#Faith-driven acts of service

[mindfulldsliving]

Discovering Your Purpose in God’s Work: Insights from Joseph Smith — History 1:27–33

NOTE TO READER: Be sure to download the PDF document attached at the end of this post. It includes the content of the post along with a study guide using the inductive scripture study method. Please consider making a donation by leaving a tip as a thank you for the study guide. Latter-day Saint Christians possess a unique role where the Gospel of Jesus Christ invites all people to come unto…

[livechristcentered]

Unleashing Unshakeable Faith: Lessons from Acts 4

Let’s embark on an inspiring journey through the pages of Acts 4. Join me as I delve into the remarkable story of Peter and John, their unwavering faith, and the lessons we can learn from their bold witness in the face of opposition. Get ready to be empowered and encouraged as we uncover the secrets to embracing an unshakeable faith. Lesson 1: Unleashing Our Unshakeable Faith In life, we often…

[smallgodseries]

Those who take the most benefit from her presence, and from the presence of her faithful, are the least likely to admit that she exists.  They take for granted all the little ways in which her followers make their lives better, and resent or ignore the big ones.  How dare anyone imply that they can’t take care of themselves, even when they don’t.  How dare anyone act as if they move through life on an easier difficulty level than the people around them, even though they do.

How dare.

Violet is always there, watching, silent and withdrawn, doing her best to make the world as easy as she possibly can, because she doesn’t know any other way to be.  She has benefitting others at the expense of herself ground into her very being, driven deep by centuries of silent worship and casual assumptions.  She does the best she can.  She does so much more than she will ever understand.  Without her, the heavens would collapse under their own unfinished tasks, the empires of man would crumble due to conversations unfinished and problems unconfronted.

The tears of her faithful are the grease in the cogs of the universe, and it isn’t fair, and it isn’t right, but it is as it is, ever and always.

Or perhaps not.

There are those who say that Violet’s rage has been growing.  That she has been recognizing and acknowledging the unfairness of her portfolio, and the mistreatment of her faithful.

There are those who say that revolution is coming, and that what it destroys was corrupt from the beginning, and deserves the coming fall.

Perhaps they are right.  Perhaps this long and silent service is finally coming to an end.

Perhaps not.

Violet isn’t saying.

[galene-gothic]

𝖶𝗁𝗈 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 ?

୧ ‧₊˚ ⋅* ‧₊ I hope this reading found you in good health, every reblog is appreciated and thank you for everything :) ˖♡ ˎˊ˗ ꒰ 🐇 ꒱

˗ˏˋ༻ʚ♡︎ɞ༺ˎˊ˗             PAID SERVICES

⸼ ۫ ︎︎⊹ ! 🪡︎ Pile 1 ꒱

This person triggers your childhood issues by making you relive certain patterns. They likely had a messed up childhood too though. When you first met this person, you might've had a lot of dreams including them. As you started getting to know them, the more attached you grew, to the point of obsession actually. This person is neglecting their inner child. They daydream a lot in general and I think after the both of you seperated, maladaptive daydreaming became a coping mechanism for them. They seem to be insecure about themself and their image. Especially, now more than ever because they might have thought that you'd stick by their side forever but you chose to walk away. They're emotionally immature and act really childish and when I say that I do not mean that they act like a child, I mean that they lack the ability and understanding to deal with matters in a way a healthy adult does. Likely, because they're unhealed, they're also very sensitive towards their emotions but when it comes to yours, they neglected it completely. If this person is still in your life, you need to burn the bridge, the way they're acting is helping it burn anyway 💀. They have a tendency to reject your emotions, "I felt hurt because of what you said" "You do not understand me, I was just joking and I'm going through a hard time please just leave me the fuck alone." This person invented the concept of 'hurt people, hurt people', they're emotionally wounded and wound everyone around them, then, they sit there and go "everyone leaves me". They tend to take simple confrontation as a direct attack on them. They likely treated you like trash and were unaware of the consequences. They see you as someone who lacks direction and self control. They also think that you're kind of pushy. They think that you have some sort of a strong conflict with them. They think that you're arrogant even though you are not all that. Honestly, you might've acted really humble with them, downplaying yourself and your accomplishments with them so that they didn't feel insecure but on the inside, you were and are actually pretty strong. They think that you question life's purpose a lot. They think that you fear change. You might have had a strong foundation with them so they still have some amount of faith that you'll go back into their life. I'm getting that they can either see or feel that you're starting fresh and they haven't come in terms with it yet. The kind of energy I'm getting is.

Just an example, by the way, supposing you've been friends with someone since you were in middle-school, even when you're in college, they cannot let go of that image of you even though you've changed a lot. They think that you're someone who fears change but they can see or feel that you're stepping into an evolved version of yourself. When they were in your life, you might've been a person who clinged onto the past and they still want to think that you're like that but they have a small fear of like "what if they're actually changing?" They think that you act really irrational sometimes even though I think that you were often driven to the point of irrationality. They seem to expect a lot from you without giving you anything because you've always given them a lot for free. They think that you refuse to see things as they are, even though they seem to be the person doing it right now. They think that you act passive aggressive. Even though, everytime you tried to talk to them in a mature manner, they just shut you down. They're thinking about how they lashed out and hurt your feelings. I'm getting that now that you're gone, they're starting to look at you through a different lens. Before, they looked at you through the '___ will never leave anyway' kinda way but now they're looking at you through rose-tinted glasses. "Damn, they treated me so well but that's how I treated them." They feel a lot of guilt towards you. They still find it unreal that you let go of them. They just cannot accept it. They don't really talk to anyone about what happened. Maybe, their friends, etc. don't really know you, you might've been a secret to them. This is upsetting, to be honest. They have mixed feelings and thoughts, while they think and believe that you are not over them, that you'll be back, they're starting to feel like maybe this time you actually won't come back. You might have a history of leaving this person and going back to them, again and again. They have a feeling that you're focusing on your life purpose and think that you might've found a new hobby or are just focused on improving yourself, your art, getting an education, etc. They also think that you're healing right now. They kind of know that you've had enough of their shirt, they think that you're managing your emotions and staying true to yourself. They think that you're focused on peace. For some of you, they think that you're just with someone else right now but once you guys split, you'll go back to this person again.

They sometimes just go 'what if ___ thinks I'm good riddance?' and you probably do think that way. They assume that you think that the both of you had a good foundation. They kind of believe that you'll be back because of how strong that foundation was, even though that faith is starting to shake now. I think the both of you were pretty comfortable with each other until it was not possible anymore. They think that you felt like your investment of love, time and energy was worth it but things have changed now. They think that you're probably really disappointed at them and also at the situation. They know that they made you feel really sad, pretty much abandoned. They think that they made you feel emotionally unstable and lonely. They think that you're likely still processing it. They wonder if you're happy with where you're at right now because they seem to have treated you really bad. They're mentally overwhelmed. They have kind of taken the loss. There was a lack of proper communication. They barely even have the energy to think. They feel confused though. They're struggling to let go because you added a lot of support and value into their life. They regret not listening to you. They find themself stressing about this situation but they choose to have faith that you'll go back to them. My advice is that you stay away from them but the decision is up to you ofcourse. They feel like you're the kind of relationship that goes through thick and thin together, even though, you were the only one going through all of it. You awakened something in them. They were shallow and had a character/spiritual poverty but they're starting to come out of it, thanks to you. I think, since guilt is the only thing that they can feel close to you, they're holding it very close but now they're trying to forgive and accept themself and the situation. They feel like they were very difficult and disagreeable with you. They know that they acted unworthy of your trust. They're actually feeling really weak and needy right now. They remember you as someone who was really struggling and was stuck in a cycle with them. They also remember you as a really loving person though. They remember how trustworthy and supportive you always proved to be. They remember you as someone kind of free who was maybe kind of non-committal but they also remember that your loyalty towards them was very strong. They reminisce about the days when you used to talk all night.

⸼ ۫ ︎︎⊹ ! 🪡︎ Pile 2 ꒱

They have a tendency to overspend. They're shedding their old skin. They're generous and giving towards others. They're kind of possessive of the ones they want though. What I'm getting is that this person was protecting themself to the point you had to walk away from them. They're someone who has a structured routine. They're structuring and strategising their next moves towards you but they feel like the responsibilities that they'll have to take will be really heavy. They were very defensive which caused you to believe that they do not feel anything towards you, I just heard 'apathy'. They're daydreaming a lot about you. They're not being able to see the bright side when it comes to this situation. I'm not sure what happened but they regret whatever happened. Maybe, they didn't make their decision quick enough, they chose someone else but what I'm getting is that they were in fact stringing you along. They wonder what things would've been like if they were willing and able to grow up. They remember you in a very nostalgic way. They seem tired of everything. You might even think that they acted very ungrateful but maybe because this person didn't really promise anything to you, you're not thinking about it too much. You are likely like "I wanted to give ___ to them so I did, while I feel like I wasted it, it's alright". You're not the kind of person who makes noise just because you spent money, time or energy on someone and things didn't work out. They feel like they kept you around for their own personal needs. This person might've been one of the people who used to thrive off of having options and they're starting to realise that it was detrimental. They feel like they acted really cold and closed off towards you. They enjoyed it when you used to reach out to them, you used to give them a lot attention even though they did not return the same to you. It made them feel superior. They're starting to realise that it was kinda manipulative and harsh of them.

