reaching Communism. An infamous example of attempts at comparing conservative principles or conservatives to Nazis or fascists was during the HUAC investigations as well as McCarthy’s investigations into Soviet infiltration and subversion of America (which, BTW, contrary to popular belief, McCarthy had no involvement in HUAC, as he was part of the Senate, while HUAC was strictly House of Representatives territory, and he had nothing to do with the Hollywood Blacklist), where quite a few people often accused their accusers as being Nazis to deflect any potential blame of being communists, even when confronted with direct evidence to their Communist ties. This sort of thing is still in existence even today, as evidenced with the aforementioned quote from Snapper Carr from Supergirl, heck, Neo/Thomas Anderson’s “Gestapo crap” comment to the agents in the first Matrix movie even. In fact, as I alluded to earlier in this post, he even had particular ire against former President Richard Milhous Nixon, where he claimed he was responsible for causing Vietnam to happen (a lie, since Vietnam occurred under JFK and LBJ’s watch), running for a third term (of which he expressed no interest in such an idea), and probably also the fact that he exposed Alger Hiss as a Communist spy and indicted him for perjury. In fact, Lucas during the 2008 election cycle even called Barack Obama a hero (and for the record, Obama's policies came far closer to actual fascism than the Empire did), and in 2012, he also indicated he was, among other things, “a dyed-in-the-wool 99%er before there was such a thing” in an unsubtle attempt at promoting solidarity for the Occupy Wall Street group (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/george-lucas-red-tails.html).

Now, taking all of that into account, let’s start with the beginnings of Star Wars. It was 1973, Vietnam was still ongoing, and Richard Nixon is embattled with Watergate. Lucas decides to make Star Wars, then-titled The Star Wars, partially due to the fact that he wanted to cover Vietnam, and partially in response to Nixon’s Watergate bit (note, Star Wars was originally planned to be the third in a thematic trilogy dealing with denouncing America’s involvement in Vietnam, with the first film being American Graffiti, and the second being Apocalypse Now [yes, Lucas was in fact supposed to make that movie]. However, while American Graffiti played and performed as well as he wanted it to, he ultimately wasn’t able to complete Apocalypse Now before Warner Bros. shut down his studio American Zoetrope due to uncertainty regarding the film as well as the previous failure of THX 1138, so he decided to make Star Wars, his planned third film, early, and specifically include elements from Apocalypse Now.).  Among the first drafts for the film included a statement on yellow sheets that detailed the theme for the film, which basically said that the Rebels, or, technically speaking, Aquilae, was supposed to be similar to a “small independent country like North Vietnam” that was being threatened with conquest, and that the Empire was supposed to be like America in 1983 (not those exact words, but he said that it was like America 10 years from when he said it, which at the time was 1973), essentially its emperor had been assassinated by “Nixonian gangsters” and elevated to power in a rigged election, and creating a total thought control police state (ironic, since the only character in the movie to actually engage in total thought control at all was Obi-Wan Kenobi with his little “Jedi Mind Trick.”), and even states that they are at a turning point, whether they support Fascism or Revolution (and based on his overall comments, I don’t think he’s referring to the American War for Independence). Although some things from that draft were changed, the overall themes based on Lucas’s later comments haven’t changed at all, which also included the whole Rebel Alliance angle. However, apparently this wasn’t enough, as when making Return of the Jedi, he decided to make the whole Vietcong promotion theme a bit more overt by having Emperor Palpatine’s best troops be taken down by what are essentially animate Teddy Bears known as the Ewoks.

