#Wealth and Altruism

[omegaphilosophia]

How Wealth Concentration Impacts Altruism: Shifting from Community to Corporate Giving

The concentration of wealth among the wealthy has had a significant impact on altruism, often reshaping and at times undermining communal, grassroots, and democratic approaches to giving. Here are several ways that wealth concentration can impact the spirit and practice of altruism negatively:

Shift from Community-Based to Top-Down Giving:

Large-scale philanthropy by the wealthy can sometimes overshadow grassroots altruistic efforts. Community-led organizations may struggle to compete with well-funded philanthropic foundations, which may focus on high-visibility projects that align with wealthy donors' interests rather than directly addressing local, smaller-scale needs.

This shift creates a top-down model of giving, where local communities and smaller organizations have less agency in deciding how resources are allocated and used.

Undermining Government Responsibility for Social Services:

With wealthy individuals stepping in to fund social programs and public services, governments may rely on this private funding rather than ensuring adequate public investment in social services, healthcare, or education. This reliance on wealthy donors can create a "privatized altruism," where public good becomes contingent on private generosity.

This diminishes a sense of collective responsibility and may erode societal commitment to publicly funded social support, fostering dependence on the wealthy for essential services and creating instability.

Control Over Social Agendas:

Wealthy philanthropists often direct their giving to causes that align with their personal values or interests, which may not always align with the priorities of broader society. This selective giving can divert attention from urgent or foundational needs that are less "attractive" or profitable for high-profile donations.

As a result, the wealthy can influence public priorities, promoting projects that reinforce existing power structures and reducing collective input on altruistic efforts that affect society at large.

Promoting Conditional or "Strategic" Giving:

Unlike community altruism, which is often motivated by a desire to help others without strings attached, philanthropy by the wealthy can involve strategic giving with conditions that benefit them directly, whether through favorable publicity, tax breaks, or political influence.

This conditional altruism can erode the concept of selfless giving, making it appear that generosity is only worthwhile if there is a reciprocal benefit, which undermines altruism as a social norm.

Influence on Cultural and Social Values:

Large-scale philanthropic efforts often bring wealthy donors into the public eye, presenting them as "saviors" and fostering a cultural narrative that idolizes individual, wealthy philanthropists over communal efforts. This shift can dilute values of empathy, reciprocity, and community-driven altruism, replacing them with admiration for wealth and individualism.

This cultural influence may undermine the motivation for everyday altruism among the general population, who may feel their contributions are negligible compared to those of billionaires, thus eroding the spirit of small-scale, communal generosity.

Disempowering Public Altruism Through Tax Avoidance:

Some wealthy individuals use tax loopholes and offshore accounts to minimize their tax contributions while simultaneously gaining praise for philanthropic giving. This tax avoidance reduces funds available for public welfare and services, placing a heavier financial burden on lower-income individuals.

The public may feel resentful or skeptical of wealthy altruism if they perceive that the wealthy are avoiding their fair share of taxes, thereby disempowering collective social trust and mutual responsibility.

Marginalization of Less Marketable Causes:

Wealthy individuals and foundations often favor "high-profile" causes with clear, measurable outcomes or social prestige, while issues related to systemic poverty, mental health, or marginalized communities may be overlooked.

This preference can distort altruistic priorities by promoting issues that align with wealthy individuals' interests, creating a skewed approach to giving that marginalizes less glamorous or politically popular causes, which may be more impactful for society but lack wealthy champions.

Fostering a Transactional Culture of Giving:

With wealthy philanthropists often expecting recognition, control, or results from their giving, altruism risks becoming a transactional activity rather than an act of empathy or solidarity. This transactionality can diminish the motivation for spontaneous, uncalculated acts of kindness in society as a whole.

A culture of "return on investment" giving may further distance society from the idea of altruism as an intrinsic good, replacing it with a results-oriented approach that may not resonate with broader public values.

The concentration of wealth and the influence of wealthy philanthropists can undermine collective altruism, as community-driven and government-supported altruistic structures become weakened. While individual acts of giving by the wealthy can bring positive outcomes, the broader social impact can distort the values of altruism, communal solidarity, and public accountability. Reshaping altruism to center around empathy and mutual support within communities may help preserve and protect these values in the face of concentrated wealth.

[anoras]

i think it would have been actually interesting if the crows' upper hierarchy were just. outright lying to you about their morals, and then jacobus was used as a foil to that to show the truth of how the crows operate. 😐

[random-xpressions]

I love spending on others, more than I love spending on myself. If there's any secret to the richness of my heart and to the wealth that I've earned, then this would be the only mantra. Apparently it may seem to be in direct violation of the universal mathematical laws because essentially when you spend more, it is supposed to reduce the weight of your wallet. But in the grand design of things, when the heart gets involved, the entire proportion gets reversed. When love becomes the most dominant currency guiding every action and every motive of your life, then that invites such abundant blessings, as to your own surprise. The more you channel yourself into others, the more enriched you become at your center. This being the true inner wealth. And the more you channel your spendings on others, the more expanse you'll experience in your sources of income. The Divine hands know best where to pour down, and he pours down perfectly at that spot, from where it would reach out to the maximum. Its all about divine logistics and the hands of Providence picking up the finest distribution centers. God never invested in a miser & never in a closed mind that feared poverty...