They were playing stupid games and they won stupid prizes. They feel like they might have judged you too harshly too. They're feeling kind of trapped. They feel like you've let go or are letting go. They feel like you often put them first in the past. They think that they made you feel really insecure at some point. They see you as someone who's accepting of other people's differences. They see you as someone loyal, atleast towards them. They think that you empathise with others and try to be understanding towards them. They feel like you are loving and interested in giving and receiving love. They're not feeling stable within themself. They're feeling impatient to the point of recklessness, if they're not acting reckless in front of you right now, which I feel like you don't give them the chance to act, they are doing things by themself that are kinda reckless. The thing is, this person is not able to do anything long term. I recommend that you stay away from them but it's ultimately your choice at the end of the day. They are still feeling and acting very selfish. I'm not getting that they feel any guilt, they just regret what they did because you don't give them energy anymore. They are commitment phobic and pretty fixed on staying single, no matter how many hearts they have broken and will continue breaking doesn't matter to them at all. They want you back in their life but it's just for this selfish cause. They'll likely make empty promises if you do re-enter their life. They think that you see them as someone who's just not ready to commit. They think that you think that they're neglectful of other's especially your needs. They think that you think that they fear commitment and don't face your emotions. They think that you see them as someone who lacks communication skills and is unwilling to communicate. They think that you see them as someone immature and someone who fears abandonment. They'll likely not come forward and you should move on.

⸼ ۫ ︎︎⊹ ! 🪡︎ Pile 3 ꒱

This person is maturing and growing. The energy I'm getting is that you've seen them when they were not as mature too. Maybe, an ex friend or an ex lover who left the hometown for college or work. There's an energy of seeing each other grow up or something. Even though, they've let go of the past, they haven't really. They look at life and especially, you through rose tinted glasses. I'm not getting that you are on good terms though. They feel homesick and want to go back to how things were. I'm getting that it was probably a platonic connection though. Coming across anything that reminds them of you, stirs up their emotions. They're worried that the grudges that might be present in the connection are still there. You might have recently met them in some sort of a reunion and maybe it was awkward or you might've received an invitation to a reunion or to hang out and they might be invited too. You've likely known them since your childhood or teenage days though. You guys had a lot of fun together. 'Ditto' by newjeans started playing. The both of you didn't have a hard time accepting and working with your differences. You used to feel so safe and happy with each other. I'm definitely getting something that was long term though, maybe you were in the same friendgroup for years or know each other since childhood. You were emotionally content with each other. I'm definitely getting a community-like vibe, same school, town, neighbourhood, etc. They are thinking about you because when you were having a lot of chaos in your life, they added more to it and didn't support you.

They're thinking about how you've suddenly changed. I think they basically did everything to make you feel less than and when you chose to stand up for yourself. You ended up coming off kinda aggressive and they chose to use that against you too. They're thinking about how bad your mental health must've been at that time. They think that you've developed a 'i ain't taking anyone's shit' attitude. They were triggered to think about their behaviour when things fell off with a man, it could be their homie, boyfriend or whatever but the man acted very immature which caused them to think about the way they acted with you. They think that they were being quick to anger when it comes to you which caused them to come off as unreliable. They were being very manipulative and they're aware of it. I'm getting that for whatever reason, you're not around any of the people who remind you of them but for them, the people they're around likely bring you up a lot and they do the same too. I'm getting an ex friend group vibe. When they're having fun with their friends or literally just meeting them, they end up thinking about how you used to be there too. They recently met or talked to someone and were reminded of you, probably because the other person brought you up. I think the main issue here was envy. They think that you're someone seductive and you attract the gender that they're interested in. If they are not a friend but a romantic interest, then they were jealous and upset about the options that you had. Maybe, they didn't attract as many people as you did or atleast that's what they thought.

They think that you're someone who gets whatever they want. They might think that you're kind of childish too. I feel like, you were childish in the past but aren't anymore though. They think that you're self-reliant and don't need them. They think that you're wise and elegant. They think that you can treat yourself now. They think that you're kind of happy and content without them. They think that you're successful in certain areas. They see you as someone who's always growing, they don't understand how things are always going well for you. I just heard "she knows how to talk to guys" 💀. They think that you take action towards the things that you want. They feel like things have grown distant between the both of you and it's ruined to the point of no repair. The thing is, you seem to having a good life, things seem to be working for you while they feel like it's not the same for them. They compare themself to you a lot. They feel kind of defensive too because they think that you're happy and content without them. They feel like you don't need them anymore. They think that you've not gotten over what they did to you, the negative things, you'll never be able to get over it, even if you do forgive them, you'll never be able to trust and love them again, that's what they think. They wonder how you feel towards them, they think that you do feel nostalgic when thinking about them. They also think that if they do reach out to you, you'll not make any rash decisions. They think that you'll prefer having more information about them before making any decision. They think that you might even outright tell them that you've let go of them.

[blakeswritingimagines]

Life With Yandere Logan Howlett

He has to stay lowkey most of the time. He protects his darling without you even knowing. He's more of a guardian angel, he makes sure you are always safe.

He can exhibit controlling behavior and have difficulty respecting boundaries. He may engage in stalking and surveillance, monitoring your every move to ensure your safety and whereabouts. He may also be fiercely protective and territorial, making sure no one else comes close to you. Additionally, his jealousy can be extreme and can lead to outbursts of anger and violence to keep you all to himself.

But when the object of his affection is near, he transforms into a warm, caring, and gentle companion, showering them with affection and attention. He becomes dedicated and loyal, always willing to go to great lengths to make you happy. His yandere behavior is driven by intense love and devotion, and he often struggles to control his emotional swings and impulsive actions.

He may experience strong insecurities and fears of rejection, leading to his possessiveness and stalking behavior. His self-esteem can be fragile, resulting in his overprotective and controlling tendencies. Additionally, he may exhibit mood swings and outbursts of anger or jealousy. However, his love for you is genuine and deep, often stemming from past traumas or feelings of abandonment.

He displays obsessive and compulsive behaviors, such as excessive gift-giving, constantly seeking your approval, and an inability to let go. He may also become possessive of objects connected to you and seek to control your interactions with others to protect his idealized version of the relationship. Ultimately, his yandere behavior stems from deep-seated emotional issues and a desire for complete control over the relationship.

He may harbor past traumas of betrayal, abandonment, or rejection, which fuel his possessiveness and fear of losing you. His protective and controlling behaviors can stem from a desire to prevent further heartbreak. He likely struggles with trust issues due to past experiences, leading him to question your loyalty and intentions. This, in turn, fuels his intense jealousy and insecurity.

Despite his flaws and possessiveness, he can be loving and fiercely protective of you. He genuinely cares for your well-being and makes sacrifices to keep you safe. His devotion is unwavering, and his love is intense. However, he struggles to balance his love and possessive nature, often needing support to manage his emotions and maintain a healthy relationship.

He may exhibit a sense of entitlement, believing you belong to him alone and should reciprocate his feelings unconditionally. He can be unpredictable, shifting from intense anger to deep love, leaving those around him feeling both loved and anxious. Moreover, he may have a twisted notion of love, merging possessiveness with affection. Despite his flaws, he yearns for a life of love and acceptance.

His love language may be rooted in acts of service, where he goes above and beyond to show he cares. He may surprise you with thoughtful gestures, like leaving surprise notes or showing up unexpectedly to spend time with you.

He is intensely faithful and loyal, always by your side regardless of circumstance. He showers you with attention and affection, cherishing every moment together. Despite his possessive tendencies, he genuinely cares for your well-being, and his extreme protectiveness ensures your safety. He can be a comforting presence, always there to support and encourage you.

He can be a caring and compassionate partner, always willing to lend a listening ear and offer a comforting embrace when you need it. His possessive behavior often stems from a place of love and a desire to protect you from harm. Despite his jealous tendencies, he can be fiercely loyal and devoted to you, always standing by your side through thick and thin.

Additionally, his extreme protectiveness means that he will go to great lengths to ensure your safety and well-being. Underneath his possessive behavior is a deep love and devotion that can be both comforting and overwhelming.

He can be a pillar of emotional support, offering a strong shoulder to lean on during tough times. He may have an innocent and childlike side, with a knack for making you laugh and lightening the mood. His loyalty and dedication make him a reliable partner who will stand by your side through every twist and turn.

He can be exceptionally romantic, going above and beyond to demonstrate his love and affection. He may possess a sensitive and artistic side, expressing his feelings through poetry or creative endeavors. Additionally, his passion and intensity can be infectious, making you feel cherished and desired.

In short, his life is a cycle of love, obsession, and potentially dangerous and extreme behavior in the name of protecting and possessing the one he loves. His emotions are intense, and his decision-making can be impulsive and driven by his love rather than reason.

