#and therefore important to joe

[cementcornfield]

not lance reposting the joe doing the griddy video on HIS story with a bunch of laughing emojis!

[combinecremator]

if you want to look at all of biden's executive orders since he took office, the federal register keeps track of each one. so far they haven't published the ones in 2024, presumably bc the year Just Started.

(the link above is for 2021 specifically, but you can access 2022 and 2023 through the sidebar on that page)

[davestriderrider]

before I start reading/watching something new, I ask myself if I am mentally stable enough for it and how it may effect my thinking... i think more people should do that. it'd solve a lot of problems.

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to the Succession Rights of Adopted Children, Foster Children and Step-Children

I often get asks that surround scenarios where adopted or foster children or step-children of monarchs and nobles and what the prospects are of them inheriting the titles, privileges and wealth of their step-parent. Something I always want to remind people is that if you are writing fantasy, you can bend real world rules to fit your narrative any way you want. Anything I discuss here is meant for an inspiration or a foundation. With that being said, let's have a look.

Understanding the Rights

In modern times, adopted, foster and step-children are permitted to inherit from parents that are not blood related. This wasn't always the case throughout history, with a lot of cultures of royalty and nobility putting a lot of stock and emphasis on those rights being passed along by blood right. Afterall, this is how royalty and nobility justified themselves in being in the position they are. Without that, why shouldn't Joe Soap down the road call himself the King or Duke of Wherever-Shire? This is why a good many cultures only allow titles to pass to children that are born from a distinct familial line.

In Terms of Nobility and Royalty Adopted, Foster Or Step-Children Are NOT Entitled To…

Adopted children, foster children and step-children will not have blood claim and therefore, in many cultures would not be permitted to inherit or gain any wealth or status not linked to their birth parent.

Step-Children are not entitled to any title even courtesy title of their step-parent. For example, if their dad is a Duke who married a Queen, they don't become Princess/Prince, they stay with Lord/Lady. They are not the children of royalty, they are the children of a Duke and they are not treated as Prince/Princess but they are still well treated as they are the step-children of the Queen. They will not inherit royal styles, jewellery and estates. This is the same for noble families intermarrying. Main rule is that whatever you are born as, you stay as - though this new marriage might give you some perks.

Adopted children are not entitled to titles, courtesy titles land and items linked to their adopted family. (This does not include children that are adopted by the title holder when they are next in line)

Foster children, as I explain in my guide about them, are usually in the family for a brief time usually just until they are of age and are entitled to only the basics which is their physical needs and educational needs. They do not inherit titles.

Unless...

However, this is not true everywhere. There are some cultures in the real world that do allow adopted, foster and step-children to inherit titles and lands through adopted, foster and step-parents. These cultures often allowed this in order to select the perfect heir chosen by the adoptee/foster parent/step-parent or to fill a gap when there was no legitimate heir in the wings.

Ancient Rome: The Romans had a system of adoption which a Roman nobleman or Emperor and even a Pleb, could adopt somebody in order to allow them to inherit. Emperor Augustus adopted numerous heirs, even his own wife. Often adopting members within the extended family or close allies, this allowed the adopter to chose the right person to inherit their wealth and styles, even over legitimate and blood-related heirs if they so wished.

Brehon Ireland: Foster children and the practise was a popular and important custom, which while preventing foster children from inheriting titles and lands from their foster parent, it made them equal in the eyes of the law as their foster siblings, with even foster parents entitled to avenge and protect their foster children from any harm.

Feudal Japan: Like the Romans, samurai families adopted male heirs to inherit clans, land and titles.

Byzantine Empire: It wasn't as common as in Rome but Byzantine emperors could allow stepchildren or even sons-in-law to inherit positions of power.

Ancient Egypt: Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt sometimes adopted family members in order to ensure there was a clear heir.

Ancient China : Adoption was rare but Emperors could adopt male heirs from within the family branches in order to continue the family line.

Sweden: In one extremely rare case, a French General of the name, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte was formally adopted by King Charles XIII of Sweden. This entitled him to later become King Charles XIV John.

If You Are An Adopted, Foster Or Step-Child, You May Be Entitled To...

Some things. It's not to say that if your character can't be a prince or princess or gain a crown, they get absolutely nothing at all. In fact, if one of their parents marries a monarch or noble or they are adopted by a monarch or noble or they are fostered for a time, they will likely gain something.

Step-children can often be provided for by their step-parent, especially if one parent is dead and they live in the household. Step-children would not be allowed to inherit money that is linked to titles but they could still inherit some private wealth and items from their step-parent. Powerful step-parents may even see that their step-children marry well or access the same routes as their own children, such as educational or vocational avenues. Some royals even granted their step-children noble titles as shows of favour, such as Thomas and Richard Grey who by their step-father Edward IV, became Baron Astley/Earl of Huntingdon/Marquess of Dorset and Constable of Chester Castle/Constable of Wallingford Castle/Lord of Kidwelly respectively - along with numerous royal appointments and orders.

Adopted children, who are usually somehow related to their adopted parents but this is not always the rule, would be treated as their adopted parents saw fit which could be very well or with some difference than their legitimate children. Sometimes, they are adopted because they are next in line and the current holder of the title and crown has adopted them to educate them for their new role. But adopted children who are taken in are usually only entitled to have their basic needs met: food, shelter, clothes, education and sometimes help finding a match. They may even live somewhere apart from their adoptive parents but sometimes lived with their adoptive parents and were raised with their adoptive siblings.

Foster children are different. The foster system in the past was when a noble or royal family, took in a child from another noble family in order to offer them an education to groom them for their future. Foster children were often taken in in order to foster a good relationship between the families or to ensure their birth family would not act up. Foster children are expected to be treated well and given all privileges as their foster siblings but they can not inherit anything from their foster parents, that isn't privately accumulated wealth or items.

Difference in Inheritance

Not all things such as items and lands are restricted like titles and official seats of power. Anything privately acquired such as jewellery or private homes or private investments that are not linked to the wealth, property portfolio and power of the title can be left to a child that isn't of their body. For example, if a Duchess died and she had a son and a step-son, her son would be entitled to her title, her estates, the family fortune, the majority of her assets and her official jewellery while her step-son could be given pieces of her private jewellery collection, any property she held under her own name and any businesses she owned privately. This goes the same way for adopted or foster children - and is entirely at the discretion of their step/foster/adoptive parent.

[mariacallous]

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday partially blocked the Trump administration from enacting a policy that bans the use of “X” marker used by many nonbinary people on passports as well as the changing of gender markers.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, sided with the American Civil Liberties Union’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out. It requires the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary people who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity.