Random Xpressions

[wordwender]

On January 5, 1914, Henry Ford more than doubled the minimum wage for many of his employees by introducing a $5 a day minimum pay scale for employees of the Ford Motor Company. On that same day, Ford began offering profit sharing to his employees and reduced shifts from nine hours to eight. Ford’s treasurer at the time, James Couzens, explained these bold leadership moves by saying, “It is our belief that social justice begins at home. We want those who have helped us to produce this. ——Joseph A. Michelli, Leading the Starbucks Way: 5 Principles for Connecting with Your Costumers, Your Products and Your People

[writing-with-sophia]

Common character motivations

Revenge - seeking to get even with someone who has wronged them

Love - driven by romantic feelings for another character

Greed - motivated by a desire for material possessions or wealth

Power - seeking to gain control or influence over others

Justice - motivated by a sense of fairness and a desire to see justice served

Redemption - seeking to make up for past mistakes or wrongdoings

Curiosity - driven by a desire to learn or discover something new

Duty - motivated by a sense of responsibility or obligation to others or a cause

Ambition - driven by a desire to achieve a specific goal or succeed in a particular endeavor

Fear - motivated by a desire to avoid danger or harm

Guilt - driven by a sense of remorse for past actions or decisions

Jealousy - motivated by envy or a desire to possess what another character has

Betrayal - motivated by a sense of betrayal or desire for revenge against someone who has betrayed them.

Ambivalence - a character who is conflicted or uncertain about their goals or desires

Freedom - a character who seeks to escape from a restrictive situation or society

Fame - motivated by a desire for public recognition or notoriety

Identity - driven by a need to understand or define who they are

Family - motivated by a sense of loyalty or obligation to their family or loved ones

Discovery - driven by a desire to explore or uncover hidden knowledge

Patriotism - motivated by a love for their country or a desire to protect it

Rebellion - driven by a desire to challenge authority or the status quo

Artistic expression - motivated by a need to create or express oneself through art, music, or other creative endeavors

Religion or spirituality - driven by a desire to connect with a higher power or to live according to certain beliefs or values

Altruism - motivated by a desire to help others or make the world a better place

Atonement - driven by a need to make amends or seek forgiveness for past actions

Nostalgia - motivated by a desire to return to a simpler time or relive past experiences

Status - driven by a desire for social or professional standing or recognition.

Insecurity - driven by a need to prove their worth or gain acceptance from others

Legacy - motivated by a desire to leave a lasting impact or to be remembered in a certain way after they're gone

Survival - driven by the need to survive in extreme circumstances, such as a natural disaster, war, or an apocalyptic event

Belonging - motivated by a desire to fit in with a certain group or community

Love of knowledge - driven by a passion for learning and acquiring new information

Addiction - motivated by a compulsion to engage in a particular behavior or activity, such as drug use or gambling

Inciting incident - motivation driven by a specific event that triggers or sets the character on their journey

Fear of death - driven by a fear of their own mortality or the mortality of others

Intimidation - motivated by a fear of others or a desire to intimidate others for personal gain

Envy - driven by a desire to possess what others have or to be like someone else

Manipulation - motivated by a desire to control or manipulate others for their own benefit

Protecting others - driven by a desire to protect loved ones or innocent people from harm

Sense of duty - motivated by a sense of responsibility to fulfill a particular role or obligation.

If you want to read more posts about writing, please click here and give me a follow!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing a "Humble" Character

Humility - The quality of being humble, characterized by a low focus on the self, an accurate (not over- or underestimated) sense of one’s accomplishments and worth, and an acknowledgment of one’s limitations, imperfections, mistakes, gaps in knowledge, and so on.

Deriving from the word humus (earth), it appears to clash with our current valuation of self-worth and self-realization.

But humility has nothing to do with meekness or weakness. And neither does it mean being self-effacing or submissive.

Humility is an attitude of spiritual modesty that comes from understanding our place in the larger order of things.

It entails not taking our desires, successes, or failings too seriously.

Humility is a core value in many ancient ethical and theological frameworks.

The Confucian form of humility, for example, is profoundly other oriented in spirit, consistently valuing the social good over the satisfaction of our individual aspirations. In this ancient Chinese form, humility can significantly enhance social cohesion and our sense of belonging.

The Greek philosopher Socrates held that wisdom is, above all, knowing what we don’t know. He taught an intellectual form of humility that freely acknowledges the gaps in our knowledge and that humbly seeks to address our blind spots.

Aristotle understood humility as a moral virtue, sandwiched between the vices of arrogance and moral weakness. Like Socrates, he believed that humility must include accurate self-knowledge and a generous acknowledgment of the qualities of others that avoids distortion and extremes.

We can understand humility not just as a virtue but also as a psychological trait.

At a basic level, humility relates to the degree to which we value and promote our interests above others.

Capturing our other-orientation, it is closely related to modesty and fairness, but also our interest in wealth and other signs of status and our inclination toward self-promotion.

Crucially, it also involves seeing ourselves accurately – not thinking of ourselves more highly (or, for that matter, lowly) than is appropriate.