Eventually, about a decade after Jedi, he decided to make the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, and he went even further than Return of the Jedi. Basically he made the Republic essentially a bastion of liberal-style nanny state big government, and the “Senate” was closer to the United Nation in Space, or Star Federation from Star Trek. Oh, and the government was so deeply broken, apparently not being able to enforce anti-slavery laws within what was technically its territory. The Jedi were depicted as essentially being Ivory Tower types, as well. Oh, and Supreme Chancellor Finis Valorum was specifically modeled after then-President Bill Clinton as a beleaguered man (before the infamous Monica Lewinsky scandal, I should add), which Terrence Stamp, Valorum's actor, even noted. And remember when I mentioned that Lucas’s 2012 interview with Charlie Rose had him mentioning how he was anti-Capitalist and adhered to a more Communistic approach to democracy? Well he starts showing hints at this with the Trade Federation. Speaking of which, the whole Trade Federation plotline and their invading Naboo was largely made in response to the Republican Revolution of 1994 that was made in direct response to some far-left policies Clinton was making, including tax increases as well as the NAFTA agreement, policies that were obviously unpopular among the electorate. Around this time, Newt Gingrich made a speech called Contract with America, which proposed among other things requiring a three-fifths majority before making tax increases. This all occurred around the time Lucas was on his eighth day draft-writing what would become the film. Lucas, as you can probably guess, was not at all happy with this, and decided to use the Trade Federation as being essentially strawmen for the Republican Revolution regarding motives and overall characterization (and he doesn’t even attempt to be subtle about it, either: The leader of the Trade Federation, Nute Gunray, for example, had his name being taken from two sources: The first from Newt Gingrich himself, obviously, and the second being Ronald Reagan, the latter was mostly out of revenge for SDI being labeled Star Wars, even though it was Ted Kennedy and the leftist media who called it that in the first place; and Lott Dod, the Neimoidian senator representing the Trade Federation, was named after Chris Lott, the GOP leader in 1997.).

But, oh, that’s still not far enough for him. The very next movie, Attack of the Clones, makes Lucas’s anti-war political views extremely apparent by revealing that, for the thousand years the Republic existed, or at least the thousand years since the Ruusan Reformation if we go by Legends, it turns out the Republic lacked a military of any kind at all. Worse, the film also obviously tries to paint even trying to form a military at all as being an inherently bad thing and would mean the loss of freedom and creating new fear, especially when Padme Amidala, as a clear expy of the Left’s view of Hillary Clinton here, goes to Coruscant as a Senator and tries to vote against the motion (and pre-release materials alongside the movie even goes as far as to imply that Padme may have in fact LIED to the Senate by implying heavily that the pro-Military senators were responsible for her near-assassination, when she in fact suspected that Count Dooku of the Separatists was responsible for the hit). Oh, and if the Trade Federation’s villainous role in the prior movie didn’t tip you off to Lucas’s anti-Capitalist agenda, this movie broadcasts it in a huge billboard by having the main villains, the Separatists, basically being composed of corporations, even explicitly giving their names to the cause, which besides the Trade Federation included among others the InterGalactic Banking Guild, the Corporate Alliance, the Commerce Guild, and the Techno Union. There may have also been a few hints at 9/11 being staged for a coup, especially in the ending, although given the timing, not to mention Attack of the Clones most likely entered development before 9/11 occurred, he was probably intending for that to be the Gulf of Tonkin Incident as an inspiration if anything.