“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote. “That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”

Kobick also said plaintiffs have shown they would succeed in demonstrating that the new passport policy and executive order “are based on irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans and therefore offend our Nation’s constitutional commitment to equal protection for all Americans.”

“In addition, the plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the Passport Policy is arbitrary and capricious, and that it was not adopted in compliance with the procedures required by the Paperwork Reduction Act and Administrative Procedure Act,” she added.

[punch-outshame]

My headcanons on Punch-out Wii names...

To be honest, I just went through Google and search up names… like German names for babies- something that sounds similar to their boxer names like 'Bear' to 'Bruce'😂

Little Mac = Marcus Antoñio Plazas

I know it doesn't sound very Italian buuttt... it oddly fitting

Glass Joe = Joseph Girard

Joseph since the fandom calls him that... and Girard is for 'Glass' and it means "brave spear" or "strong spear". Since I see Joe as someone that loses in competitions but not in life.

Von Kaiser = Friedhelm Kaiser

Friedhelm is a masculine German name meaning "peace helmet" or "one who protects the peace". It is derived from the Old High German words "fridu" (peace) and "helm" (helmet). Several people with the name Friedhelm have achieved prominence in various fields, including sports, business, and academia...

Get it cuz he's a soldier

Disco Kid = Jonny Kristopher Discon

Am I the only one that sees Disco Kid as a Jonny? I don't know why...

Like he'd have so much energy as a Kid so his mom would yell "Jonny!!"

King Hippo = Kai Kaipo Hiilani

Felt odd keeping Hippo so mysterious so I searched up some Hawaiian names and these sounded nice for a King...

Like "His Majesty, King Kai Kaipo Hiilani!!"

Piston Hondo = Hitana Honda Piston

Very original I know lol... but uh- since in the wiki it says he's 'an altruist who boxes to raise money to build hospitals and schools in poor parts of the country' I thought why not his father be some sort of a mechanic that know the struggles of life and Honda honors his family name... by boxing.

also Honda since the hole name mix up and for the car brand.

Bear Hugger = Bruce Woodstone

Same with Disco kid, he looks like a Bruce...

'Woodstone' is more random since I was thinking of Ninjago for a moment and got the idea from Cole Brookstone - Woodstone lol

Also his bear companion would be name Coach... Coach the Bear. Since it shows the bear teaching him.

And his squirrel friend would be Boxy... Boxy the squirrel, since its boxing with him.

Great Tiger = Gaurav Trivedi

Derived from the Sanskrit गौरव (gaurava), Gaurav translates to "importance," "pride," "honor," and "dignity."

I don't know really... was searching for what language Tiger speaks in and somewhere else it said Sanskrit but it was actually Hindi, I keep it since its sounds fitting 'Gaurav' - 'Great'

In Sanskrit, Tri = 'three' and Vedi = 'to see'. Therefore, a Trivedi is one with 'three-fold vision', or someone who is able to see into the past, present, and future. The spiritual connotation is that a Trivedi is a master of time and can see into the past and future.

Not comfy with theses type's of subjects but yeah... get it since the clone things he does in game... 'Trivedi' - 'Tiger'

Don Flamenco = Don Fernando Felipe Francisco Florero Flamenco

Sorry had to... having such a long ass name that you'd yell when he's doing something wrong.

Aran Ryan = Aran Ronald Ryan

He was lazy and didn't think of a name for his boxing career so he just took off his father's name and done.

Soda Popinski = Dominik Son Drunkenski

A youtube video on unused stuff were a older looking Soda stands there doing nothing... so thought why not make it his father from Super Punch Out on the arcade... named his Dominik to be unique

Bald Bull = Bülent Bulison

Didn't have an idea so I went with the fist name that sounded close to 'Bull'...

'Bulison' was made by me taking inspiration on Soda that had 'Son' Drunkenski

Super Macho Man = Tony GoldenStone

'Tony' cuz he reminded me of 'Tony Stark' I mean both rich, sleping with women, fighting something, having paparazzi...

GoldenStone is mine since of the gold tooth and uh- may or may not have a large famous family.

Mr. Sandman = Michael 'Mike' Fostersand

'Mike' for you know dear old Tyson... Fostersand for 'Sand'man

and uh yeah that's all lol

...

Also Also... First post!

[covid-safer-hotties]

With the toll of new COVID-19 infections regularly topping 1 million a day and weekly deaths creeping toward the 1,000 mark, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has launched a campaign aimed not at protecting the public from this ongoing pandemic, now in its fifth year, but at washing its hands of responsibility.

CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen held a press conference August 23 to review the state of the COVID-19 pandemic and encourage the public to get their winter COVID-19, RSV and flu vaccines once they are made available. While bluntly acknowledging that “COVID is with us,” she tried unconvincingly to assure reporters and viewers that “we have the tools to protect ourselves.” She then added, as a way of shifting the blame, “We just need to use them!”

Dr. Cohen was silent on who was responsible for the failure of most Americans to get booster shots or otherwise protect themselves from a disease, which can be fatal for many and cause lifelong debilitation for many more.

She could have named the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, which ended the COVID-19 emergency more than a year ago and treats the pandemic as a thing of the past. She could have named Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the promoter of quack remedies like ivermectin and bleach, who recently welcomed into his campaign the anti-vaxxer and enemy of science and public health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

And if she had been equipped with a mirror—and a conscience—she could have pointed to herself and other top CDC officials, who have collaborated in the anti-scientific rampage to shut down both mitigation efforts and even elementary data collection on cases of illness, hospitalization and death.

Most importantly (and therefore least likely) she could have acknowledged that within the framework of the capitalist system, the profits of giant banks and corporations are far more important than the lives of human beings. That is the meaning of the incessant claims that schools, factories, public transportation and facilities must be kept open, to save “the economy,” despite the inevitable spread of the infection as a result.

Dr. Cohen, like her predecessors and colleagues at the top of the public health establishment, puts political pressures above science and medicine. The nearly hour-long briefing was simply political theater, where a panel of experts attempted to place the public health agency in the best light despite acknowledging the monumental number of daily infections that have seen hospitalizations and fatalities climb.

Meanwhile, schools across multiple states have announced closures—affecting thousands—just as the new academic year has begun, in response to mass infections among faculty and students.