[superbrieflightstudentlove]

Padmé Amidala’s Fantasy-Driven Love for Anakin Skywalker

“Her life before Anakin belonged to someone else, some lesser being to be pitied, some poor impoverished spirit who could never suspect how profoundly life should be lived.

Her real life began the first time she looked into Anakin Skywalker’s eyes and found in there not the uncritical worship of little Annie from Tatooine, but the direct, unashamed, smoldering passion of a powerful Jedi: a young man, to be sure, but every centimeter a man - a man whose legend was already growing within the Jedi Order and beyond. A man who knew exactly what he wanted and was honest enough to simply ask for it; a man strong enough to unroll his deepest feelings before her without fear and without shame. A man who had loved her for a decade, with faithful and patient heart, while he waited for the act of destiny he was sure would someday open her own heart to the fire in his.

But though she loves her husband without reservation, love does not blind her to his faults. She is older than he, and wise enough to understand him better than he does himself. He is not a perfect man: he is prideful, and moody, and quick to anger - but these faults only make her love him the more, for his every flaw is more than balanced by the greatness within him, his capacity for joy and cleansing laughter, his extraordinary generosity of spirit, his passionate devotion not only to her but also in the service of every living being.

He is a wild creature that has come gently to her hand, a vine tiger purring against her cheek. Every softness of his touch, every kind glance or loving word is a small miracle in itself. How can she not be grateful for such gifts?”

From the novelization of RotS.

Padmé Amidala’s inner monologue from the Revenge of the Sith novelization offers a fascinating but deeply flawed insight into her perspective, exposing glaring inconsistencies in her character and worldview. While Padmé is often portrayed as an empathetic and wise leader, her thoughts here betray a sense of immaturity, condescension, and a disturbing romanticization of Anakin’s deeply problematic behavior.

Condescension and Elitism

Padmé’s reflection on her life before Anakin is alarmingly dismissive of not only herself but also the people she claimed to serve. Describing her previous existence as belonging to "some lesser being to be pitied, some poor impoverished spirit," she inadvertently exposes a deep-seated elitism. This sentiment starkly contrasts with her public image as a compassionate leader devoted to uplifting the disenfranchised. Her words betray an inherent belief in her own superiority, rooted in her privilege as Naboo nobility, which feels jarringly disconnected from her political career as a champion of the underprivileged.

By referring to others as “poor impoverished spirits,” Padmé reduces the lived experiences of countless beings across the galaxy to pitiable, shallow existences, implicitly suggesting that they lack the capacity to truly understand life’s profundities. Such condescension undermines her credibility as an empathetic leader who is supposed to value all lives equally. For someone who ostensibly devoted herself to serving the needs of the downtrodden, these thoughts suggest a deep-seated disconnect from the very people she claims to represent. How can someone who views the galaxy’s poor as "lesser beings" genuinely champion their rights? Her compassion, as implied by these musings, is framed not as equality but as an almost victorian noblesse oblige, a patronizing obligation to protect those she implicitly considers beneath her.

Condescension Towards Anakin

Padmé’s description of Anakin as someone she understands better than he understands himself is patronizing at best and dismissive of his autonomy at worst. While it is true that she is older than Anakin and likely more experienced, her framing positions herself as his intellectual and emotional superior, diminishing him to a wild, untamed creature she has tamed through her grace and love.

Referring to him as a "vine tiger purring against her cheek" infantilizes and romanticizes him in equal measure, echoing an unhealthy dynamic where she both elevates and diminishes him simultaneously, reducing him to a being she controls rather than a partner she respects as an equal. This language strips Anakin of complexity and humanity, framing him as a prize she has won rather than a partner of the same standing as she.

She views him almost as a project—someone she must guide and “fix.” This attitude not only undermines the mutual respect required in a healthy relationship but also sets her up as an idealized, almost maternal figure in Anakin’s life, which is problematic given his apparent yearning for a nurturing presence to replace his mother and his well-documented struggles with emotional regulation, anger, and trauma.

Instead of addressing these issues with the seriousness they deserve, Padmé romanticizes his volatility, viewing his faults as charming quirks rather than dangerous red flags. Instead she positions herself as a benevolent overseer of Anakin's flaws as endearing traits she is uniquely equipped to handle. This naïve approach not only undermines her judgment but also places her in harm's way, as evidenced by his eventual violent actions toward her.

Immaturity and Naivety

For a 27-year-old woman who has spent years navigating the intricacies of politics and war, Padmé’s thoughts read more like the diary of a lovestruck teenager than the reflections of a seasoned leader. Her infatuation with Anakin’s “smoldering passion” and the “fire in his eyes” feels shallow and disproportionate, especially considering the stakes of their relationship at this point in the story. She is on the verge of giving birth during a galactic war, yet her focus remains on idealizing a man who has already demonstrated significant moral and ethical failings.

This immaturity is further highlighted by her dismissal of Anakin’s violent tendencies and inability to handle rejection or criticism. She acknowledges his pride, moodiness, and quick temper, yet brushes them aside as minor flaws overshadowed by his supposed “greatness.” This blind devotion prevents her from confronting the reality of Anakin’s descent into darkness, instead choosing to cling to a fantasy of who she wants him to be.

Romanticizing Unhealthy Behavior

Padmé’s belief that Anakin has loved her faithfully for a decade borders on absurdity when one considers the context. Anakin was a nine-year-old child when they first met, a child incapable of comprehending romantic love in a meaningful way. His “love” for her at that age was more akin to hero worship or a childhood crush. His fixation on her during the intervening years is less a testament to his devotion and more indicative of an unhealthy obsession. By the time they reunite, Anakin is an emotionally stunted teenager with significant anger issues and a propensity for violence, as demonstrated by his massacre of the Tusken village.

Padmé’s dismissal of this atrocity, coupled with her romanticization of his flaws, reveals her inability to see Anakin for who he truly is. Instead, she projects onto him qualities he does not possess, such as a supposed “devotion to every living being,” which is blatantly contradicted by his actions. Anakin’s loyalty is limited to a small circle of people he cares about, and he is willing to sacrifice entire planets and populations to protect them. Far from being selfless, his actions are often driven by selfishness and a refusal to let go of those he loves.

Padmé’s inner thoughts in this passage are deeply problematic, exposing a condescending attitude toward others, an immature understanding of love, and a dangerous tendency to romanticize unhealthy behavior. Far from being the wise and compassionate leader she is often portrayed as, this depiction reveals her as naïve, elitist, and out of touch with reality. Her unwavering idealization of Anakin blinds her to his faults and enables his destructive behavior, ultimately contributing to the tragedy that unfolds. In this light, Padmé’s story becomes not just one of personal loss but also of the devastating consequences of failing to confront uncomfortable truths.

Her thoughts reveal that her attachment to Anakin is not rooted in a deep understanding or acceptance of who he truly is but rather in an idealized, almost fictionalized version of him. This essay explores the possibility that Padmé’s love for Anakin is based more on his physical attractiveness, status, and the thrilling fantasy he represents, rather than on a genuine emotional connection.

Infatuation with Power, Fame, and Status

Padmé’s admiration for Anakin’s physical appearance and reputation is evident in her thoughts:

“...the direct, unashamed, smoldering passion of a powerful Jedi: a young man, to be sure, but every centimeter a man— a man whose legend was already growing within the Jedi Order and beyond.”

This description emphasizes Anakin’s physical allure and his rising fame within the galaxy. Padmé appears captivated by his role as a Jedi hero and “the Chosen One,” as if these external attributes define his worth. Her fixation on his power and status raises questions about whether she would have been as drawn to him if he were an ordinary person without his heroic image.

Anakin’s role in the Clone Wars as a celebrated warrior likely amplified this allure. To Padmé, his deeds on the battlefield and his “larger-than-life” persona may have symbolized strength, protection, and excitement—qualities that fed into her romantic fantasy. However, this focus on external attributes creates a shallow foundation for their relationship, where Padmé values what Anakin represents rather than who he truly is.

Resistance to the Ordinary

Padmé’s reluctance to acknowledge the realities of her relationship and her insistence on secrecy reflect her fear of losing the fantasy she has built. By keeping their marriage a secret, Padmé avoids the mundane responsibilities that come with open commitment, especially as parents. This secrecy also ensures that Anakin remains in the Jedi Order, maintaining the illusion of him as the heroic “Chosen One” rather than an ordinary man.

Her hesitation to accept Anakin leaving the Jedi Order—despite his willingness to do so for her and their child—further underscores her attachment to his status. Without the prestige of his Jedi identity, Anakin would lose much of the mystique that fuels Padmé’s romanticized view of him. A life outside the Order, where Anakin might take on a humble, civilian role, would lack the excitement and grandeur she associates with their relationship.

The Fantasy of the Hero and the Damsel

Padmé’s perception of her relationship with Anakin resembles a narrative straight out of a teenage romantic novel. In this fantasy, she casts herself as the heroine, a damsel in distress rescued and cherished by a dashing knight in shining armor:

“Her real life began the first time she looked into Anakin Skywalker’s eyes..."

