#especially when it comes to profit over human welfare

[uncanny-tranny]

I just find it very interesting that all the labour classed as lesser (most often seen as "women's labour") becomes indispensable in moments of crisis. It's just interesting to see how quickly people turn to that labour and then discard it in moments of peace or prosperity, devaluing it until another crisis hits.

[rabbitcruiser]

National Horse Protection Day

The majestic horse has long been considered a close companion of  humans and a vital contributor to our species’ progress. National Horse  Protection Day is all about returning the love of our four-legged  friends by raising awareness of the various plights that horses face and  by protecting them from abuse, exploitation and neglect.

History of National Horse Protection Day

Throughout the centuries, equines have carried us on their backs,  pulled our carriages, fought in our wars, tilled our fields and traveled  miles and miles across our countries. They have been a key part of  human civilization for over 5,000 years and have cultural significance  all over the world. In the US, for example, the horse has a legendary  status as an icon of the American spirit, a symbol of freedom in the  West.

Although the advent of the automobile and various other technological  advances has meant that these creatures are no longer required as  frequently on the roads or as laborers, today horses still remain a  steadfast companion to animal lovers and equestrian fans alike. As well  as being great pets, they are a beloved therapy animal, often providing  support to people with disabilities, assist with important work such as  policing and cattle ranching and have become a key part of some popular  sports.

Yet despite the wonderful loyalty and dedication of horses, they are frequently mistreated, exploited and abandoned.

National Horse Protection Day was first observed in 2005 when it was  founded by pet lifestyle expert and animal behaviorist Colleen Paige.  Having grown up around horses, Paige created the day to make others  mindful of the plight of unwanted and neglected horses, those that end  up being slaughtered or served as food and those that are abused and  exploited. The day aims to encourage the rescue, rehabilitation and  rehoming of horses.

Although National Horse Protection Day began in the US, it has since  spread and is celebrated elsewhere too – a testament to how universally  valued these animals are.  

Why horses need our protection

There are a whole host of reasons why horses around the world need our protection.

Because of the resources and expense needed to care for them, horses  are especially at risk of a poor quality of life, neglect and  abandonment, even by well-intentioned owners who lack sufficient  knowledge or simply fall upon hard times. However, there are also many  horse breeders and dealers who care not about animal welfare but rather  about generating a profit. This can lead to large numbers of horses  living in poor conditions and even suffering from abuse.

Although horse meat is consumed in various parts of the world and  often considered a delicacy, there are also many who are against horses  being treated as a food source. Horses that are slaughtered for meat  often come from auctions, but sometimes they are abandoned pets, retired  working animals, bought from private sellers or captured from wild  herds.

With the horse considered an American icon, the US is particularly  averse to horse meat – it’s illegal to sell or eat horse meat in some  states such as California and there’s a movement to make this the case  across the country.

While sports can be a great way for people and horses to bond, the  equine’s wellbeing isn’t always given the priority it deserves. Horses  may be overworked, maltreated and injured, sometimes fatally, in the  pursuit of glory in the sports stadium.  

And even wild horses (known as mustangs in the US) require our  protection. Finding a humane solution to the problem of overpopulation  in America is a real challenge – while many consider the rounding up of  wild horses to be cruel, with a small number adopted but most living out  the rest of their lives in holding pens, if numbers aren’t properly  handled this could lead to drought and starvation for thousands. Humane  management is therefore key to their flourishing.

How to celebrate National Horse Protection Day

National Horse Protection Day is a day to be mindful of the trials  and tribulations of horses without a home, without companionship and  without love. Horse lovers will often say that these creatures are just  as much our four-legged friends as cats and dogs are – and if you have  ever been lucky enough to know these shy and gentle animals, you’ll know  this to be true.

There are plenty of ways you could observe National Horse Protection  Day. Of course, not everyone has the space to adopt a horse and keep one  to look after, but if you live close to a stable, offering a helping  hand with the horses or dropping off food and bedding would certainly be  appreciated.

Perhaps you could think about supporting a horse through a charity or  donating to your local horse sanctuary. By supporting organizations  such as these, you’ll be contributing to a whole range of activities  aimed at improving the lives of horses everywhere, from rehoming and  rehabilitation to educating and supporting owners and breeders. And if  you spot a horse that seems neglected or abandoned, don’t be afraid to  call an animal welfare charity or equine sanctuary for help.

If you’re especially passionate, you could even get involved in  lobbying efforts to improve legislation on animal welfare, livestock  protection and responsible breeding.

National Horse Protection Day is also a great opportunity to connect  with these amazing animals. Why not go on a trail ride or take up a  sporting activity involving horses such as polo or showjumping? You can  also venture into the great outdoors to places where wild horses can be  found roaming freely! However, you decide to celebrate, remember to  spread the word on social media, and be sure to find out more about this  important observance by visiting the National Horse Protection Day  website.