So far this year, more than 26,000 Americans have died from acute COVID-19 complications, and more than 800 per week are being killed by a preventable infection, a figure 20 percent higher than last year this time. At the current rate, it is expected that between 50,000 to 60,000 Americans will die from COVID-19 in 2024, a rate two to three times higher than fatalities from flu. However, these do not take into consideration excess deaths, and given the complete dismantling of the reporting systems, these figures are known undercounts.

Such figures could only appear low in comparison to the colossal death toll of the first three years of the pandemic, when 352,000 died in 2020, 464,000 in 2021 and 260,000 in 2022. In 2023, 76,000 COVID-19 deaths were recorded. All these numbers are underestimates, as excess mortality figures are considerably higher. The cumulative death toll from COVID-19 is likely well over 1.4 million in the United States and approaching 30 million worldwide.

Neither did the panel address any concerns over the fact that millions continue to suffer from Long COVID, which has taken a significant toll on the health of Americans and the world over. It bears mentioning that a recent study noted that 410 million people across the world have had Long COVID with a $1 trillion impact on global GDP. Yet, no treatment for this condition exists. Without health insurance and means, issues of brain fog, chronic fatigue and sleep disturbances become part of one’s physiognomy.

Much about Dr. Cohen’s characterization of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is deeply flawed and should have been taken up by the press, who remained silent on the matter. First and foremost, her claim, in response to a direct question that COVID-19 “is endemic,” is completely misleading.

An infection is endemic when it is contained, not spreading uncontrolled and not causing significant impact on the society. COVID-19 is none of these. It remains a pandemic, with new waves of infections where millions are being infected daily by a virus whose mutation far outstrips the efforts of public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies to provide vaccines, medicines and mitigation practices. It continues to cause large-scale social disruption, economic loss and general hardship.

The opposition of both capitalist parties to any significant effort to fight the pandemic was on display last week. The Democratic National Convention, like its Republican counterpart in July, was a massive superspreader event, with thousands of delegates and media personnel congregating in an enclosed arena, where there was continuous cheering, shouting and singing. There are already anecdotal reports of widespread sickness in state delegations returning from Chicago.

As for the Republicans, Trump staged his appearance with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Friday afternoon, beaming as Kennedy announced he was folding up his independent presidential campaign and endorsing the ex-president and would-be dictator. Kennedy said he was working with Trump on staffing agencies like the CDC, NIH, FDA and USDA from the standpoint of ending the “chronic disease crisis.” By this he means, of course, ending efforts to fight diseases and letting children, the elderly, and the entire American population suffer the consequences.

Fundamentally, all large epidemics and pandemics are serious social issues that require broad-scale infection control in place to disrupt and prevent disease. And with respect to COVID-19 and all future pandemics, these require an international collaborative perspective.

In 2024 so far, 179 million people were infected in the United States, a total that is eventually expected to surpass 2023, when more than 248 million Americans, or three-quarters of the population, caught COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 wastewater levels throughout the pandemic suggest that there have been more than 1.1 billion infections in the United States, between three and four for every person in the country.

This begs the question how are those most vulnerable, such as the elderly, immunocompromised, and those with chronic disabling medical conditions, which represent a significant portion of the population, to protect themselves from perpetual mass infection?

For the CDC director to present public health efforts as a matter of individual, personal choice is a gross falsification of reality. The policy of mass infection has been forced on the population.

As for having the tools to protect themselves, what is being offered are simply vaccines and more vaccines as a means to prevent COVID-19. As the WSWS recently noted, “Despite the limitations, the uptake of the vaccines is vital for the health of the population. The shots have a strong, proven safety record and do prevent severe disease and potentially reduce the risk of Long COVID, as studies have indicated. However, they do not prevent infections and the immunity they offer is short-lived given the constant mutation of the virus.”

The vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna carry a cost of $120 to $130 per shot. In some regions, these can be as high as $160 or even $200. However, the rescinding in March of $4.3 billion from the Department of Health and Human Services in COVID-19 supplemental funding means access to free vaccines for the 26 million uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured, essentially all from working class families, will only mean that the vaccination campaign will simply languish as it did last year when only 7 million Americans accepted the boosters within six weeks of their delivery to pharmacies.

As for other tools in their toolbox, Cohen refers to anti-viral treatments like Paxlovid, which are regularly being denied to patients by their physicians or when they actually are given a prescription, face the daunting price tag of $1,300 to $2,400 per course because their insurance denies them coverage. Meanwhile, repurposed medications like Metformin, a drug that treats diabetes, which has shown anti-viral properties and shown in randomized trials to reduce COVID-19 viral loads and decrease risk of Long COVID, remain unmentioned. In particular, this raises the question of why there are so few tools in the toolbox, and why some are being removed, such as the ability to wear N95 masks in public.

The arrest of an 18-year-old New York man in Nassau County on Tuesday who was wearing a black ski mask utilizing the recently passed mask-ban legislation will only embolden police departments and threaten the public who face possible detentions and arrest simply on charges of police suspicion.

At the Democratic National Convention, guidance was issued forbidding mask wearing by attendees unless “it was necessary due to a disability” and this at the discretion of security.

[respectthepetty]

Backshots & Smiles

Yes, I'm being crass and this is a sexual innuendo, but go with it . . .

Ming loves Joe's back because it allows him to think he is with Tong.

We know this.

Because the series has shown this several times.

And Joe knows it too now.

But the third episode showed us that Ming actually fell in love with Tong because of Joe's back.

Therefore, Ming really fell in love with Joe first.

But he didn't realize it (until it was too late).

Even when Ming initially met Tong, Ming saw Tong's back first with his side profile.

And Tong's back at the restaurant reminded Ming of Joe.

And the meal Joe made for him their first night together - face first

The show has constantly told us that Ming is attracted to Joe's back because of its connection to Tong.

But the show has also told us Ming is truly in love with Joe because he IS Joe, not Tong's stand in which is why Ming, who only has sex with Joe from behind, was finally willing to let Joe top from behind.

And it's why the posters have shifted as well, so we now see Joe's face and Ming's back.

Unlike Ming and Joe who switch faces/places (there is a deeper meaning there about outward perceptions versus personal identity but that's not for here), Tong is the "face" . . . but that is all he is and all he will only be.

But I think the show is even stating Ming and Joe are one versatile unit as in they are connected and evolving and Tong is the static outlier.

Unlike Ming in the elevator, Sol had no recognition of Joe but then again Ming has been in love with Joe forever, even if it was initially through his back.

And Joe has never seen Ming as just a face as so many other do.

Which is why it's important that Ming rarely smiles.

Because Ming does smile.

A lot.

When he is with Joe.