Even that wasn’t far enough for Lucas, apparently, as Lucas then had in Episode III more overt Bush-bashing by essentially implying that the War in Iraq was an excuse for Republicans to take over America and turn it into a fascist Empire (really.), and overall seemed like it was pushing an anti-War viewpoint that you would expect to find on MSNBC or MoveOn.org for more indirect instances of Bush-bashing. For more direct indications, there’s Padme’s “So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause…” shortly after Palpatine declares himself Emperor, apparently done in relation to the Patriot Act, and then there’s the infamous instance in the movie where Vader and Obi-Wan confront each other on Mustafar. Specifically, Vader yells “If you are not with me, then you are my enemy!” in a very thinly-veiled reference to President George W. Bush’s “You’re either with us or the terrorists” line on September 20, 2001, which was directed to the United Nations, not to the American citizenry. Obi-Wan, in response, declares “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”, one of the most stupid and confusing lines in the movie, especially when it made the Jedi seem like they were the moral relativists and postmodernists, maybe even moral nihilists. Apparently this two bits had been added in fairly early on, around the time of the Iraq War, and largely because of various protests in the Bay Area against the war and Bush, in an eerily similar manner to the protests against Vietnam and Nixon before then, and apparently thought Americans would have agreed with Obi-Wan because of this, thinking they thought nuance was lost from Bush’s “black and white worldview.” Oh, and he also promoted the movie during the 2005 Cannes film festival. You might remember that particular film festival, it was most infamous for its various film moguls using the festival and the showing their films to essentially flip the bird against Bush (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sith-invites-bush-comparisons/2/). Lucas, to be fair, acknowledges that he didn’t necessarily plan on Bush being the subject of Star Wars, but that’s solely because he already had Nixon in mind before Bush was even on his radar. He nonetheless compared Vietnam to Iraq claiming the comparisons were unbelievable (well, he’s right about one thing: thinking there is any comparison between those two wars beyond our trying to stop a grave threat is pretty unbelievable), and he divulged further into his ideas of democracy turning into a dictatorship (they’re one and the same, if you ask me, and I don’t mean that in a good way for either), by basically implying that Robespierre’s France, of all things, was good or at least preferable to Napoleon’s France, or his implying something similar to the Weimar Republic to Nazi Germany. Not to mention most of the comparisons don’t even work, and neither does the claim that wars make dictatorships and destroy democracy (America was forged from war against Great Britain, and we aren’t even close to a dictatorship). Heck, some Expanded Universe materials around the time of Revenge of the Sith even had references to the Triad of Evil, in an unsubtle reference to the Axis of Evil. And in the Clone Wars cartoons (the 3D animation one, not the one with the animation style that was similar to Samurai Jack) there was a character named Saw Gererra whose basis for that Marxist terrorist Che Guevera were as lacking of subtlety as Lott Dod’s basis for Chris Lott was.

Closing statements

Well, I’ve been an Empire supporter for a little over a year now. Not exactly particularly happy with this development, since I go by a rule that I never, ever root for villains, and I was forced to break that rule with the Empire. The reason I had to make that exception dealt with Lucas’s statements about how the Empire was meant to represent America (and more specifically, when How Star Wars Conquered the Universe by Chris Taylor revealed that even the Rebel Alliance was supposed to be Vietcong expies. I don’t root for communists, because they tried to exterminate those of my religion, or any religion, for that matter, all for the sake of atheism, which I maintain is no religion due to a lack of gods or supernatural elements). Either way, I figured I’d set the record straight regarding the Empire and Fascism, because quite frankly, barring the uniforms, they really have no similarities to actual fascism (heck, they don’t even practice any socialist principles while the Old Republic seems to be more socialistic/communistic in nature). If anyone disagrees, fine by me, but I suggest you try to find any sources that definitively match up with Nazi ideology in a very precise manner, and more than just uniforms.

Author's note:

I'm basing this mostly on the Legends version of the Empire, mostly because, quite frankly, I'm not exactly fond of what's become of Star Wars under Disney, even speaking as someone who is a Disney fan.

[marketrendy]

The Future Of Sales: What If The Best Salesperson Is A Robot?

In an ongoing scene of Last Week Tonight, have John Oliver handled developing feelings of trepidation encompassing occupation uprooting because of robotization. "What would you like to do when you grow up?" he solicited a gathering from delightful 4-

what's more, 5-year-olds who provided the regular answers: pilot, legal advisor, specialist — and obviously, mermaid specialist.

Pouring water on these little children's fantasies — and those of grown-ups alike, Oliver refered to a disturbing University of Oxford ponder foreseeing up to 50 percent of human employments are in danger of being usurped by robots. (Albeit perhaps not the much-pined for mermaid specialist position.) By the sketch's end, Oliver made a forecast that different intellectuals have proposed: In the future "more secure" professions will include non-standard, particular work including imagination and enthusiastic knowledge (EQ.)