Worthington et al. (2017) understand humility as made up of 3 parts:

Accurate self-perception

Modest self-portrayal

Other-oriented relational stance

They note that the recent growth in humility-focused studies coincides with the rise of positive psychology and frustration with the limitations of purely individualistic virtues. Alongside compassion, forgiveness, altruism, gratitude, and empathy, humility belongs to “a cluster of virtues that bind society together” (Worthington et al., 2017).

Worthington et al. (2017) further divide humility into general humility and more specific kinds of humility. These include:

intellectual humility, relating to an openness about our views, beliefs, and opinions; and

cultural humility, an ability to acknowledge and learn from the achievements of other cultures (Hazlett, 2012; Davis et al., 2015).

Other sub-types of humility are political and spiritual humility.

While other-orientedness is a core interpersonal feature of humility, Tangney (2009) has identified 6 intrapersonal aspects of humility:

A willingness to see ourselves truthfully

An accurate perception of our place in the world

An ability to acknowledge our mistakes and limitations

Openness

Low self-focus

An appreciation of the value of all things

Hill and Laney (2016), finally, understand humility as involving a quiet ego (see also Kesebir, 2014).

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[walble]

Who Are You in a Past Life?

This is meant to be a fun, general reading, so it may not resonate with everyone. Take what resonates for you and leave the rest behind! Please take a moment to breathe, focus on your intuition, and choose the photo that calls to you. Each holds a unique message for you!

𐙚 • 𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑒 1

In a past life, you may have been someone who valued truth, clarity, and knowledge above all else. You likely had a sharp mind and were driven by a strong sense of justice or the pursuit of intellectual understanding. Your life was centered around seeking answers, solving problems, or bringing clarity to situations. This could mean you were a scholar, a leader, or even a visionary whose ideas inspired others. Communication and honesty were central to your character, and you might have been known for your ability to cut through confusion and bring people together with your wisdom.

Your life was illuminated by positivity, warmth, and success. You may have had an optimistic outlook, which drew people towards you, and you could have been a source of light for others. Your presence likely brought joy, inspiration, and hope to those around you. This suggests you held a significant position or influence, perhaps as a teacher, healer, or community leader. You enjoyed a fulfilling life where your efforts were rewarded, and you played an integral role in creating harmony and happiness in your environment.

Generosity and fairness were also important aspects of this life. You may have been involved in sharing wealth, knowledge, or resources with others, ensuring balance and equity. You could have been a philanthropist or someone who worked to uplift the less fortunate. Your actions were rooted in a sense of responsibility, as you understood the importance of giving and receiving in equal measure. Helping others was likely a cornerstone of your purpose, and you earned the respect of your peers through your altruism and fairness.

You were also grounded, patient, and diligent, with a strong work ethic that brought them success over time. You valued stability and were careful in building your life, taking deliberate steps toward your goals. You were someone who understood the importance of persistence and dedication, creating a legacy through your efforts. In this past life, you may have worked in agriculture, trade, or another field that required consistency and practicality. Ultimately, your life was a blend of mental clarity, joy, generosity, and hard work, leaving a lasting impact on those you encountered.

𐙚 • 𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑒 2

In a past life, you likely experienced a life marked by significant growth, abundance, and connection to nature or nurturing roles. You may have been deeply in tune with creativity and the cycles of life, thriving in an environment that allowed you to care for others or cultivate beauty. However, this life was not without challenges. A catastrophic upheaval disrupted your sense of stability and tore down the foundation of your world, forcing you to confront the fragility of the life you had built. This moment of destruction may have been a turning point, pushing you to rebuild and reimagine your purpose.

Relationships played a central role in this past life. A profound partnership—whether romantic, platonic, or familial—shaped your identity and choices. This bond may have been both a source of joy and a source of challenge, teaching you the importance of harmony, compromise, and mutual support. At the same time, you wrestled with feelings of dissatisfaction or missed opportunities, possibly caused by a yearning for more fulfillment or an inability to fully appreciate what was already in your life. This inner struggle hinted at lessons around gratitude and recognizing blessings, even during times of emotional stagnation.

Ultimately, this past life was one of balance and learning to navigate dualities—destruction and creation, joy and sorrow, abundance and lack. You sought equilibrium and personal growth, looking toward the future with hope and determination after periods of upheaval. You may have been someone who embarked on journeys, physical or metaphorical, seeking a deeper understanding of yourself and the world. This life left you with a legacy of resilience, adaptability, and the wisdom to transform chaos into clarity and purpose.

𐙚 • 𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑒 3

In a past life, you were a visionary and a leader with a strong sense of purpose and ambition. You likely held a position of authority, inspiring those around you with your charisma and determination. You were creative and resourceful, often finding unique solutions to challenges. People admired your confidence and ability to take charge, but there may have been times when your fiery drive made others see you as overly intense or intimidating. Despite this, your passion for your goals made you a force to be reckoned with.

Your life was filled with opportunities and choices, but this abundance sometimes left you feeling torn or uncertain about which path to follow. You were someone who dreamt big, but there was a tendency to get lost in illusions or distractions. This may have led to moments of indecision or chasing fleeting desires. However, you had a vibrant social life, surrounded by a close-knit community or group of friends who supported you. Celebrations and joyous moments were an integral part of your life, giving you the chance to connect deeply with others.