This statement diminishes her achievements and reduces her identity to being the object of Anakin’s affection. It also reveals her belief that her relationship with Anakin has elevated her life to a level of profound significance that others can only dream of. This is the crux of her fantasy: she views herself as living out a romantic narrative, one in which she is the main character and Anakin is the larger-than-life hero who completes her.

The thrill of their forbidden love, heightened by the secrecy and danger of the Clone Wars, making it feel like a dramatic, star-crossed love story rather than a grounded partnership, fuels this fantasy. Their brief, adrenaline-filled encounters allow Padmé to avoid confronting the complexities and flaws in their relationship. She seems more captivated by the excitement and drama of their circumstances than by Anakin himself.

What´s more, this perspective also reduces her to a passive figure whose identity revolves around her romantic connection. Padmé’s reflections diminish her own sense of agency and independence. By framing her life before Anakin as belonging to a "lesser being," she effectively erases her accomplishments as queen and senator. This framing reduces her identity to her relationship with Anakin, portraying her as a woman who finds her "real life" only through her husband. She views her pre-Anakin self—and by extension, the very people she claims to serve—as pitiable, as though her life only gained meaning through her relationship with a powerful man. This is particularly problematic given that Padmé is supposed to be a role model of strength and leadership. Her thoughts here make her seem more like a character in Anakin’s story than the protagonist of her own.

The Cost of Living in a Fantasy

Padmé’s refusal to wake from this romantic fantasy has far-reaching consequences. Her inability to confront the reality of Anakin’s flaws—his possessiveness, violent tendencies, moral compromises and growing obsession with power—allows his darker impulses to grow unchecked. When Anakin confesses to murdering the Tuskens, including women and children, Padmé rationalizes his actions rather than addressing the gravity of what he has done because acknowledging these realities would shatter her romantic illusion.

This denial extends to her pregnancy. Padmé’s insistence on keeping their relationship secret under the guise of duty to the common people of the galaxy and protecting Anakin’s position within the Jedi Order, even as she approaches the birth of their child, reveals a troubling prioritization of the romantic fantasy over practical concerns. A child would inevitably expose their relationship, yet Padmé continues to cling to the illusion that they can maintain their double lives. This decision suggests that Padmé values the drama and excitement of their forbidden love more than the stability and safety of their unborn child. The fantasy of being a romantic heroine takes precedence over her role as a mother.

This failure to confront reality not only endangers her but also their unborn children. Padmé’s prioritization of the fantasy over practical concerns means that her children are born into chaos, with no stable foundation or clear future. Her eventual death from heartbreak underscores the destructive power of her refusal to let go of the fantasy, as she chooses to die rather than face life without Anakin. This choice illustrates the ultimate consequence of clinging to an illusion: the loss of self, family, and the opportunity to create a meaningful legacy.

Conclusion

Padmé Amidala’s love for Anakin Skywalker, as depicted in the Revenge of the Sith novelization, is deeply rooted in an idealized fantasy. Her admiration for his physical attractiveness, fame, and status as a Jedi hero overshadows a genuine understanding of who he is. This fantasy-driven love blinds her to the flaws in their relationship and prevents her from confronting the responsibilities of motherhood and partnership.

Ultimately, Padmé’s refusal to let go of the romanticized narrative she has created not only undermines her character’s maturity but also contributes to the tragic downfall of both herself and Anakin. By clinging to an illusion, she sacrifices the opportunity to build a grounded, meaningful life for herself and her child. In doing so, her story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of idealizing relationships and clinging to illusions at the expense of truth and responsibility.

[alicentalicent]

Women’s Captivity - Alicent’s liberation in the context of her different prisons

Alicent’s liberation arc may seem rushed to some, too humiliating for others, maybe the ideas were there and the execution was not the best, perhaps it is a bit on the nose. But I think the themes explored so far are part of a bigger structure where Alicent becomes the vessel of all the roles a woman can be expected to perform in society. And in trying to find her freedom and extricate herself from the burden of being a woman, she could find both her liberation and her doom.

The concepts from this essay are taken from “Women's Captivity: mother-wives, nuns, whores, prisoners and madwomen” by Marcela Lagarde y de los Ríos. This is her doctoral thesis, a pioneering text in Women’s Anthropology that attempts to understand, with a feminist gaze, the conditions of women’s oppression and domination.

Translations are mine, the original text is in Spanish.

The generic condition of women has been built historically, and it’s one of the creations of patriarchal cultures and societies. Power defines the condition of women. And the condition of women is oppressive by the dependence, subjection, subalternity and willing servitude of women in relation to the world. It is also oppressive by defining women as lacking beings, capable of renouncing, whose basic attitude consists of being capable in every moment of consummating their surrender to others, and incapable of becoming autonomous. This difficulty of women to constitute themselves in subjects is called “learned impotence”.

Marcela Lagarde has named captivity this political-cultural expression of the condition of women. Women are captive of their condition in the patriarchal world, because they have been deprived of vital autonomy, agency, and the possibility of choosing and deciding over the fundamental facts of their lives and the world. This captivity is expressed in the lack of freedom, conceived as being protagonists in the social subjects of history, and the particular subjects in the society and culture.

There are few and defined ways of being a woman, and Lagarde groups them as follows:

The mother-wife: is a captivity built around the essential and positive definition of women: procreation, motherhood and conjugality. The erotism of the mother-wife vanishes to prioritize procreation. Mother-wife is  monogamous, virginal, good, faithful, chaste.

The whore: embodies the eros and denied feminine desire.Their being-of-others expresses itself in the availability (historically accomplished) to establish the vital bond while being used erotically by diverse men, which do not establish permanent bonds with them. Whore is the opposite of a mother-wife and her traits. 

The nun: simultaneously embodies the sacred denial of the mother-wife and the whore. Nuns do not procreate or bond with others through eroticism. But this mutilation finds its social realization through the sublimated conjugal bond with the divine power. That way they realize their femininity. The denial of the body and the eros, the renunciation and surrender define these women that abandon their protagonism and the direct benefit of their acts of service, instead giving them and themselves to others.

The prisoner: concretizes the generic prison, both material and subjectively; the household is a jail. And when they are prisoners in the literal sense, they are objectively re-imprisoned by the power institutions. Their crimes are an assault on what a woman should be, so their imprisonment sets an example to teach the rest of women.

The madwoman: they act the generic insanity of all women, whose paradigm is the masculine rationality. But madness is as well one of the cultural spaces that come from both the accomplishment and the transgression of femininity. Women are driven mad for being too much of a woman, or for not being enough of a woman, or to not be a woman. 

House, convent, brothel, prison and asylum are specific places where women are held captive. Society and culture compulsively make each woman take her place in one of these places, and sometimes more than one simultaneously. When women try to escape from captivity finding new types of life, they are evaluated within the rigid feminine stereotypes and if they do not conform, are classified as bad women, sick, incapable, weird, insane.”

Alicent and her captivities

It becomes pretty clear Alicent’s main captivity is being a mother-wife. Married at 15, without the chance to say no, her purpose in life became birthing the children of the King through marital rape she endured for years. She tried to embody all mother-wife traits: faithful, chaste, good, monogamous. She could not explore eroticism in this role, it was secondary to her main purpose of motherhood.

Then I would argue that when Viserys' sickness advanced, her marital duties changed from providing children to being the main caretaker of the King. Fulfilling her femininity through her acts of service and not through a sexual relation, like the Nun. She also poured herself into the Faith of the Seven, and by centering the divine power in her life, she tried to quench the guilt she felt about not being a better mother, or succumbing to anger (see: Driftmark), both failures on her duty as a mother-wife.

Once Viserys dies, Alicent turns to the eroticism and desire she couldn’t embody in her conjugal bond, becoming the Whore. Her short-lived relationship with Cole showed her that in trying to reclaim her body in this way, she only made herself available to be used erotically by a man that wanted her to maintain her place as a woman.

We see Alicent becoming more and more exhausted by her captivity, and that’s when she decides to go to the woods, the physicality of leaving the Red Keep giving her breathing space to visualize a life where she is free from these shackles. I could write an entirely different essay focusing on her relationship with Rhaenyra and what those feelings mean for her as a person, as a woman. But for now I just want to bask in the poetry of Alicent going to Rhaenyra instead of just running away, deciding to put her life on the line, in a final act of surrender. Is it really different, this captivity?

We know the Queen in Chains arc is coming, but we don’t know how it will play out. I think it could be categorically different in some ways. Alicent chose herself and her feelings, she wanted to go to the one person who loved her just for being who she is, not because of the role she performed in life. Maybe the captivity of being an actual prisoner during the Queen in Chains arc could give her a freedom she hasn’t experienced: not being bound to a duty, not being obligated to perform, and just be. Alicent has never been able to just be, and exist. I’m not really sure of any of this, I just enjoy thinking about the possibilities, and the subversion of what a regular imprisonment arc could be.