Quite a bit of what I have gained from cowriting the forthcoming book, Own the A.I. Upheaval: Unlock Your Artificial Intelligence Strategy to Disrupt Your Competition with U.N. Computer based intelligence counselor Neil Sahota has affirmed reality of Oliver's attestation. Numerous specialists have disclosed to us that advertise powers in the fourth Industrial Revolution will extend the requirement for people equipped for comprehension and reacting to others' passionate states. However, imagine a scenario where PCs could figure out how to distinguish and show sympathy superior to us.

Familiarity with this plausibility drove tech pioneer Scott Sandland to help establish Cyrano.ai, consolidating AI and EQ for business advancement. A Southern California-based business person, Sandland is an eminence subliminal specialist who sees the benefit of preparing machines to comprehend the lavishness of language, explicitly subtext, to convey feelings. "For quite a while now, PCs had not too bad voice acknowledgment equipped for understanding human discourse," says Sandland. "In any case, language is more unpredictable than the strict words we use. Which means can likewise be imparted through tone, setting, social channels, and subtext."

To outline what he implies by subtext, Sandland refers to the case of a companion welcoming you to their Super Bowl party. On the off chance that you state, "I'll attempt to be there," what you're truly saying is, "Much appreciated, yet I presumably won't come." Your wary reaction signs to your buddy the unrealisticness that you will eat jalapeno poppers on his lounge chair next Sunday. "You were being gracious in your answer," Sandland clarifies, "which any individual fit for perusing expressive gestures would get on. What we're doing now at Cyrano is instructing machines to distinguish such subtlety since it likely contains the genuine message being conveyed."

Without minds advanced to recognize the scarcest pitch change to uncover how another is feeling, Sandland and his group prepared their PCs to review printed signs for passionate states, including length of reaction, explicitness, the sort and assortment of words picked, avoidance, and the nearness or absence of duty words. As Disruptive Technology Director at Elsevier Labs Paul Groth, Ph.D., proposes, information is critical to utilitarian AI. Cyrano's A.I., in this manner, figured out how to identify phonetic hints by perusing transcripts among prospects and vehicle vendor agents. In time, their framework developed a calculation to anticipate if a prospect would purchase or not just founded on the words they utilized in an online interaction.Let's progression back for a minute and enable this plan to soak in. What Cyrano's organization does is out and out uncommon. Generally, the group has shown a PC to decide the internal passionate conditions of an individual — including their probability of purchasing from you — all dependent on as meager as the words composed to a sales bot. Presently, simply envision how much better an AI's end rate may be in the event that it had significantly more information to use.

For a look at what's conceivable, meet Cheri Tree. Tree helped to establish Codebreaker Technologies, Inc. with Esther Wildenberg, the organization's leader. As Tree depicts in her book, Why They Buy, she grew up adoring the surge of sales — even minimal ones like those she made pitching snacks to her companions at life experience school. Nonetheless, she hit a stopping point in her youngster profession as a monetary consultant by following conventional sales guidance. "Specialists will disclose to you sales is a numbers amusement," says Tree. "They state so as to get more yeses, you need to get more nos. I state that is one of the best legends at any point advised in light of the fact that the fact of the matter is to get more yeses you need to get more yeses, not more nos."

The following legitimate inquiry would be: So how could you get those yeses?

To answer this, Tree designed a logically approved appraisal procedure called B.A.N.K.; it has been included at the absolute biggest business gatherings around the globe, at Harvard University, and has been sponsored by research from San Francisco State University. "You may as of now be comfortable with Disk or MBTI," says Tree. "I basically figured out identity science and instead of structure it utilizing brain science, I assembled it utilizing BUYology, the investigation of purchasing conduct. Rather than surveying your identity, I constructed an appraisal dependent on who your client, depends on four identity types: Blueprint, Action, Nurturing and Knowledge. Our attention is on why they purchase and what triggers the yes and tripwires the no."