There was a strong sense of home and stability in your past life. You valued creating a safe and happy environment, possibly being involved in the establishment of something significant—like a family legacy or a community project. However, not everything was as it seemed. Secrets, mysteries, or subconscious fears may have played a significant role in shaping your life. You were deeply intuitive, often sensing things that others couldn't, but this heightened awareness sometimes left you questioning reality or feeling emotionally overwhelmed.

Your life was fast-paced, filled with shifts and changes that required constant balance and adaptability. You juggled multiple responsibilities with skill, though at times, this may have felt like a struggle to maintain equilibrium. You thrived on movement and momentum, often traveling or pursuing new ventures. Despite the challenges, your past life was a dynamic one, marked by personal growth, transformation, and the pursuit of deeper truths.

If you're looking for a personalized reading tailored specifically to your energy, feel free to message me to book a session or visit my Ko-fi page to schedule one here: KO-FI

[radical-revolution]

Herbie Hancock // "We are not alone. We do not exist alone and we cannot create alone. What this world needs is a humanistic awakening of the desire to raise one’s life condition to a place where our actions are rooted in altruism and compassion. You cannot hide behind a profession or instrument; you have to be human. Focus your energy on becoming the best human you can be. Focus on developing empathy and compassion. Through the process you’ll tap into a wealth of inspiration rooted in the complexity and curiosity of what it means to simply exist on this planet."

[shadamyheadcanons]

Thoughts on Shadouge? I used to ship it casually years ago just because I was looking at possibilities of a love interest for Shadow which I didn't consider for a long time, but it quickly lost its appeal for me. I know you said you don't think it works which I agree with and I'm curious about your reasoning.

Explanation under the cut. There’s nothing too negative, but I always feel bad when these wind up in tags and searches for the ship name.

To start, I will say that it doesn’t feel “wrong” to me like most Shadow ships do. I get where shadouge fans are coming from, and I’ve never met a shadouge shipper who was pushy or unpleasant about it. That’s rare in fandoms. I like how low-key they are. :)

As for the ship itself, I don’t buy it because they’re just so solidly best friends. I’ve never seen anything that I’d call romantic between them.

For Shadow, I see two important (living) women in his life right now:

One is a consistent, reliable rock who’s always going to support him and back him up because of who he is.

The other is a light, a beacon who guides him and inspires him to be the best version of himself he can be.

To me, one of those looks like a best friend, and the other looks like a love interest. He needs both, but in my opinion, it’s clear which one’s which. He’s level-headed around Rouge, and while he probably trusts her more than anyone, he looks at her the same way he looks at everyone else. Heck, he looks at her the same way he looks at Omega. I can’t imagine Rouge successfully convincing him to dress up for a murder mystery birthday party or getting him to go to a silly pop concert the way a certain pink hedgehog can, nor can I see her trying to in the first place; Amy’s the only one who can pull him out of his comfort zone like that. The most Rouge does is convince him to go to Sonic’s birthday party, and even then, she has to bribe him. Rouge’s flirtation just bounces off of Shadow, too. He doesn’t have a weak point for her. Looking at Shadow’s behavior, I think he has a soft spot for cute girls, and Rouge isn’t cute.

As for Rouge herself, she’ll support Shadow to hell and back, but we know what love looks like in her eyes. I’m not getting out of bed until she looks at someone else like this:

Rouge and Shadow are too similar in a particular way. They’re both Machiavellian, willing to go to questionable lengths to get the job done. The same goes for Omega. It’s what makes them such a good team, but a good teammate isn’t the same as a love interest. Knuckles won her over by doing the right thing and saving her life even though he had every reason not to.

I actually have some headcanons about Rouge’s past that feed into this concept. I believe Rouge grew up poor and didn’t have too many people she could trust. She had to steal for her own survival, and she learned to cling to whatever wealth she could find. She keeps a lot of secrets to this day because it’s safer. She learned the hard way that no one can hurt her if she won’t let them in.

In time, Rouge met one guy who was on her wavelength who she knew she could trust, and she met another who swept her off her feet, whose altruism upended her pessimistic outlook of how people are.

One of those looks like a best friend, and the other looks like a love interest. She needs both, but it’s clear to me which one’s which.

And of course there’s the matter of commitment. Rouge can’t stay grounded, so to speak, in the kind of stable relationship that would do Shadow a world of good. She’d rather flit around and tease everyone in sight, delighting in all the blushes she can bring out; in her own way, she likes cuteness, too. Amy, meanwhile, prefers to cling to one person, sharing the same steady devotion Shadow could provide in turn. She’s sunshine incarnate. He needs that.

Thanks for the ask!

[omegaphilosophia]

Limitations of Wealthy Philanthropy: Why the Wealthy Are Not as Charitable as They Could Be

While some wealthy individuals and foundations contribute significantly to charitable causes, many argue they could be doing more to address societal needs effectively. Here are key areas where the wealthy may fall short of their charitable potential:

Limited Giving Relative to Wealth:

The wealthy often donate only a small percentage of their total wealth. For example, while high-income individuals might donate a few million dollars, this is often a minor fraction of their net worth, far less impactful than if they allocated a larger share toward philanthropy.

Some billionaires and high-net-worth individuals engage in "selective philanthropy," focusing on specific issues or projects without addressing broader systemic problems that cause inequality or poverty.