So the staff members noting that Ming only smiles when he works with Tong is telling.

Because I don't think Ming is smiling because it's Tong.

He is smiling because Tong reminds him of Joe.

Ming, the man who is still living in Joe's house, making two meals with the bowls Joe bought, mending the broken mugs with their names on them, using the personalized pillowcases, and wearing the watch Joe bought him, is using Tong has a stand-in for Joe.

Joe is no longer the stand-in. He is the main character, which is why Ming told *new* Joe's BACK that people only liked him because of his resemblance to *old* Joe.

Ming no longer wants just a stand-in, but the whole person, so when he gets Joe back, he will always look him in his face.

And smile.

[afinestoutlove]

TL;DR Joe Locke is a really good actor

I accidentally came across a couple people saying Joe Locke isn't a good actor and like... what tf were you all watching?? Cos it wasn't what I was watching, he's so fucking good!! (I can only talk about Heartstopper here cos I haven't seen much of him in other things, but given these posts were related to Heartstopper...) I think this is firstly straight up (ha!) homophobia, with a side helping of shitty masculine beauty standards. I think it also comes down to the story Joe Locke is acting being something people are super uncomfortable seeing, and his success at telling it makes them uncomfortable in a way they don't want to deal with.

Homophobia first. These are almost always people who like Nick/Kit Connor, and that's not a coincidence. Nick/Kit fits very neatly into normative masculinity (although you know I have things to say about that around Nick's character), so people who haven't done the work to recognise their homophobia don't feel so weird about him. (He IS a great actor, but not "better" than Joe, or any of the other actors in the show. He just has a different story to tell that some people find easier to digest.) But Charlie/Joe Locke reads as more "stereotypically" gay, and no matter what BS reasons people come up with for not liking him, it almost always comes down to "he makes me uncomfortable because GAY".

Masculine beauty standards are so related to homophobia, because what we construct as an attractive man is so linked to heteronormative masculinity - tall, muscular, strong etc (let's not forget white, although that's less relevant to this discussion). Charlie/Joe not only falls outside these standards, but he's shown in the story as still being desirable. I love that about this story, because people who fall outside the very narrow beauty standards in Hollywood are still desirable to a lot of people - including people like Nick who meet those beauty standards. We see this happen in public couples all the time, tons of people suggesting that the partner who is further from conventional beauty standards is somehow a bad person, or is "tricking" the more conventionally attractive one. (See all the years of people trying to suggest Hugh Jackman is secretly gay because they thought his wife wasn't pretty enough and therefore must be a beard, it's so fucking gross.)

Finally the whole "character makes me uncomfortable" thing. Charlie Spring's story is super important and it makes people feel things that, if they haven't done their own work, are going to be super uncomfortable. Again, this is tied to homophobia, because Charlie's story challenges masculine norms about what counts as strength, what men "should" be like, etc. He has an ED, he has anxiety, he requires and seeks help, he forms affectionate and strong relationships and needs them to be healthy, etc. These are things men "aren't supposed to do" (and Nick only gets away with it bEcAuSe He'S hOt, that's it, that's the whole reason). People read Charlie as manipulative or selfish or whatever because he's not acting the way they think men "should" act. It's not based in Charlie's character - he is none of those things. But they want to read it that way because to actually recognise what makes them uncomfortable about Charlie would require them to unpack their own homophobia and bullshit masculinity standards.

Anyway, the short version is: I think people need to stop confusing "character that makes me feel uncomfortable feelings" or "person who is unconventionally attractive" with "can't act" cos y'all are very confused.

[pochiperpe90]

[ENG] Esquire Italia: The natural and collective duty of anti-fascism

In the country that invented fascism, where a widespread rate of intellectual hypocrisy is such that it isn’t ashamed to distinguish between being anti-fascist and defining oneself as "not fascist", Sky Studios and Lorenzo Mieli for The Apartment, a company of the Fremantle group (which will have international distribution), in co-production with Pathé, in association with Small Forward Productions, in collaboration with Fremantle and Cinecittà, have launched the series M. II figlio del secolo, based on the novel by Antonio Scurati, directed by Joe Wright, on SkyAtlantic in January. Presenting it first, without fanfare, at the 81st Venice Film Festival.

This is the most important cinematographic work ever created in Italy, on the deafening truth of its fascist history. Never before has fascism been so authentically described in its identity as a criminal movement, constantly violent, dedicated to political murder, torture, brutality in all its forms, first to the punishment, and then the destruction, of democracy.

Benito Mussolini is a murderer, a criminal dictator, a hitman of freedom. Fascism has never had a shred of decency, historical truth condemns it for its massacres of civilians, for its racial laws, for the devastation it brought to all of Europe through the excitement of the idea of ​​war as a heroic necessity. But the memory of fascism, its traces, become confused until they dissolve in the family channels of Italians, who easily prefer to dilute, but without managing to absolve, the collective conscience of the least national State in Europe. In a country that should have the courage to be ashamed, through which to build civil conscience, M. Il figlio del secolo, is a visual text, a tool for reflection and teaching. Effective not only because it’s a bearer of truth, but above all because the language that composes it is dictated by the plurality of contemporary elements that are indispensable to maintain the attention and empathy of the public. From the piercing soundtrack composed by Tom Rowlands of The Chemical Brothers, to the adrenaline-filled screenplay by Stefani Bises and Davide Serino, to the epic photography by Seamus McGarvey: the energy is constant. The light on the crime of an ideology without principles and therefore opportunistic, changeable, unscrupulous, is always on.

Those who don’t understand that Luca Marinelli, the protagonist of this eight-part film, suffered in dissolving principles and humanity to identify with the opposite of himself, offers the measure of the sensitivity with which they relates to the honesty of an actor's cultural work. Always reducing everything to the amount of material compensation that should justify and compensate for every disturbance.

Luca Marinelli had the courage to abandon himself to the evil that Benito Mussolini embodied. Evil is pervasive, it’s grotesque, it’s a caricature that becomes monstrosity, it’s many other nuances, but in its entirety it’s what opposes humanism, with the sole purpose of hurting others, for oneself.

Joe Wright, the director of M. Il figlio del secolo, is English. Did this help in placing violence at the center of the narrative as the identity of fascism, without discounts? 

LM After a hundred years we are still experiencing the aftermath and the new involutions of the story we tell. Hatred and violence are a concept that every human being can understand, in every latitude. Joe is geographically English, yes. But as he always said, it’s important to talk about people and not nations. The concept of nation is something that is mostly used by the powerful to foment distinctions that can lead to heavy tragedies. What we tell is a universal story: the life of a person, and of a country, that we seem to have forgotten. If you know history you cannot be a fascist.