The final captivity is being the madwoman. We also know this is where Alicent's story ends, but I also think there’s a lot of room to interpret how she gets there, and how losing insanity could be a complete refusal from her to partake in society, once all the horrible things that will happen in the future play out. Not to mention that the bar to classify women as lunatics in medieval times was very very low. 

The most important part of what they're doing with Alicent’s liberation arc is that she is trying. If she is successful or not, we are yet to really see. But at least she is fighting against the “learned impotence” mentioned by Lagarde, she is trying to be an agent with voice, with the power to affect the tides–for better or for worse, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that she found that strength within her to resist. 

[warsofasoiaf]

Do you think it’s possible that Aerys was right about Tywin all along, that Tywin was not driven into opposition by Aerys’ madness, but rather Aerys became paranoid because he perceived Tywin was actually motivated by his own ego and lust for power, rather than any loyalty or good faith service to king and country?

A. Aerys’ real madness starts after Duskendale, which seems like Tywin might have provoked.  He seems like he really was just kind of temperamentally extreme in his early days, and years of dealing with Tywin plus the trauma of his captivity pushed him over the edge.  And most of the reports on his early behavior is filtered through characters with a pro-Lannister perspective, or hindsight confirmation bias, where they know how he ended up and thus recall ordinary displays of emotion or mistakes as early symptoms of madness. 

B. Most of Tywin’s credited actions as Hand seem to be just basically doing the job, not exactly any sort of heroic civic virtue.  The one apparently generous, not obviously self-interested, act of Tywin was paying off the Braavosi loans, but he didn’t give the crown the cash to meet its debts, he publicly took the debt himself, getting the glory & credit for patriotism and whatnot.  He receives Steffon, “his” boyhood “friend” & cousin to the king, on the Iron Throne. That feels like a power move to me. 

C. We see how he stage-manages the celebration of the crown’s victory at Blackwater, and it’s all about him, not polishing Joffrey’s image, or putting him forward as the Young Lion who defeated his evil uncle.  Tywin does not come in like a subject or supplicant or leal servant of the Iron Throne, he rides in, fully armored, as a conqueror, and Joffrey comes down to greet him.  Great for Tywin’s image, less great of a start for the reign of his grandson, or effacing the early PR blunders. I can’t imagine he was more generous to the king who was no kin of his. 

What if Ilyn Payne was basically just repeating the Lannister party line? Westermen don’t seem to act on their own post-Castamere, but Tywin likes sending proxies ahead of him, whether Kevan in council or Tyrion at court, or Gregor & Lorch in battle.  Maybe Ilyn Payne and others were actually voicing the notion that Tywin was actively promoting, that he was the one ruling in truth and Aerys was just his Merovingian King?  It seems to me that, per Varys’ riddle, getting people to believe you, and not the king, are the power behind the throne is a great way to make that perception the reality. And Aerys sees what is going on, isn’t really subtle or skilled at image stuff, and thus is poorly equipped to fight Tywin’s campaign effectively, so he lashes out with things like cutting out tongues and calling him a servant when rejecting a marriage proposal to put him in his place, and undermining his policies to make people accept that he is truly ruling. Tywin gets pissed, because how dare he not appreciate how awesome Tywin is, and Brer Rabbits him into a vulnerable position in Duskendale, from which the only effort he makes to save his king and supposed friend is to send in a lone, 40-year-old knight, while not even bothering to hide his preference for a young, presumably weaker, successor. 

I feel like if we read between the lines, and triangulate with Tywin’s entire life history which seems utterly lacking in indications of friendship, loyalty or patriotism, Aerys’ story is not just a random lunatic happening to be on the throne, but rather another example of how Tywin’s toxic approach to political pursuits blights the realm and causes misery.

What do you think of this theory?  I am asking in this format instead of the AMA for the, I think obvious, issue of character limits. Thank you.

I think there’s no character limit anymore, although that might be a settings thing.

Anyway, while I do think that’s a decent enough theory, I don’t think it sufficiently provable, for three reasons.

For one, Aerys was always prone to delusions and flights of fancy, even well before Tywin comes into the picture. While they were most often harmless, it could mean that negative experiences, like Duskendale, could set him off regardless of whether or not Tywin is involved.

For two, self-interest and house advancement is par for the course when it comes to court appointments. Why should we expect Tywin to act differently, and why shouldn’t we expect Aerys to act with irrationality toward any other person?

For three, I offer in contrast Tywin’s excellent handling and manipulation of the mountain clans in AGOT. So Tywin can clearly manipulate a situation and read it appropriately, particularly earlier on in the narrative where some of the more established character traits are not set (or contrarily, things that get corrected later on after further research such as Tyrion’s acrobatic ability). The Mad King was set up as such in the first book, which might cleave closer to Tywin’s first book framing than his second.

I think what you’ve said here enriches the discourse, certainly, but I don’t think it has enough evidence to be more likely than the interpretation that Aerys’s mental instability was not caused by Tywin’s toxic political monomania. But thank you for the contribution, it is quite good, Cannoli.

-SLAL 

[sparklesandpudding]

Can I get a fluff of Beelzebub with Dom!M!Reader? I want them as a married couple which the gods saw as strange because usually divine beings do not marry nor is faithful to their partner, i just need something sweet from my fav❤️

(Dom as in taking the leads in the relationship/the husband roles. I also just realize how many people asking for Beelzebub after scrolling through your acc and i was like- nahh i can't blame them but i do hope you're not uncomfortable writing the same character again😭)

Yes!!! 💕 I can, thank you for your request! I was getting bored doing nothing until I found this request and I am excited as hell to write 😌 I don't know whether this is headcanons or story since it isn't specified, so I'll do both.

Beelzebub × Dom!husband! reader

Story and (separate)hc's below! Story comes first, skip it if you want only the hcs. Note : I will still use the same (m/n) lore from all my beelzebub writings, which explains why he's unaffected by Beelzebub's curse - Here

Here's a free scrap pic btw!‼️↓

Mini story↓

Believe it or not, no matter what you do, divine beings just simply take what they want and leave. This has been shown multiple times (take zues for example). That is why many look away whenever catching the eye of a divine being is brought up.

But that doesn't matter now that you and Beelzebub are together. Your relationship together is basic proof of loyalty and love. Not just something driven by lust and beauty. Which even the gods found as odd.

What even drove your relationship to be so perfect? There are so many times where you two would get stares from them, many curious if it was really that perfect. There had to be some sort of sacrifice made..or maybe a few lives lost! Or one of you just wanted to use the other for his own benefit. But no. None of their guesses were right.

It was just pure love.

"hun, do you want anything? Water? Ice cream, maybe?" You spoke, your hand gently holding his own—Receiving a neutral look. "No, I'm fine." you gave him a hum, pretending to believe him, before speaking again, refusing to acknowledge that he was just 'fine'. "How about a piggy back ride? I can carry you." His face flushed in embarrassment, quickly avoiding your eyes.

"I said I'm fine."

"maybe you're cold? Have my jacket-"

"(m/n)!"

You chuckled nervously, realizing that you may have went too overboard with the acts of service. But you took good pride being his husband, there is nothing wrong with caring about your male wife. "Sorry hun, I'm very sorry." With a gentle kiss on his face, you proceeded to stroll with him, hand in hand. Oblivious to the steam that came out of his ears from all the love bombing.

Both of you unaware to the watchful eyes of odin, who had witnessed the whole thing go down, deciding to continue walking and ignore it. Jeez, younglings these days, am I right? Young love really was true.

----

"you are so beautiful, love"

Your voice echoed in his ears, a sweet whisper that never failed to put him to sleep. Your hands softly caressing his face, giving him eyes that could only be described as adoration and love. The most beautiful thing he's ever seen. "Love, I'll do all the laundry tomorrow, okay? You just lay down and rest." The voice continued, leaving him to relax better. "You don't need to.."

"Nonsense, I'll do it for you. Then I'll treat you to dinner, okay?"

His face heated up when he felt another soft kiss being planted on his lips, only encouraging him to let go, and give in to all his desires. You felt him cuddle into you even more, not wanting to leave any space for even a molecule— making you chuckle and plant another kiss on him. He felt your face bury into his neck, inhaling his scent while you embraced his body tighter. "I don't deserve you" he whispered, only to receive a small bite on his neck.

"that should be my line."

!Headcanons!

- being given the care that he so longed for, Beelzebub secretly enjoys how you coddle him so much. Even if he's so closed off from others, you are the only exception that he was willing to open up to.

- both of you would always be seen hand in hand together, like you and him were in your own little bubble of love. A mini haven, just for the two of you.

- beings of divine status, would only take, and then leave once they've gotten what they've came for. Which is lust, or other things.

- you were one hell of a protective mf whenever it came to Beelzebub. Any threat towards your relationship would vanish from the face all realms combined.

- I just know that Beelzebub is secretly a very jealous typa person whenever it comes to you. As much as he seems so nonchalant, he doesn't like it when your attention is somewhere else. Because c'mon, don't you love him?