Focus on Tax Benefits:

Charitable contributions can provide substantial tax breaks, and some wealthy individuals structure donations primarily to reduce their taxable income. This can result in donations that are motivated by financial gain rather than altruism, limiting the genuine social impact of their giving.

Many wealthy individuals use donor-advised funds or private foundations to defer or reduce taxes while retaining influence over the distribution of funds. In some cases, funds may sit unused for years while providing tax benefits to the donor.

Philanthropic Foundations with Minimal Payouts:

Many wealthy individuals establish foundations that are required only to distribute a small portion of assets each year—typically around 5%. This minimum distribution can mean that large sums remain invested rather than being used to address pressing social issues.

Foundations can preserve and grow wealth over generations rather than directly addressing immediate needs, especially when funding is channeled into endowments or low-impact projects.

Emphasis on “High-Return” Causes:

Wealthy philanthropists may prefer giving to causes with high visibility or personal appeal, such as universities, art museums, or exclusive research institutions, rather than directly addressing poverty, homelessness, or other critical needs.

This prioritization can leave vital but “unpopular” causes, such as addiction services, domestic violence shelters, or rural health clinics, underfunded.

Donations as Public Relations Tools:

Some wealthy individuals and corporations use charitable giving as a way to improve their public image, enhancing their brand or reputation more than addressing significant social issues. Large donations often come with naming rights or publicity requirements, which can make philanthropy appear more self-serving than altruistic.

High-profile giving often draws attention away from the underlying issues, such as low wages or exploitative business practices, that may have contributed to the donor’s wealth in the first place.

Investments in Industries That Cause Harm:

Some philanthropists maintain or grow wealth through investments in industries like fossil fuels, tobacco, or pharmaceuticals, which contribute to social harm. Their charitable contributions may then go toward ameliorating problems caused by those very industries, resulting in a cycle where wealth generation and philanthropy are paradoxically linked to societal harm.

This dynamic can make it appear as though wealthy individuals are "giving back" while perpetuating the very issues their donations aim to address.

Lack of Transparency and Accountability:

The wealthy often lack transparency in their giving, using private trusts or anonymous donations that make it difficult to assess the true impact or distribution of funds. Without accountability, the wealthy are under little pressure to increase charitable efforts or respond to community needs.

The lack of transparency can also allow for selective reporting or "impact inflation," where donors exaggerate the effectiveness of their contributions to garner praise or additional tax benefits.

Failure to Address Root Causes of Inequality:

Many wealthy donors focus on charity rather than systemic change, addressing symptoms rather than root causes. Philanthropy that provides temporary relief without confronting structural issues—such as low wages, poor working conditions, or unequal education systems—limits the potential for long-term social improvement.

By focusing on alleviating visible suffering rather than addressing the factors that create or sustain inequality, wealthy donors can avoid challenging the status quo that often benefits them.

Underfunding in Global and Marginalized Regions:

Charitable giving by the wealthy tends to focus on domestic or high-profile international causes, with limited attention to underfunded, marginalized, or lower-profile regions. Essential needs, especially in low-income countries, are often left unaddressed.

The tendency to concentrate funding in certain regions or sectors can leave global issues like hunger, healthcare disparities, or educational inequity without adequate support.

While many wealthy individuals contribute positively to society, these limitations in their giving practices reveal opportunities for greater impact. By addressing root causes of inequality, prioritizing transparency, and diversifying funding priorities, the wealthy could more effectively use their resources to foster meaningful and lasting social change.

[elysiansparadise]

Hi Elysian ! ✨

First I wanted to tell you that I really love your posts 💖

I have seen that you have your ask open and you haven't post about Neptune in the 2th house so can you please describe Neptune in the 2th ?

I have this placement and wanted to know more about it.

Thanks a lot/ Merci beaucoup ✨

Kiss from France 💖

Hello love, thanks for loving my posts. Of course I can describe this beautiful placement. A kiss right back at you. 💖

Neptune in the 2nd house

These people may not place as much importance on money, they feel that the money a person may have does not define their value and quality as a person. They care about money just enough and necessary to know that it is crucial to have a decent life in which they do not lack anything, but they consider that there are things more important or of greater value than this. They stand out for their generosity and altruism, being people who can seek to help those most in need or provide support to those who do not have enough money. They can really enjoy buying details for others without worrying much about the price. Since this is the house of values, the presence of Neptune here indicates that they place a lot of emphasis on their spiritual world, keeping in mind values ​​such as devotion, tolerance and empathy. You can spend a lot of time investing in your spiritual growth or expanding your knowledge in these areas. They are likely to pay for services such as aura cleansing, tarot readings or other things related to esoteric topics. Likewise, they can enjoy buying things related to art, paintings, notebooks or things that help them develop their creativity in some way, such as instruments.

This is a house linked to self-esteem, so it is likely that these natives are very humble and even shy people when it comes to receiving compliments, not knowing exactly how to take them. These people dream big with the idea of ​​having everything they once lacked, and not only in the material field, but also emotionally, especially that feeling of stability that they may not have had when they were young. These people should be cautious when lending money, because even if their intentions are good, they may more frequently encounter people along the way who will not pay them on time or who do not pay them at all. This house reflects everything we acquire since we were born, so it can represent those talents that we have since we were young. Many people with this placement may have artistic talents, such as painting, singing, music or some other branches of art. Likewise, it can tell us about spiritual gifts of any kind. It is likely that these people can use their talents as a way to generate or invest their money.