And yet, Italians were fascists. Even the many who did not oppose were guilty. Is this the weight of history?

LM I am not a historian but I can say that in that period politics, power, institutions, the monarchy and the Church played their part. But there was also a popular responsibility. History is astonishing: the succession of its events leaves you stunned.

Your Benito Mussolini is intimate, theatrical, it tells of the fascination that the man was able to transmit to others. What explanation did you give yourself?

LM I think that the trauma that the devastation of the First World War left on Europe and Italy is underestimated. Violence had become an integral part of society, but this didn’t justify it. Mussolini applied it to everyday politics, surrounding himself with people accustomed to the use of violence and quick to exercise it. Mussolini exploited emptiness and desperation, with skill and unscrupulousness has generated a new mix, a political form that fools everyone and continually changes direction according to convenience. But violence is an indispensable constant.

When Mussolini has to prepare the lists for the elections of April 6, 1924, he realizes the unpresentability and unreliability of his gang of thugs. He enlists other politicians, of different affiliations, who surrender to fascism in order to sit in Parliament. The scene in the film says: humanity is disgusting, and it’s on this tragedy that we will build our triumph.

LM Having been an opportunist politician, I think he had no trouble recognizing these attitudes in others. It’s his ruthlessness that is associated with contempt in the human race. In the monologue magnificently written around his gigantic effigy, he says: wanting more and more until you take everything, this is fascism. And this is Mussolini.

What did you learn?

LM A lot, both from myself and from the people around me. I had never spent seven months on a set with three hundred colleagues. But above all I loved Joe's dedication, his placing himself before art as if it were a divinity. And humble before his craft, he is guided by this: for me, a fundamental guide, an inspiration. The long period of filming gave me the opportunity to look at what was happening at different times and confirm how art is a process of communion.

In the film you give many speeches. Have you built a relationship with words? 

LM They are frightening words in their ruthlessness and cruelty. They exude criminal ingenuity. The words were the first sound approach to the film. When I read the eight scripts in a row, I understood that I would have to do a great job of mnemonic organization. In many dialogues and speeches, the precision of each word was important. I made a plan to learn with the right timing, because his speeches, the role, required theatricality, but also authenticity. I didn't want memory to prevent me from feeling free to be there, in that moment.

What did you feel?

LM First a lot of curiosity, to understand how everything that was written in the script would be realized. Then I heard Joe explaining to four hundred people that they shouldn't be extras, but actors. That they couldn't just appear, that they had a collective responsibility. I knew we were all listening and their help was fundamental.

A challenging acting test?

LM A lot. The fifteen days in the Parliament chamber, reconstructed in an extraordinary way, were one of the most difficult periods. When we finished filming there was a moment that will be difficult to forget: a collective embrace between people who for seven months, ten hours a day, traveled together through history. A testimony to the common awareness of having explored the dark sides of the human soul and having touched the abyss. It's something that marks you. It took time to move away from hatred.

Have you ever had a moment of diabolical attraction?

LM No. I was just fascinated by the idea of ​​being able to honestly tell the truth with this project. I felt the freedom of being able to ride history without the risk of being misunderstood.

"After a hundred years we are still experiencing the aftermath and new involutions of the history we tell"

Among the criticisms received, that of having played a grotesque Duce.

LM Life is also made up of grotesque moments. But from a comedy situation we can quickly slip into a tragedy. We must be very careful to notice these dynamics.

In Italy there are not many fascists, but many non-antifascists.

LM In my opinion, for all those who care about the idea of ​​humanity and collectivity, it’s a natural moral duty to be anti-fascist.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

History Repeating Itself 💔

Joe Biden’s Role in the Yom Kippur War

Joe Biden had his first meeting with an Israeli leader, Golda Meir, on the eve of the Yom Kippur war, right after meeting with officials in Cairo. During the then junior senator’s meeting with Meir, Biden suggested that Israel make a unilateral withdrawal from settlements for peace, criticizing the settlement policies of the Labor Party, and suggesting they represent a form of “creeping annexation.” Though Biden assured Meir that Egyptian officials were convinced of Israel’s military superiority, 40 days later, Sadat initiated a surprise attack against Israel.

This is the gist of a bombshell tweet from Israel’s Channel 13 reporter Nadav Eyal containing excerpts from a classified memo from an Israeli official who attended that fateful meeting. While it may have been the first meeting between Biden and an Israeli prime minister, it was certainly not the last. In subsequent meetings with Israeli prime ministers, Biden threatened Menachem Begin with withholding U.S. aid, and publicly upbraided Benyamin Netanyahu because it had been announced in a town council meeting that 1600 homes were to be built in future in the Jewish Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo (more about this here).   

Joe Biden paints that early meeting with Golda as something precious that cemented in his mind how important Israel is to the Jewish people. It is clear, however, that Joe Biden has always been against the Jewish people settling their indigenous territory. The very thought of Jews planning to build homes in Jerusalem makes him furious. Therefore, contrary to the love fest with Golda he has often described, Biden used the first chance he had to meet with an Israeli prime minister to broach the subject of unilateral concessions.

One wonders how much clout the young senator wielded at that time. Not to mention the timing of subsequent events, with the surprise attack on Israel by Egypt occurring just 40 days after Biden’s meeting with Meir. Is it possible that Golda Meir incurred wider U.S. displeasure by refusing to entertain Biden’s suggestion of unilateral concessions? Was Egypt perhaps emboldened by this state of affairs to attack Israel without fear of American intervention?

During its years in office, Israel fought the 1956 Sinai War, the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Labor agreed to UN Resolution 242 and the notion of trading land for peace. Nevertheless, successive Labor governments established settlements in the disputed territories and refrained from dismantling illegal settlements, such as those established in 1968 at Qiryat Arba in Hebron by Rabbi Moshe Levinger, and others set up by Gush Emunim. By 1976, more than thirty settlements had been established on the West Bank; however, their population was fewer than 10,000.

"TODAY’S BLOG:

Joe Biden’s Role in the Yom Kippur War

In January 1973, Joe Biden was sworn in as Senator from Delaware.

September of that year found him in the Middle East on a trip to Egypt. Shortly thereafter, Biden was in Israel in a meeting with Israeli PM Golda Meir.

In that meeting, Biden convinced Meir that Egypt would not attack Israel by convincing her that Egypt thought that Israel had absolute military superiority.