- Whenever there's a little puddle, you'd throw your coat over the puddle, just so that he could walk without disturbances. Ignore the huge space beside the puddle, (which you both could have literally just walked on to avoid the wet space.)

- he was flabbergasted when he saw you commit such an act. Just for him.

- you'd carry him when you thought he was tired...even though his ears only perked up. You would immediately rush him to the medical room if he showed the littlest signs of being hurt...and so much more.

- did I mention that you literally fought with ten dudes, bare handed, just because one of them hit on your spouse? What the hell?

- in bed, he would be a pillow princess. Not needing to do any work at all, just being given everything he wanted! He was envied by the nymphs that someone like him got to be with you. But you shook off his worries, telling him that you'd never leave him for any of them.

- your dates were always at the best places, his place was literally full of your gifts. You buy him clothes, pretty trinkets, mini gifts, and so much more.

- zues also randomly doodles ideas on what you and Beelzebub's kids would look like, after he spot you and him kissing. (He even got Hermes approval on the ideas being good💀)

- no no, because random imagine. I know you randomly give his butt a light smack here and there, even though he wasn't even that thick. You loved to give him flirty comments whenever he was jelly, or give him so much affection and attention to the point where he felt like he would melt.

- the ring you got him was especially beautiful. Your proposal was also in only the most beautiful areas there was to exist, you really loved him.

- Even with all his venting and breakdowns on rare occasions—you were always there for him. Ready to give him some hot chocolate, snacks, water, tissues, hugs- you get the point.

- you were literally perfect. Too perfect for him.

- yet you not once, EVER, showed signs of hating him. Whenever you were frustrated or upset, you never took it out on him. There was just so much about you that made you a saint in his lonely void of darkness.

- that gave him hope. That everything was not so bad after all....as long as he had you by his side.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Secret Service: "Use the Gate." Jimmy Carter: "Hold my Peanuts." Life is full of obstacles. Pres. Carter showed us how to jump them like a boss. RIP #JimmyCarter

* * * *

Jimmy Carter’s final gift to America.

December 29, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Dec 30, 2024

One of the most decent men ever to hold the office of President of the United States passed away in his 100th year on December 29, 2024. I am not a historian, so I will leave the assessment of his presidency and equally consequential post-presidency to others who are better equipped to make those judgments. But one does not need to be a historian or student of politics to know that President Jimmy Carter was a good man whose decency acted as a balm for a troubled nation following a time of crisis.

It impossible to reflect on Carter’s decency, humanity, and humility without experiencing a foreboding sense of dread about the lack of integrity and amorality of the incoming presidency. Many tributes make oblique references to that contrast. President and Dr. Jill Biden issued the following statement:

[T]o all of the young people in this nation and for anyone in search of what it means to live a life of purpose and meaning – the good life – study Jimmy Carter, a man of principle, faith, and humility. He showed that we are great nation because we are a good people – decent and honorable, courageous and compassionate, humble and strong.

If there is any lesson in the life and passing of President Carter, it is that we are a good people capable of electing good leaders. We should not surrender to a false sense of inevitability that lies and narcissism are permanent fixtures of the American political landscape.

Over the coming weeks, I will highlight commentary regarding President Carter that deserves the attention of readers of this newsletter, and I invite readers to use the Comment section to post links to non-paywalled articles.

As of Sunday evening, James Fallows has published a freely accessible version of an article he previously published in The Atlantic. See James Fallows, Breaking the News (Substack), Jimmy Carter: Unlucky President, Lucky Man.

Fallows’ article is a bracing reminder of how much has changed since Carter’s presidency. Fallows reminds us:

In office [Carter] also had the challenge of trying to govern a nearly ungovernable America: less than two years after its humiliating withdrawal from Saigon, in its first years of energy crisis and energy shortage, on the cusp of the “stagflation” that has made his era a symbol of economic dysfunction. It seems hard to believe now, but it’s true: The prime interest rate in 1980, the year Carter ran for reelection, exceeded 20 percent.

Imagine running for re-election when 20% interest rates put home ownership out of reach for all but the wealthiest Americans.

And the political landscape in 1980 is unrecognizable today:

The South was then the Democrats’ base, and the West Coast was hostile territory. Jimmy Carter swept all states of the old Confederacy except Virginia, and lost every state west of the Rockies except Hawaii. In Electoral College calculations, the GOP started by counting on California.

The Democrats held enormous majorities in both the Senate and the House. Carter griped about dealing with Congress, as all presidents do. But under Majority Leader Robert Byrd, the Democrats held 61 seats in the Senate through Carter’s time. In the House, under Speaker Tip O’Neill, they had a margin of nearly 150 seats (not a typo). The serious legislative dealmaking was among the Democrats.

Writer and journalist Steven Beschloss published a tribute to Jimmy Carter in America, America (Substack), Jimmy Carter's Enduring Humanity. Beschloss writes:

At a time when too much of our political sphere is poisoned by cruelty and hate and malignant narcissism—and where too many self-described Christians appear driven by grievance and self-righteous aggression—the good works of Jimmy Carter offer a refreshing antidote and a necessary reminder of the power of humanity.

Beschloss quotes Jimmy Carter on the role of immigrants in America’s tradition of service to others. Carter said,

America is the most diverse or heterogeneous nation, comprised primarily by immigrants who were not afraid of an unpredictable future in a strange land. Almost all of them had great need when they arrived here and were then inspired to be of help to others. This concept of service to others is still a crucial element in the American character and has always prevailed in overcoming challenges and correcting societal mistakes.

“Service to others” as a defining trait of an immigrant nation. The difference between Carter's and Trump's views regarding immigration could not be more stark.

There is much more to be said, but I would like to end on a personal recollection of the unfairness of media coverage of Carter’s presidency. I was in law school as Carter’s presidency sputtered and groaned under the weight of serial international crises: the oil crisis, the Iranian hostage crisis, and international recession.

Carter worked tirelessly to navigate crises that were beyond the control of any global leader. The media—recently emboldened and vindicated by reporting on the Watergate scandal—was merciless. For understandable reasons, the media no longer trusted American presidents. Journalists were keenly aware that the road to Pulitzers and lasting fame ran through aggressive reporting on the president.

Even when Carter did everything right, he could do nothing right—at least according to the media. When the media learned that Carter shooed away a swamp rabbit from his boat while fishing in a Georgia pond, the story became front-page news on the Washington Post, New York Times, and all three broadcast news networks—at a time when Carter was successfully negotiating the SALT treaty limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The “killer rabbit” story dominated major media outlet coverage for a week—often with the self-serving angle, “President Carter can’t shake bad press over the killer rabbit story.” Carter couldn’t shake bad press over the rabbit story because the media had settled on a negative narrative about Carter—and they wouldn’t let it go.

[Sigh. Even today, on the day of his passing, the NYTimes has an above-the-fold story, “That Time President Carter Was Menaced by a ‘Killer Rabbit’ - The New York Times.”]

Watergate broke journalism—and the profession has never recovered. As will become plain in the coming weeks, the re-assessment of Carter’s presidency will show that he was a strong president who accomplished great things. For example, the Camp David Accords created a framework for peace between Israel and Egypt that remains in place today.1

At the time, a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt seemed impossible. Carter achieved the impossible because sworn enemies put their trust in Jimmy Carter. Few presidents can claim an achievement solidly built on their universally recognized reputation for integrity.

President Jimmy Carter was a good and decent man whose presence elevated the office of the presidency.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[darkmaga-returns]

MIAMI, FL — In a legal confrontation with potential far-reaching implications, Floridian and head of The World Peace Through Education Foundation, Inc, William S. Scott has filed an appeal and petition for a Writ of Mandamus against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, targeting the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation/Trust (BMGF/Trust).

The appeal, case number 1:24-cv-24123-CMA (filing at end of article), is set before Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga, the first Female Cuban American Federal Judge, who presides over the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Her ruling on this appeal is anticipated in the coming days, adding to the urgency surrounding this case.Judge Cecilia Altonaga

Scott's legal action follows the IRS's rejection of his whistleblower claim on September 26, 2024. He alleges that the foundation has been engaged in for-profit activities under the guise of charity, stating, "Under the pretense of improving World Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation/Trust has been engaged in the promotion, manufacture and sale of Covid-19 vaccines that were not sufficiently tested for safety or for effectiveness for their intended use." He further asserts, "The claim that its efforts are charity are bogus and it has acted in bad faith."

[livechristcentered]

Unleashing Unshakeable Faith: Lessons from Acts 4

Let’s embark on an inspiring journey through the pages of Acts 4. Join me as I delve into the remarkable story of Peter and John, their unwavering faith, and the lessons we can learn from their bold witness in the face of opposition. Get ready to be empowered and encouraged as we uncover the secrets to embracing an unshakeable faith. Lesson 1: Unleashing Our Unshakeable Faith In life, we often…

[critical-skeptic]

Under QMAGA's Eye

Project 2025 is an audacious attempt by the conservative extreme right to solidify and expand their grip on American governance, driven by an alarming obsession with reshaping the country into a dystopian vision reminiscent of Gilead from "The Handmaid's Tale." This initiative is not just a policy blueprint; it is a manifesto that reveals the radical ambitions of a movement hell-bent on dismantling the progress made over decades in favor of a regressive, authoritarian future.