One of the things that these natives should be careful about is their disorganization, it is crucial that they be very organized, because they have a tendency to forget where they leave things, if Neptune is making multiple tense aspects [especially with 2nd house ruler or Venus], they can even forget bank passwords or they can even lose documents related to estate. They have a rich inner world, feeling very disconnected from the things or people around them, they may feel that they do not give importance to things that others usually do. They highly value the human quality behind things, they do not like to buy items or things that, for example, are experimented on animals or that affect or damage the environment. Another thing they value a lot is inner wealth, both their own and with others, as I mentioned previously, they give value to things that others hardly put emphasis on.

[aemilia-lacia]

This probably isn't an especially spicy take at this pointーand is even less so when taken with the caveats that I have no new theories, no textual evidence to contribute, and that what evidence I do have for this consists exclusively of vibes and hazed-over, pre-ECT memoriesー, but I will still contend that Ianthe's claim in The Unwanted Guest that she's possessed of, "a very loving, generous nature," is genuine. A claim made with all possible measure of bitterness, to be sure, but a genuine one all the same.

There's not a single action Ianthe takes during Harrow that isn't aimed at helping the titular characterーI remain unconvinced that she simply ignored something as consequential as a reanimated Lyctor, and specifically the one who took her arm, with no reaction whatsoeverー, even if her way of helping is usually wrongheaded or annoying in the extreme.

But why wouldn't it have been? The girl grew up on Planet Backstab; the Third specializes in intelligence gathering, remember, along with ostentatious displays of wealth.

How old must Ianthe have been, when she realizedーor more likely was compelled to realizeーthat, on the Third, things as simple and human as "having feelings", or, "altruism, generally" were nothing more than angles to be exploited, things to be layered and veiled behind invective and mockery, coated in venom and poisoned honey, if she was to be allowed them *at all*?

[darklinaforever]

It makes me laugh when I see people saying that Orlok can't be Ellen's soulmate, because apparently it would obviously be Thomas. Under one of the pretexts that destiny, what Orlok is to Ellen, does not necessarily mean soulmate. We will discuss the other points that apparently would make Thomas Ellen's soulmate at the end because that is another subject...

But honestly, who, between these two men that Ellen loves equally, is more likely to be her soulmate ?

Orlok, technically her fiancé, the one who like Ellen does not belong to the world of the living, is not human, is a supernatural creature, knowing that Ellen is herself throughout the film compared to various supernatural creatures, the one who accepts her true nature and pushes / forces her to embrace him, the only one capable of understanding her, the only one with whom Ellen nourishes a real true connection, the only one also capable of satisfying her sexual passions, who precisely represents on the symbolic level Ellen herself, more precisely the parts of her not accepted, judged and demonized by Victorian society, a world that rejects Ellen and that Orlok mistreats, the one who is her destiny, with whom she unites her soul forever at the end of the story and therefore with whom she ends up ?

Or Thomas, her husband who loves her sincerely (and in a more or less pure way) and with whom their marriage is a sacred (since it is a Christian marriage), who accepts the society in which he lives without questioning it and desperately wanting to correspond to the perfect patriarchal male model of the time in the same sense as his best friend Harding, that is to say by accessing wealth and having the perfect cliché of the perfect Victorian wife with their beautiful children, but to which he technically conforms precisely already since he doesn't listen Ellen, doesn't take her seriously, constantly sees her as a damsel in distress, and thinks he knows better than her do what's best for her, who a part of him dismisses her because he is incapable of understanding this supernatural part of elf, who, yes, still loves her despite the demonstrations of her dark aspects but he is still horrified by it, therefore still not in complete acceptance, and who also isn't capable of fucking Ellen properly as an aside, therefore of satisfying her passions, him who blocks for a time Ellen's innate magical abilities when he meet / married her, therefore fundamental aspects of her person as an individual, which he is not her destiny and with whom Ellen does not end ?

Seriously ? There's really a debate about who is better for Ellen in this situation even if she loves them both equally ?

Also, apparently for some, the fact that Thomas & Ellen are the true soulmates of the story would be because Thomas is apparently her sanctuary against the great evil (which I guess translates into the fact that Ellen's magical abilities are restricted once she meets Thomas and marries him, and also that he tries to protect her), and that Ellen sacrifices herself to save Thomas her love at the end.

Except that, first, Thomas tries to protect Ellen but fails, so I don't see how that would make him Ellen's soulmate. Wanting to protect someone is a classic thing when you're in love normally. It's not exceptional. Unless they try to make a parallel with the fact that Ellen sacrifices herself for him and therefore they are the same in that sense except that... I already said it... but...

She is not only doing this to save Thomas because she loved, but also the city / the world, as much out of kindness / altruism as obligation because she brought Orlok into this world, and she is the only one who can take him away. But also and above all embraced and accepted who she really is in her union with Orlok (they get married in a specific ritual that binds their souls forever in the spirit world), while succumbing to her desire and feelings for him by uniting body and again especially soul with him forever in the spiritual world. So no matter where they go now, it will always be together. She is essentially taking advantage of her "sacrifice" to give free rein to her desires and love for Orlok.