The meeting was documented on October 2, 1973 in a secret letter (below) written by Israel Foreign Ministry official Gideon Jordan. Four days later Egypt attacked Israel.

Foreign Ministry official Gideon Jordan summed up Biden’s words as follows: “Of all the personalities (in Egypt) he (Biden) met, he heard that there was not one of them who disbelieved in Israel’s perfect military superiority and therefore stated that it is not possible for Egypt to go to war against Israel now. According to the people he spoke to Egyptians, time will take its course and when God wills, he will find the solution.”

What this letter calls into question is Joe Biden’s extreme misreading of Arab “personalities” and their intentions. His misreading–and that of Israeli intelligence–had disastrous consequences in the Yom Kippur War. One cannot help but think of similar Biden misreadings when it comes to Iran, Lebanon, and elsewhere.

Gideon Jordan later notes in the secret document that Biden was interested in more than Egypt: “The senator repeatedly said that Israel should do a unilateral act, that is to withdraw from some territories, of course not from those territories of strategic importance such as the Golan Heights, Sharm el-Sheikh and the Gaza Strip–but to withdraw without even any negotiations or an agreement with the Arabs.”

Jordan remarks that Meir immediately disagreed with Biden about unilateral withdrawals without achieving true peace. Again, one cannot help but think about the disastrous Biden unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the unilateral concessions that the U.S. has demanded from Israel in the current Lebanon “agreement” talks.

The secret letter is below for those of you who read Hebrew:

When Biden met Meir: Joe Biden advised Jewish PM to trade land for peace - The Jerusalem Post

 Biden meeting between Joe Biden and former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, described in a memo published by Israeli reporter Nadav Eyal, sheds light on the former Vice President's thought process at that time, and what he believed Israel should do shortly before the Yom Kippur war broke out. The meeting took place following his return from Egypt where he discussed with Saadat several things, roughly 40 days before the surprise attack that would turn into the Yom Kippur war.

https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/when-biden-met-meir-joe-biden-advised-jewish-pm-to-trade-land-for-peace-646732

[kazzsbrekker]

the old guard 2 criticism (spoilers): i wanna type out my thoughts about (part of) the reason why the final act/big action sequence of tog 2 just didn't hit. i've seen a lot of people say there was no emotional resonance and i 100% agree, it just felt empty and soulless. so, disregarding booker's death and whatever discord's deal was, i want to talk about the biggest issue i've noticed:

the setting.

in order for the final confrontation with quynh and discord to happen, the old guard have to go to a nuclear facility in indonesia. like,, what do i care about a random nuclear facility in a country none of the characters have (to my knowledge) any personal connection to? we're supposed to care because if they blow up the core, a lot of innocent people are going to die. and of course that is bad! but we don't know these people. and neither do the characters. we don't know of any friends of the characters there, there's no history for them there, there's no reason for them - and therefore us - to personally care about this potential explosion. this is randomly introduced by copley, with no buildup or mention of this having any connection to what has happened prior. the other source of tension is the possibility that they might all lose their immortality. they even try to up the personal stakes with the conversation between joe and nicky beforehand ('we could end'). but it doesn't work, it doesn't resonate. because the reason that this might happen, the cause they are fighting for here, the place they're going, where the future of the old guard will be decided, isn't important.

take the third act of the first movie: the big action sequence happens in merrick's lab. this is a place where several of the characters have been tortured for an extended period of time. we know how they've suffered here and we are rooting for them to be able to get out and kill everyone who contributed to their treatment. the aim here is to break out or die get captured trying. nile's choice to go there and help them is a huge character moment because it is her choice to join the old guard, to leave her old life behind, to face this future. it is personal, it is intimate, we are not asked to care about the population of london. the characters in peril are the ones we are supposed to care about, and we do, because we have watched them laugh and fight and care for each other. i don't know any of the faceless people living in proximity to the nuclear facility. in terms of movie plotting, they are not a good enough reason for the old guard to go there and risk their lives.

they should have scaled down the threat that leads up to the final confrontation and made it more intimate: something concerning nile's past (her hometown, somewhere close to her family which she still misses and wants to protect), maybe something personal between quynh and andy (rome again, perhaps, or the ocean, so andy faces the same fear again from when she lost quynh the first time). anything but an empty, replacable action movie prop.

[cath-lic]

Hello, I was wondering if you believe non-Christians can be saved? I know many Catholics believe everyone that doesn't accept Jesus will go to hell. Personally, I find this outlook very sad and I was curious on other points of view so please anyone respond with their own opinions. I mean to ask you this: If God is love and is forgiving of our sins, why would he send everyone to hell simply because they could not find their way to him?

hi!! YES absolutely everyone is saved!! now, everyone and their brother has a conflicting opinion on this, but i’ll throw in my two cents.

my first, more concrete point: john 3:16. the everyman’s verse!!

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

okay, but what if someone doesn’t believeth? vatican ii’s lumen gentium, no. 16, also covers this. (italics added by me)

Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace.

however, it’s important to note LG no. 14. bear with me here.

Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.

i’m not a theologian, i’m just joe off the street—so i may be taking things out of context. forgive me!

however—as much as i am catholic, i believe that this is putting WAY too much importance on the catholic church as we know it today. it is far, far different than the original organization founded upon the rock of st. peter, and i believe that there are many things that god takes issue with in the catholic church (notoriously, jesus criticized large institutions like these). therefore, i don’t know how much i believe that the catholic church today, nor as a whole, was made necessary by god through christ.

my second point: my most fervent belief is that god is love. pretty much all of my friends are atheists, and they are kind and caring and loving people. it is, therefore, impossible for me to believe that they are not saved.

my second-and-a-half point: i take a little bit of issue with your phrasing of “send” to hell.

personally, i believe that hell is not necessarily Dante’s inferno, but a place of complete and total separation from god. i also believe that hell is not a place you are sent to, but rather a place you send yourself.

i mentioned purgatory in my earlier answer to a different anon; this is where that comes in. i generally concur with pope francis when he says that he likes to think of hell as empty (note: he was not issuing doctrine here). i believe that in purgatory, 99.999% (you get it) of people, if not 100%, are able to reconcile with god and see the consequences of their decisions, good and bad, throughout their life.

you know when you tell someone something that is true, but they keep on rejecting it, no matter what evidence you show them? that’s what i imagine is happening to the other .001%.

god is endlessly patient; he doesn’t mind spending eons trying to convince others to have empathy for their fellow man. however, humans are not as patient. they get fed up and walk away—and this is my (limited) understanding of the process of going to hell.

i’ll be honest, i don’t know if hell is permanent, temporary, etc. i’m not sure how helpful it is to debate it, either. but what i do know is very helpfully summarized in this post by the lovely hymnsofheresy.

whenever i have doubts about some aspect of what i believe being incorrect, i remind myself that god is love. he loves us more than anything in the world, and nothing we can do will ever change that. he doesn’t look for reasons for you to go to hell; he wants to be with us all the time.

thank you for sending in this ask, and i hope it helped ❤️❤️❤️

[thelittleslowmoon]

Her gaiety and enthusiasm picked him up whenever he was down, and her ease with the social amenities filled the gaps that his own reticence occasioned. Above all, she showered him with affection and support, and he needed that. As the seventh child and the third son, following in the wake of two acknowledged “golden boys” like Joe and John, he had never felt for very long that he belonged anywhere. That was what all his striving for personal excellence was about. But now Ethel was there, always there, telling him that he had nothing to prove to her.