Drawing on a similar acknowledgment as Sandland, Tree perceived the key to sales includes correspondence authority. Shunning the common universality proposing a salesperson needs to just chip away at their introduction, Tree perceived the Dale Carnegie-esque truth that Sandland's sympathy driven bots flourish with: sales happen most every now and again when the qualities between a purchaser and dealer are adjusted. She often refers to an examination done by the Chally Group that just 18 percent of purchasers will purchase from a salesperson who doesn't coordinate the purchaser's identity type versus a 82 percent achievement rate when identity types are adjusted. Coming up short on the empathic authority shown by Cyrano's A.I. bots, many failing to meet expectations salespeople, in this way, end up rehashing a similar message, trusting the sheer number of endeavors will yield constructive outcomes and exposing themselves to the notorious numbers diversion.

As any veteran cold-guest will bear witness to, following a numbers approach can be productive — yet in addition tedious and crippling. Why trouble, asks Tree when you can alternate route the procedure and increase better outcomes (as much as 300% or higher) by realizing your prospect better. "The B.A.N.K. framework depends on an esteem framework," says Tree. "You can't simply consequently realize what somebody esteems. You can positively make suppositions, yet why B.A.N.K. has been so ground-breaking for sales is that it uncovers the needs of its prospects."

As of not long ago, Tree and her numerous followers have had the capacity to decide the purchasing propensities for their prospects inside 90 seconds by utilizing a card framework. In the case of gathering eye to eye or taking a snappy online appraisal, prospects are allowed the chance to choose which of the four identity types best speak to them arranged by significance. They can choose in the event that they see themselves as somebody who organizes steadiness and structure (Blueprint), a full-speed-ahead mover/shaker daring person, (Action), a warm and amicable relationship-driven sort (Nurturing), or an explanatory, legitimate mastermind (Knowledge).

"We found each client isn't only one of these four, they're really a mix of every one of the four," says Tree. "Along these lines, every individual has their very own B.A.N.K. code. Think about a B.A.N.K. code like a PIN code to your charge card. Each human has a four-digit B.A.N.K. code. Eventually, there are 24 mixes, which implies the normal salesperson has about a 4 percent shot of addressing their client in their careful code — which isn't exceptionally high."

B.A.N.K. Code tries to significantly expand sales adequacy from a troubling 4 percent to something a lot higher, which is the place Cyrano comes in. Inside the previous year, Sandland and Tree have joined to make DAVINCI. Fueled by Cyrano and educated by Tree's identity technique, it will be the world's first advanced specialist fit for unraveling a prospect's code. Utilizing an exclusive calculation, it can foresee an individual's purchasing conduct in nanoseconds.

"Here's a case of how this functions," says Sandland. "Envision you have been seeking a prospect for quite a while. DAVINCI can take a bunch of messages this individual has thought of you and with a push of a catch decide this present individual's code. In any case, that is not all. It can even prescribe how to tailor your composed reactions in order to best line up with your prospect's qualities. For instance, after I've composed my answer email, the framework can let me know whether I'm talking my client's language. In case I'm not, it will consequently disclose to me how to modify the email like the way A.I. autocompletes sentences."

This sort of A.I.- helped sales direction just indicates the future of DAVINCI's offerings. At this moment, it's being taken off to examine content, yet it will likewise work with voice information and video. In time, its advanced examination will include handfuls more measurements, estimating numerous parts of identity to best figure out what will at last lead to a yes. In light of these capacities, both Sandland and Tree concur PCs will before long beat the best salespeople. Past the straightforward actuality, AI is unequipped for having a self image or becoming exhausted of an extensive sales experience, it is enriched with a tremendous database of inquiries, answers, and reactions it has collected after some time. Accordingly, it can attract on memorable examples to decide the best game-plan. Or then again to utilize another abbreviation — A.B.C. — the one Alec Baldwin's character utilizes in the motion picture, Glengarry Glen Ross, AIs can truly "Dependably Be Closing."

Coming back to the subject of computerization raised toward the start of this article, does the rise of DAVINCI port