That's the real reason for Ellen's sacrifice at the end, and not so much for her love for Thomas and the desire to save the world.

There is also this excellent post that talks in depth about the true meaning of Ellen's sacrifice in the 2024 version, which has nothing to do with the 1922 and 1979 versions as many are absolutely trying to claim to avoid the reality of the new version of Ellen, namely that she is not the embodiment of purity :

So we'll go back to this soulmate argument just because Ellen would sacrifice herself out of love for Thomas and it would serve as a parallel to Thomas' failed attempts to save Ellen... 😂

And I've already talked about this too, but no, Thomas partially blocking Ellen's abilities after he met and married her is not a good thing. To get your answers go here :

So, once again, we will return to Thomas' two-bit argument, apparently being the sanctuary of Ellen against the Great Evil.

Knowing that this Great Evil literally symbolically represents his wife...

Oh and she dies looking at thomas so he's apparently the one she would really love. Not like she's already half gone by then and she's bound to be with orlok forever anyway... And anyway, Ellen loves both of them equally. It's not a competition on this point.

But apparently according to the person who commented under one of my posts "to love is to understand and SACRIFICE. That sacrifice happened when Ellen decided to give in if only to protect her love ; Thomas" (although we've already established in this post that Ellen's sacrifice isn't really about Thomas centrally speaking at all).

In fact, I also just remembered her saying :

"Even after seeing Ellen become completely possessed, violent and then breakdown, he holds her in her arms and calms her down. That man is literally her sanctuary from the great evil."

Although I don't see why Thomas deserves a medal for comforting Ellen and staying by her side while she was being possessed by a being who hurt him too ? When you really love someone, it's logical behavior again. But the Thomas & Ellen fans are trying to turn this into something exceptional and incredible from Thomas when it's the bare minimum he has to do for me ?!

Not to mention I love how they always forget to mention the super awkward, performative sex scene that is almost filmed as a form of rape (even though I know that Ellen technically says yes, but the way of filming remains very particular) that happens before Thomas makes this big, super romantic gesture towards Ellen according to these people. They always forget to mention that Thomas initially acted on his wounded male ego for being judged as less good at sex than a vampire with a rotting body, and so decided to prove how good he was sexually, and in the end, he was nothing but pathetic, once again failing to satisfy Ellen.

Not even able to kiss her on her heart like she asked him to, which Orlok on the other hand will do during his own wedding night with Ellen without her asking him to.

By the way, notice how the sex scene between Ellen & Thomas lacks intimacy and romantism compared to Ellen & Orlok's ?

So this is what shows that Thomas would be Ellen's great sanctuary against the great evil ? Because of this very disturbing scene ? When he doesn't help in any real way during Ellen's possession, other than comforting her at the end which is... the normal thing to do ? Okay...

Again, this is a real glorification and romanticization and simplification of Thomas and his relationship with Ellen. They are not the great pure and perfect love that these people want them to be. They don't even really work together ! But they loved each other and try to be good for each other in the way society has educated them to do it, but finaly fail in this sense. And especially because Thomas manages to conform but Ellen doesn't, because she don't really like this way of do things.

Also... saying that love is understand and sacrifice... Doesn't that remind you of Ellen & Orlok, ironically ?

They understand each other, and both make a blood sacrifice at the end to unite their souls, something that Ellen has always wanted deep down with Orlok (cause she desires him, loves him and he represents the buried aspects of herself etc), even if she also does it for the other reasons that I have already stated. But the fact is that it is with Orlok that she checks both aspects. Understanding and sacrifice. Not with Thomas where there is no understanding between the two. They have never really understood each other, and Thomas is again far from being the main reason for Ellen's sacrifice. It's more about herself and Orlok than anything else.

The fact that we always come back to the same truth. Ellen loves Thomas as much as she loves Orlok. But only one really suits her, and that's the one she'll end up with.

And don't come and talk to me about the fact that the Ellen & Orlok relationship is toxic. I know it. We're talking about a vampire who embodies death, a demon. Obviously there's also toxicity in this relationship like with Thomas (but that doesn't change the fact that Orlok is a better fit for Ellen). It's a gothic romance.

But the fact is that the symbolic heart of Ellen & Orlok's relationship is not really based on this toxicity, at least not in the way people would classically understand it. Really go read @apoloadonisandnarcissus analysis to really understand all that (the movie and the relationship of Ellen & Orlok), she does a wonderful work.

[thedomesticanthropologist]

I love the sheer wealth of interpretations of Astarion in fandom

- What a cunt

- Useless man in his flop era

- Dominant kink daddy

- Whining sub who wants to be dominated even tho he just escaped that exact situation (this one I am ???? With but u do u)

- Soft gentle soul who heals super fast and suddenly has no bad qualities at all any more and if you bring them up GOD, HE HAD ✨TrAuMa✨ it's EXCUSEABLE (y'all really stretch that one dontcha 😂)

-I see no man just a crusty white dog that's less than 2 feet tall and bites everyone

- A complex and deep character with flaws both because of trauma and despite it, who didn't start out a good man and doesn't end up a Paragon of virtue, who is trying with the person he loves but is very obviously a selfish person at heart who has no experience with altruism and even blatantly resents it, who doesn't want anything taken from him ever again, who wants to survive, be safe, be free, and also be a bit of a shit