When I Think of Bobby by Warren Rogers

Photo by Jacques Lowe

The thing about it ─ and this was told to me by a member of the family, and I think it was important ─ is that Bobby always had a terrible inferiority complex. He just couldn’t live up to his brothers. And he was caught in the middle there, I don’t think he got as much attention as the other kids. Therefore, he was always shy and always unsure of himself. Ethel was the one that changed him and gave him complete loyalty and ego building and whatever. She devoted her whole life to him. Whatever she did was always for Bobby. So, of all the wives I know, she was the least competitive when it came to her husband. She was 110 percent. She would be the one who would get mad… She read everything, and she used to get mad at people that Bobby wouldn’t even have time to get mad at. And, Bobby, naturally, being in politics, was more sophisticated than Ethel about his enemies. But boy, Ethel never forgot and she was tough… I just felt that she ─ and someone said this, and I think it was a very lovely thing ─ they said that she never could get over the fact that she was married to him. It was the greatest thing that ever happened to her. He was very devoted to her. I remember a couple of times he would whisper to me, “Go over and talk to Ethel; make her happy, cheer her up, or something.” He was always conscious of her. And it was a very, very interesting ─ I would call it a beautiful relationship.

─ Art Buchwald

RFK Oral History Interview

[the-cards-she-wont-show]

TTPD Twin Storylines weaved together & double meanings throughout! ✌️👯‍♀️💕

Attention ALL Swifties (particularly Gaylors) and associates of the Tortured Poets department

PLEASE READ!! (and read with an open mind!!)🤍

Listening to the amazing TTPD on repeat this past week, I am certain that I have made an important discovery that I haven't seen talked about anywhere else yet and would like to get the coversation going, in hopes that Taylor will see that we are all finally listening to her! I'm still piecing everything together, as there is so much to unravel and am far from calling myself an expert on her exact timelines and dates, so am looking forward to hearing thoughts from others that are more knowledgable in her history.

I have been of the belief for a while now that Mastermind and Dear Reader were foretelling of her future, and also that the album title had a double meaning (evidenced by the lack of apostrophe in 'poets'). That the tortured poet would be departing. Note that I am also a believer that she has been closeted by those closest to her and is preparing to ruin her name and perceived reputation, give up the false public version of herself and come into her own true self. Everything as we know it will be destroyed and it is all playing out now, coming together as part of her plan.

Falling in line with all of the two's - the double album, the double meaning in the album name, the two sides of taylor etc, I have found that there are two intertwining stories told throughout her tracklist, AND that all songs also have a double meaning!! None of which are about the perceived muses of Travis, Matty or Joe. The 'evidence' for those relationships are all red herrings (for example 'putting narcotics into all of my songs' - but only in the songs with obvious reference to her beards), to make it seem ambiguous and open to interpretation of who the songs may be about, which is seen often throughout her discography. She uses an incredible amount of metaphors and we must look beyond those to decipher her lyrics - do not take anything at face level with Taylor. Most should realise that she is so much smarter than making obvious songs about whichever male muse she is 'dating' at the time. She has always played into that public view to cover her true self. Many songs have themes of secret and hidden love, which juxtaposes with the public 'relationships' she is seen as having.

She tells us in 'The Manuscript' that "lookin' backwards might be the only way to move forward". Therefore we must listen to TTPD in reverse, from track 31 (13 reversed!) to track 1. I believe The Manuscript also acts as a bookend for both of her stories and should be listened to as a closer after the last song of the story 'Fortnight' ends, to get a complete picture. Once we have listened to the album in reverse order, can we see so plainly that each song tells a different story of a period/situation/muse/love/heartbreak in her life - beginning at her parents meeting in The Manuscript, to current day. I think the songs may also actually have a sister song from the corresponding album/period in time, with similar sound, lyrics or theme that connects them. I believe that each song also has a double meaning and can be interpreted as messages to her fans about things that have happened to her over the years or that are about to happen, and she is trying to communicate her feelings of being trapped, which is honestly so heartbreaking. Many relate to her being caged and forced to hide her true self, in particular by one person closest to her - her father. It is devastating to listen to.

The really brilliant part I discovered next, is that The Anthology tracks also have another hidden storyline being told which intertwines and intersects in the exact right place to fit in with her life story. It includes all of the "THE" songs and is in reverse order from the parallel life story and vinyl variants order of issue (but chronological track list order).

The Tortured Poets Department

The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived

The Alchemy

The Black Dog

The Albatross

The Prophecy

The Bolter

The Manuscript

Rather than presenting my interpretation of the timeline and each story told in every song, I urge everyone to listen to both stories, in these exact orders, with an open mind as to what she could possibly be describing! My mind was completely blown when I figured this out!! Her mind is incredible, there is no other way to describe the album, other than a masterpiece! I feel so much for the pain she has gone through. This album explains her feelings and reasons for hiding her true self over the years for any fans that will inevitably be feeling upset and deceived. We all need to show compassion for everything Taylor has sacrificed and give her what she needs. She truly deserves love, honesty, happiness and peace. ✌️💜

I'm in the process of creating a document trying to piece all of the hidden connections together just to wrap my head around this amazing body of work, so may possibly link this when I have it completed, otherwise I will add it to this post for anyone that might be interested.

I have a couple of extra personal thoughts, theories and hopes for anyone still reading…

The manuscript of her life story may possibly be the manuscript for a future book/film.