At its core, Project 2025 aims to entrench a conservative agenda through a comprehensive policy guide, a personnel database, training programs, and a detailed 180-day playbook designed to enact swift and sweeping changes. This project, spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, underscores a chilling strategy to fill key government positions with ideologically aligned individuals who will faithfully execute its regressive policies from day one of a new conservative administration.

The Parallels to Gilead

The policy prescriptions outlined in Project 2025 are disturbingly similar to the totalitarian regime depicted in Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale." The proposed measures to eliminate terms like "abortion" and "reproductive rights" from federal policies and the reinstatement of the Comstock Act to restrict mail-order abortions reveal a deep-seated desire to control women's bodies and reproductive choices. This is not just about policy; it's about rolling back fundamental rights and reducing women to state-controlled vessels, much like the Handmaids in Gilead.

Moreover, the call to defund Planned Parenthood and penalize providers of reproductive health services through Medicaid restructuring highlights a deliberate effort to dismantle the healthcare safety net that many rely on. The emphasis on "fertility awareness-based" contraception methods and the removal of condoms from preventative health guidelines further underscore an agenda that is more about ideological purity than public health.

The Authoritarian Blueprint

Project 2025's vision extends beyond social issues to a broader authoritarian restructuring of the government. The playbook for the first 180 days includes plans to dismantle the so-called "deep state" by purging perceived enemies within federal agencies and replacing them with loyalists. This is eerily reminiscent of purges seen in authoritarian regimes, where dissent is crushed, and only the faithful are allowed to wield power.

This project is not just about winning elections; it's about creating an environment where the conservative agenda can be implemented unchallenged. The training programs and personnel database aim to build a cadre of ideologically pure administrators who will implement these policies without question. This is a clear attempt to bypass the checks and balances that are fundamental to American democracy.

The Trump Factor

A second term for Donald Trump, especially under the guidance of Project 2025, would be catastrophic. In his first term, Trump was often seen as an unpredictable and chaotic leader, but this time, he would have a meticulously crafted blueprint and a network of loyalists ready to execute his vision. The country's current polarized state, combined with the advanced propaganda tools already in place, would make it much easier for Trump to push through his agenda with minimal resistance.

The international stage is also more destabilized now, and Trump's return would likely exacerbate global tensions. His administration's disregard for diplomatic norms and alliances would further isolate the United States, making it a rogue actor in an increasingly interconnected world.

The Call to Action

The stakes could not be higher. Project 2025 represents a clear and present danger to the principles of democracy, equality, and human rights. It is a call to arms for those who believe in a progressive, inclusive future to recognize the seriousness of this threat and mobilize against it. The potential for a second Trump term, empowered by this blueprint, would not just be a repeat of the past; it would be an acceleration towards a dystopian future where the most regressive elements of society hold sway.

In conclusion, Project 2025 is more than a conservative playbook; it is a radical manifesto with the potential to reshape America into a nightmarish vision of authoritarian control and social regression. The time to act is now, before this dark vision becomes a reality.

[mariacallous]

It no longer makes sense to speak of free speech in traditional terms. The internet has so transformed the nature of the speaker that the definition of speech itself has changed.

The new speech is governed by the allocation of virality. People cannot simply speak for themselves, for there is always a mysterious algorithm in the room that has independently set the volume of the speaker’s voice. If one is to be heard, one must speak in part to one’s human audience, in part to the algorithm. It is as if the US Constitution had required citizens to speak through actors or lawyers who answered to the Dutch East India Company, or some other large remote entity. What power should these intermediaries have? When the very logic of speech must shift in order for people to be heard, is that still free speech? This was not a problem foreseen in the law.

The time may be right for a legal and policy reset. US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning Section 230, the liability shield that enshrined the ad-driven internet. The self-reinforcing ramifications of a mere 26 words—“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”—has produced a social media ecosystem that is widely held to have had deleterious effects on both democracy and mental health.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with the famous quip about how you cannot fool all the people all the time. Perhaps you cannot, but perhaps the internet can. Imperfect speech has always existed, but the means and scale of amplification have not. The old situation cannot be the guide for the new.

Section 230 was created during a period when policy was being designed to unleash internet innovation, thereby maintaining America’s competitive edge in cyberspace. The early internet was supported by a variety of friendly policies, not just Section 230. For instance, sales arranged over the internet were often not taxed in early years. Furthermore, the internet was knowingly inaugurated in an incomplete state, lacking personal accounts, authentication mechanisms, commercial transaction standards, and many other needed elements. The thinking was not only that it was easier to get a minimal design started when computing power was still nascent, but also that the missing elements would be addressed by entrepreneurs. In effect, we were giving trillion-dollar gifts to parties unknown who would be the inevitable network-effect winners.

Section 230 was enacted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a larger legislative effort within the umbrella 1996 Telecommunications Act. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity for online services regarding user-generated content, ensuring the companies hosting content are not treated as publishers of this information. Section 230(c)(2) offers Good Samaritan protection from civil liability when the companies—or platforms, as we call them today—in good faith remove or moderate objectionable content.

After President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act into law, it was unclear how the courts might interpret it. When the dust cleared, Section 230 emerged as something of a double-edged sword. It could be used to justify censorship, and at the same time be deployed as a corporate liability shield. Most importantly, it provided the runway for the takeoff of Google, Twitter, and Facebook. (And now TikTok—which, being a Chinese company, proves that Section 230 no longer serves American interests.)

The impact on the public sphere has been, to say the least, substantial. In removing so much liability, Section 230 forced a certain sort of business plan into prominence, one based not on uniquely available information from a given service, but on the paid arbitration of access and influence. Thus, we ended up with the deceptively named “advertising” business model—and a whole society thrust into a 24/7 competition for attention. A polarized social media ecosystem. Recommender algorithms that mediate content and optimize for engagement. We have learned that humans are most engaged, at least from an algorithm’s point of view, by rapid-fire emotions related to fight-or-flight responses and other high-stakes interactions. In enabling the privatization of the public square, Section 230 has inadvertently rendered impossible deliberation between citizens who are supposed to be equal before the law. Perverse incentives promote cranky speech, which effectively suppresses thoughtful speech.

And then there is the economic imbalance. Internet platforms that rely on Section 230 tend to harvest personal data for their business goals without appropriate compensation. Even when data ought to be protected or prohibited by copyright or some other method, Section 230 often effectively places the onus on the violated party through the requirement of takedown notices. That switch in the order of events related to liability is comparable to the difference between opt-in and opt-out in privacy. It might seem like a technicality, but it is actually a massive difference that produces substantial harms. For example, workers in information-related industries such as local news have seen stark declines in economic success and prestige. Section 230 makes a world of data dignity functionally impossible.

To date, content moderation has too often been beholden to the quest for attention and engagement, regularly disregarding the stated corporate terms of service. Rules are often bent to maximize engagement through inflammation, which can mean doing harm to personal and societal well-being. The excuse is that this is not censorship, but is it really not? Arbitrary rules, doxing practices, and cancel culture have led to something hard to distinguish from censorship for the sober and well-meaning. At the same time, the amplification of incendiary free speech for bad actors encourages mob rule. All of this takes place under Section 230’s liability shield, which effectively gives tech companies carte blanche for a short-sighted version of self-serving behavior. Disdain for these companies—which found a way to be more than carriers, and yet not publishers—is the only thing everyone in America seems to agree on now.

Trading a known for an unknown is always terrifying, especially for those with the most to lose. Since at least some of Section 230’s network effects were anticipated at its inception, it should have had a sunset clause. It did not. Rather than focusing exclusively on the disruption that axing 26 words would spawn, it is useful to consider potential positive effects. When we imagine a post-230 world, we discover something surprising: a world of hope and renewal worth inhabiting.

In one sense, it’s already happening. Certain companies are taking steps on their own, right now, toward a post-230 future. YouTube, for instance, is diligently building alternative income streams to advertising, and top creators are getting more options for earning. Together, these voluntary moves suggest a different, more publisher-like self-concept. YouTube is ready for the post-230 era, it would seem. (On the other hand, a company like X, which leans hard into 230, has been destroying its value with astonishing velocity.) Plus, there have always been exceptions to Section 230. For instance, if someone enters private information, there are laws to protect it in some cases. That means dating websites, say, have the option of charging fees instead of relying on a 230-style business model. The existence of these exceptions suggests that more examples would appear in a post-230 world.

Let’s return to speech. One difference between speech before and after the internet was that the scale of the internet “weaponized” some instances of speech that would not have been as significant before. An individual yelling threats at someone in passing, for instance, is quite different from a million people yelling threats. This type of amplified, stochastic harassment has become a constant feature of our times—chilling speech—and it is possible that in a post-230 world, platforms would be compelled to prevent it. It is sometimes imagined that there are only two choices: a world of viral harassment or a world of top-down smothering of speech. But there is a third option: a world of speech in which viral harassment is tamped down but ideas are not. Defining this middle option will require some time to sort out, but it is doable without 230, just as it is possible to define the limits of viral financial transactions to make Ponzi schemes illegal.