-A perfect husband who wants children and a home and to settle down and wear sweater vests (Please all of these are exaggerations don't @ me)

-a BDSM slut who heals his trauma only to go right back to sex 24/7 but it's fine because now he does ✨aftercare✨

-All of the above at once

-None of the above but a secret third thing that only TRUE fans who REALLY GET HIM understand, u wouldn't get it, ugh, it's fine tho ( tell me you haven't seen this, there's always someone like this out there)

- Whatever you add into the reblogs/ tags and replies here! Please make it funny or at least not antagonistic, this is all in jest and good humor, none of these reflect my opinion. Or do they. Who knows 🧐😂😂

[gatheringbones]

[“To support his argument for economic equality, Marx had, after all, attributed all surplus wealth to the exploitation of human labor. In Europe his analysis was a conclusion reached only after long examination of the complex tissue of society — government, industry, and the capital market — but in Vietnam it was a truism that even the smallest peasant understood: wealth was a product of labor in the rice lands.

An agricultural country with a single technology, few precious metals, and little national or international trade, traditional Vietnam possessed almost no surplus wealth. Compared with their rivals in China or Cambodia, the Vietnamese emperors did not accumulate great fortunes. When the French came to build their plantations, their roads, and their cities, they built them only by direct taxation of human labor.

The traditional economy was both simple and inelastic: to acquire wealth within a village meant to deprive others of it. For the sake of their own survival, the villagers had to maintain a relative equality between their members. A man gained prestige not by increasing and maintaining his wealth, but by giving it away. Within the villages, as within the empire of the north and center, the accumulation of private wealth was a sign of anarchy — a sign that the great family of the village or empire had broken apart to such an extent that some of its members threatened the others with starvation.

In Vietnam equality of wealth always bore a direct relation to the order and harmony of the society. The southerners of the 1960’s had never lived in an equal society, but many of them still assumed that it was desirable. As the young recruit, Huong, had said:

I, personally, don’t want to be rich while others have to suffer misery. I want to have the same living standard that most of the people have.… If the people are not happy because they have miserable lives, I could never enjoy life.… I never want to have a high position in government and to be rich while many other people are poor. I simply want to have enough to eat and for all the people in the society to have equality.

This desire for equality was no mere altruism. On the contrary. Many Vietnamese of the twentieth century sought wealth as a form of social security, but this search had meant an unbridled competition of the sort that terrified them. Inequality meant division and conflict in the once uniform society. The Marxist notion that economic equality could be gained by a nationalization of the means of production was not at all unfamiliar to the Vietnamese. By Confucian law the emperor acted as a trustee of all the rice lands, reserving the right to redistribute them among the people. The strong emperors exercised this right either to rid themselves of the independent barons or to improve productivity and the lot of the peasants. The powerful Confucian emperors prevented their own mandarins from establishing large estates on the principle that as senior members of the great family, they had no need for food: the people would feed them of their own free will.

At a lower level of government, the village councils and the heads of the extended families acted as guardians against glaring economic injustice. In their role as administrators of state rituals and upholders of state values, they mobilized individual labor and individual resources for the benefit of the collectivity. To some degree, then, the land had already been collectivized and nationalized before the coming of the Marxists.”]

frances fitzgerald, from fire in the lake: the vietnamese and the americans in vietnam, 1972

[max1461]

I think imposing political conditions on loans for economic development is in the general case quite bad. This applies whether these political conditions represent things I agree with—democratization, civil liberties—or things I think are flawed—neoliberal reforms. Because, at the end of the day, economic development is vitally important whether it happens in a country with democracy or robust civil liberties or not. Poor people living under dictatorship deserve an increase to their standard of living as much as poor people living under democracy! And, yes, development does not always imply poverty reduction; corruption often gets in the way. But development is, I think, a necessary condition for large scale poverty reduction, and a dictatorship wherein there are ports and roads and factories and the dictator usurps all the profits for his palace is better than a dictatorship where the economy is all agrarian and the dictator usurps all the profits for his palace. I mean, for all kinds of reasons; because wealth actually does trickle down to some degree, because a more productive economy means more wealth for the people sooner if the dictator ever does lose his grip, etc. etc. And of course this is a toy example, usually endemic corruption is more diffuse and even in countries with truly repressive political systems economic gains make people's lives considerably better.

Development is really important, and even if we grant total altruism on the part of the IMF (which is naive, but, ok, let's grant it) holding out loans in exchange for political concessions means those loans are less likely to get taken out! Because dictators don't want to stop being dictators! Which means less development less soon, and, you know, that's really bad!

And of course there's the fact that I don't think neoliberal reforms are universally the right move for developing economies, and the fact that, as important as I think civil liberties are, I think poverty reduction is more important. I don't want to mince words here, I think freedom of speech is vitally important and I think regimes that purport to "need" political repression to maintain order and social welfare are universally feeding you shit. But sometimes you can't get everything you want, and at the end of the day, I know I would rather lack freedom of speech than be crushingly poor. Maybe people in developing countries feel differently; maybe they should do a survey...

And then there's the question of whether any of this actually works to incentivize democracy and civil liberties in the first place. Someone's probably done a study on that. I don't know the answer.