I think one meaning of "Fortnight" is a foretelling message to the fans that havent been noticing any of her many hair pin drops - she has been trying to get the message across but they aren't listening. For the fans she loses when she comes out - she touched them with this album for only a fortnight, before she lost them. She loves the fans but staying in the closet is ruining her life. I think something big could be happening a fortnight after release? Friday 3rd May is International Sun Day. ☀️ Karlie Kloss was always 'sunshine' to Taylor. According to Karlie, their first meeting was at the 2011 Met Gala on May 2, however, there is a possibility that they could have met at the afterparty - after midnight, making the anniversary May 3! 2024 Met Gala is a few days later, could they both make an appearance? If nothing big occurs, perhaps some seeds of doubt will be planted on the 3rd? Or.. It could also be a surprise rep TV (with or without Karma and Debut - surprise triple drop?) with wlw vault tracks?! Who really knows.. I honestly have no idea, but whatever happens, I know Taylor has it all meticulously planned out and everything will happen when it is supposed to.

Taylor is chairman of the Tortured Poets department - the leader of the mass coming out we are about to see. As Chely Wright put - 'we need someone at the top' to come out and pave the way for others to do the same, and to stop the forced closeting in the celebrity world. I think Travis and the majority of her former beards are also queer and there will be many more 'tortured poets' that will join 'the department'.

Karma will be album 1 (TS12) in the 3,2,1 countdown, TS13 is 0 - the album in which she gets all of her full colour back, reclaims her glitter gel pens and finally can sing her truth proudly! She has destroyed her own name and reputation, burnt down the lover house and all her former selves.

Last of all, PLEASE BE KIND! If anyone has made it to the end of this and doesnt agree, I'd love for you to have a listen to the songs in the orders above before commenting. If not, lets just agree to disagree! We all have our own personal takes on Taylor's lyricism and I would never dream of being unkind to another just for having a difference of opinion. 🫶

For Taylor - if you somehow happen to see this - please know you are truly a mastermind, you are loved and we've got you!

🌈💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛💛🌈

❤️ gerimegs

[letsdeconstructtogether]

Black Hair-Care 101

Lets start, do your own hair!

If you do your own hair, you will learn what's best for it and thus treat it the best. When others do your hair, they are not as invested in your hair's health as you are (unless they are a loving family member or someone who has a very good heart).

They'll be more focused on outcome and are therefore more likely to damage your hair.

The only ones who will be 100% invested in your hair is God and you.

You also need to shift your focus from looks to health. Don't kill your hair to look beautiful. Take care of your hair as if it is sacred and it will, in time, take care of you by beautifying you.

Love your hair and it will love you back.

Our natural hair is as fine as silk and is meant to adorn us. Treat it as such.

First Step: Proper Detangling

I first use my fingers to delicately loosen my hair because hair will break at the slightest pull. The key to longer hair is to keep the hair already on your head.

I also apply castor oil on my hair during detangling as well as for hair care after shampooing. It doesn't have the best smell, but the slip of that oil is amazing. My hair will just slip through knots even as I style through out the week.

If I encounter a tough knot, I apply a little castor oil on the knot then pull the knot out lightly. The knot will usually just unravel with the pull.

Your hair is like a flower, you have to treat it gently or it will fall apart.

After detangling, I like to treat my scalp before washing it with the body wash below (Tea tree is a mightily anti-fungal). In Trader Joes itself it's about $4.

Scalp health is very important, your hair grows from it!

I then use castile soap to wash my hair. With a little, that soap will go a long way. It will cleanse your hair supremely. I wash it many times until I can no longer feel oil on my hair and scalp. You want to make sure to clean old products off so your hair will have a fresh start for the new week! :)

Then, for my conditioner, I use the product below (the slip with this product is insane). I personally like to detangle before I wash my hair to make it easier to detangle during the conditioner stage.

Shampoo retangles the hair, so I apply a few pumps to my hair as a whole to help with slip. I then separate my hair into sections, then add additional conditioner to each section (a little goes a long way!).

I then use a comb (a wide toothed comb) to realign my hair strands. At this stage, the point is not to detangle, it is to realign your hair. Once it is aligned, it will be easy to separate into sections and style for the week.

Second Step: Use the Proper Comb

Combs styled like the one above have been a life-saver for my hair.

If you put enough slip in your hair (oil is great to add slip!), this comb will glide through your hair. This is because of its wider tooth gaps, which allows for curls to slip through. I learned that with our hair, the point isn't to 100% detangle it. It's more to realign the hair strands into one direction.

Once you get into that mindset, you'll lose much less hair.

Third Step: Put Your Hair Away When You Sleep

After you have adorned your hair with a style for the day, please put it away.

Please tuck your ends in to protect them (they are the oldest thus weakest part of your hair) and do large twists. The larger your twists, the less intertwined your hair will be. This helps to prevent retangling. Meaning, it will more easily detangled and thus cause less damage to your hair.

You don't want to comb your hair during the week.

You want to treat your hair like its fragile silk, not tough rope.

Baby it.

Nowadays, I do a rough version of the hairstyle above for my daytime wear. It's a style that makes my hair much more managable for hair styling.

If I did not twist my hair for the week, I tuck my ends into my roots at night.

So it looks like the image above at night.

In the morning, I unwrap my twists then redo them so it will look neat. If it's not in twists, I use my wide-toothed comb to gently tease the hair out of the night-knots. (Don't detangle, just tease it out. Remember, it doesn't need to be 100% detangled, just aligned)

When its time to wash, I detangle it as I have described in Step Uno. The less you comb your hair, the less hair you lose.

Do this over months and you'll wake up one day with a head full of poofy hair!

Fourth Step: Now that you have an abundance of hair, find elegant hairstyles that are easy and elegant.

Here's your reward for taking care of your hair:

You can now use your hair for beautiful hairstyles!

Don't be afraid to adorn your hair with accessories! Dress your hair with love <3

When styling, you want to treat your hair as gentle as when you detangle. I found that if I tussle and pull at my hair to style it, I will lose hair.

Nowadays, I gently part and maneuver my hair. It feels slower, but tangles are less likely to occur. The harder you tug at your hair, the more likely it will tangle. If you pull gently, it will slip through.

The goal is to hear no snaps/pops as you style. Treat your hair as gently as possible, as if you're arranging flowers in a vase. When you touch a flower's petals, you touch them gently so none will fall.

Same with your hair. Take your time and you'll be finished faster than you thought. If the style doesn't work out, breathe in, then out, then try again.

It takes practice and lots of love :)

Listen if white people can love their hair, we can too. If they can dress their hair with love, we. can. too.

Happy Wash Day everyone!

God is with us! Shalom!