With this accomplished, content moderation for companies would be a vastly simpler proposition. Companies need only uphold the First Amendment, and the courts would finally develop the precedents and tests to help them do that, rather than the onus of moderation being entirely on companies alone. The United States has more than 200 years of First Amendment jurisprudence that establishes categories of less protected speech—obscenity, defamation, incitement, fighting words—to build upon, and Section 230 has effectively impeded its development for online expression. The perverse result has been the elevation of algorithms over constitutional law, effectively ceding judicial power.

When the jurisprudential dust has cleared, the United States would be exporting the democracy-promoting First Amendment to other countries rather than Section 230’s authoritarian-friendly liability shield and the sewer of least-common-denominator content that holds human attention but does not bring out the best in us. In a functional democracy, after all, the virtual public square should belong to everyone, so it is important that its conversations are those in which all voices can be heard. This can only happen with dignity for all, not in a brawl.

Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today’s social media companies are common carriers like the phone companies that preceded them, but they are not. Unlike Ma Bell, they curate the content they transmit to users. We need a robust public conversation about what we, the people, want this space to look like, and what practices and guardrails are likely to strengthen the ties that bind us in common purpose as a democracy. Virality might come to be understood as an enemy of reason and human values. We can have culture and conversations without a mad race for total attention.

While Section 230 might have been considered more a target for reform rather than repeal prior to the advent of generative AI, it can no longer be so. Social media could be a business success even if its content was nonsense. AI cannot.

There have been suggestions that AI needs Section 230 because large language models train on data and will be better if that data is freely usable with no liabilities or encumbrances. This notion is incorrect. People want more from AI than entertainment. It is widely considered an important tool for productivity and scientific progress. An AI model is only as good as the data it is trained on; indeed, general data improves specialist results. The best AI will come out of a society that prioritizes quality communication. By quality communication, we do not mean deepfakes. We mean open and honest dialog that fosters understanding rather than vitriol, collaboration rather than polarization, and the pursuit of knowledge and human excellence rather than a race to the bottom of the brain stem.

The attention-grooming model fostered by Section 230 leads to stupendous quantities of poor-quality data. While an AI model can tolerate a significant amount of poor-quality data, there is a limit. It is unrealistic to imagine a society mediated by mostly terrible communication where that same society enjoys unmolested, high-quality AI. A society must seek quality as a whole, as a shared cultural value, in order to maximize the benefits of AI. Now is the best time for the tech business to mature and develop business models based on quality.

All of this might sound daunting, but we’ve been here before. When the US government said the American public owned the airwaves so that television broadcasting could be regulated, it put in place regulations that supported the common good. The internet affects everyone, so we must devise measures to ensure that our digital-age public discourse is of high quality and includes everyone. In the television era, the fairness doctrine laid that groundwork. A similar lens needs to be developed for the internet age.

Without Section 230, recommender algorithms and the virality they spark would be less likely to distort speech. It is sadly ironic that the very statute that delivered unfathomable success is today serving the interests of our enemies by compromising America’s superpower: our multinational, immigrant-powered constitutional democracy. The time has come to unleash the power of the First Amendment to promote human free speech by giving Section 230 the respectful burial it deserves.

[auntieclimactic]

Fic authors self rec! When you get this, reply with your favorite five fics that you've written :)

I keep telling myself, “I’ll type out a nice, thoughtful response on my laptop with proper grammar and everything,” and then I don’t. Please pardon my thumb typing.

I loved getting this ask! I look at so much of my writing with a critical eye, so this was a nice exercise in reframing. In no particular order, here are my five favorite creations:

1. He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven - Our Flag Means Death - Stede / Ed. Writing this fic allowed me to relive my sailing years and leverage that hard-earned knowledge to make horrible, horrible puns. The only sex scene I’ve written while cackling manically.

2. Apostate - Under the Banner of Heaven - Jeb Pyre / Bill Taba. This was the first fic I wrote just for me. The source material pressed all my buttons on religious trauma and sent me down a 44k rabbit hole about how sometimes loosing your faith is the first step to finding yourself.

3. in loco parentis - Ted Lasso - Henry Lasso - Ted / Trent pre-slash. Literally the most fun I’ve had writing from a character’s POV. Henry and Louis scheming to get Ted and Trent together is the best ending I will ever write.

4. Scar Tissue - Hannibal - Will Graham / Fred Chilton. Listen. Can I explain it? No. Do I love it? Yes. Unapologetically, yes. When I reread this fic o’ mine, I can ignore all the (many) flaws and see how invested I was in the emotional baggage of these two fucks, and sometimes that’s beautiful.

5. Acts of Service - Ted Lasso - Ted / Trent. I almost abandoned this fic. Who wants to read BDSM in the most wholesome fandom ever? Well, I did, and apparently so did a lot of people. This fic is the one that pushed me the most as a writer. I came out of this story with a stronger grasp of characterization, character-driven plot, and emotional subtlety. Plus it made people who would become some of my closest fandom friends slide into my DMs, making this the fic that keeps on giving!

Thank you again for this ask! I would have never looked through my AO3 profile considering the joy my own writing has brought me without it!

[sinfulpunishment]

✎ᝰ┆Hail Mary

─❏ Warnings: implied suicide

─❏ Characters: Fyodor Dostoevsky

─❏ Synopsis: Would mama be proud?

─❏ A/N: i support fyodor being a mama’s boy allegations

inspired by ventoavreo

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

Despite the sun shining brightly down upon this town, the world in my eyes had been completely drained of its color.

I knelt before the stone slab of which had your name engraved on it, my hands clasped together in prayer with white, wilting lilies woven between my small, frost bitten fingers. Never would I have known that being near you would feel so cold and harsh, for it had never felt that way before.

The church had refused to give you a proper service due to the nature of your untimely passing. Much to my disliking, I could not argue against God. I knew that if I had, you would have given me a frown to remind me of my faith.

And so, with my own hands, as well as the help of a few of your acquaintances, I laid you down to rest in the earth. I had gathered my own flowers and coins to lay in your bed alongside you, a bed you will never rise from—I hope it is comfortable and to your liking.

I did my best to dress nicely for the occasion, I even assisted in making sure that you looked just as beautiful as always, despite your fading complexion. I planted one final, gentle kiss upon your once warm cheek before they lowered you into the ground, covering their mistakes with dirt. I did not cry, I did not believe that you would have wanted me to.

She always had the warmest embrace. The way she would cradle me in her arms made it feel as if nothing else in the world mattered besides us. You were like an angel, or perhaps even a saint. Alas, your passing certainly proved to me your mortality far too soon.

I wish you would hold my face in your delicate hands once more, looking at me with the most gentle of eyes—eyes that, when gazed into, felt as if one had fallen into a pool of silk. I wish to hear your voice, reminding me that I am blessed by God, I am loved by God, but, most importantly, I am loved by you.

I wanted nothing more than to show you the world I would have created, a world without sin, just as God had intended. You would have loved it there because you would have been happy. No longer would you spend nights weeping and worrying over what you’re going to do to get through this next month, everything would be prepared for you beforehand. It would make you smile, and I believe that would make it all worthwhile.

You used to tell me that I was special, that I must be a gift from God. Though, you weren’t the only one to say that, it felt far more significant coming from you. You were different from anyone else, you weren’t tainted by humanity’s sin.

At least, you used to be clean…

Oh, my dearest mother, what did they do to you? Why did they push their grievances upon you? You had nothing to do with their affairs, you were but a bystander, and yet they hurt you.

What a terrible experience it is to feel the warmth flee from someone’s body along with their life, especially when that someone is your own mother. Discovered laying on the kitchen floor, mouth agape with that crimson ink spilling from it—there was blood pooling around the body on the floor. She was barely recognizable, not because of any disfigurement, but because she was a woman of strong faith.

What could have driven someone so dedicated to God to such an act?

You were once so pure, free of sin, I thought you were above it. Yet, they tainted you. They hurt my mother. You left this world—you left me in one of the most sinful ways possible. I wonder if they’re proud of what they did to you.

These sinful people, filled with nothing but greed and driven by desire, they soiled your good name. They disgust me beyond belief, and yet, I still pity them. If only there was someone who could save them from their sin…

God ensures everything happens for a reason, right mama?

I will show them the light of God. They will soon know the meaning of my name. May they repent and pray for God’s forgiveness at the pearly gates. I do not care if they are forgiven or not, part of me hopes they will be damned for the rest of their time away from the Earth.

I hate them.

I hate them all.

May God pity their souls, it’s the only hope they have left.

Even now, I feel you embracing me; so warm and comforting, it feels like home. I will take you with me to a new world.

I will make you proud, mama.

— Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Mother of God, Son of God.