Source

[yokune-ruko]

hey sorry but idk much abt the topic, could you elaborate on the wool and honey being touted as ethically flawless thing? good faith i swear :(

the general thing to internalize about any discussion surrounding this is that if a product can be produced cheaper using exploitation, it will, and this is especially true of animal products, as animals can't form unions, demand better conditions, etc.

what i'm talking about when i say that is posts like the one that's being responded to here https://vegspoblr.tumblr.com/post/712252398952906752/and-it-doesnt-shed-microplastics

note the insistence that vegans "need" to support a less, but ultimately still, cruel version of the thing they're against; not that there are concessions that have to be made, but that people who morally object to a practice are obligated to support it, because of the (often uninformed, surface-level) reasons they give, which exist in a world outside of profit motive, wherein farmers will indefinitely keep animals that don't produce any profit for them.

having issues with veganism isn't a new concept or even wholly unfair (as a vegan of five years myself, i've come across plenty of people that i feel are overzealous to the point of being ignorant), but this mindset often comes from people who feel that they need to be the one to defend animal agriculture, one of the most powerful and environmentally destructive industries on the planet, from the mean vegans who are saying that it's not really a good thing to treat animals as property, and that they're being the one to debunk veganism, when in reality they're rehashing arguments that have been had over and over, because many people want to also be the one, but have never actually... really spoken to a vegan. their concept of vegans comes from the hypothetical people being debunked, who don't know the first thing about animal agriculture, when in reality they're often parroting propaganda to people who have worked in, or at least seen the insides of, the industry.

as far as the example post itself, they provided some sources, but here's a more comprehensive page; it has a section specifically to address honey farming, as well as wool being under "animals as clothing" https://acti-veg.com/resources/sources/animal-welfare/

many of the ethical issues surrounding sheep farming can be mitigated with proper care, as well as transitioning to sheep that can survive on their own without regular shearing, but even in theory, that doesn't change that these sheep are universally killed well before the end of their natural life, and many of these idealistic changes simply cannot happen on any scale that's sustainable for our current consumption levels.

it's a similar situation with honey; i'm sure you could harvest honey in small quantities without hurting the bees in any way, but that idealism isn't the case, and it doesn't change some of the other issues with honeybee farming, such as out-competing native bees; honeybees are not the ones that need saving, they actually drive out solitary and native bees, who are not "useful" to humans.

and this isn't me saying "you have to give up wool and honey", although i would encourage it, if it's within your means. it's more, next time you see a post saying "hey vegans, listen up. x animal product is actually good", consider who is benefiting from hearing this - is it reinforcing something you already believe? have you thought about why you believe that? does it make sense that a specific product produced under capitalism would be ethical, and if not, why is this person defending it so strongly? does the post stereotype vegans? (in general, if it portrays agave or plastic as the only viable alternatives to honey or wool, respectively, the answer is yes) is this stereotype justified? (for example, have you ever met someone who believes that wool is bad but plastic is not? do you know anyone who uses agave instead of honey? i don't, and i know plenty of vegans) if the answer to any of these gives you the impression that something is not quite right (including on this post! i'm just some guy on the internet, i don't have all the answers), then it's a cue that maybe the person is responding to a guy that they made up - and if you have an idea of what you're arguing against, you don't have to make up guys.

this post got very long so i'm gonna leave it here. i hope that thoroughly answered your question lol

[creatureheart]

As a nonhuman, and before I realized I was one, I have always been more of an advocator of animal welfare than animal rights.

Over time I have seen too many controversial, problematic, and hypocritical takes and opinions from ARAs(animal rights activists) when it comes to animals, because a big thing for a lot those who fall into the animal rights mindset is they anthropomorphize animals to the extreme, placing human emotions and morality onto animals.

This is especially seen from ARA organizations like PETA, a group that no one who actually cares for animals should be supporting as they are, and have always been, only for profit and use fearmongering tactics to fish for donations. Also something to remember is that PETA is the organization that STOLE dogs from people's yards and then euthanized them because they believe that owning pets is equivalent to slavery.

A lot of ARAs, from what I have seen, are the kind of group who believe any relationship with animals, whether food, work, or companion based is abusive and exploitive and should be ended entirely. So no more pet dogs or cats, no zoos to go to, no conservation rescues, etc, etc. That animals, including domestic breeds, just don't need humans in any way. Their mindset can easily start to border into the "humans are the disease" kind of mindset, and I don't fuck with that kind of stuff because that starts to mirror the beliefs of ecofascism.

And don't even get me started on the people out there who believe we can somehow end predation in animals. Like there are people who actually believe that we can just straight up stop carnivores from hunting and eating other animals by making robots with lab grown meat on them and that we should do this because it will end the suffering of prey animals. Yet they somehow forget that predators are what keep population numbers in check which helps stop the spread of disease and helps clean up the environment, and that basically all but a few animals that we know as herbivores will willingly also go out of their way to eat meat.

In my opinion animals should be allowed to be animals without humans placing their own thoughts and feelings onto them, as anthropomorphizing animals can and does usually do more harm than good. We should work towards giving them the best lives we can give them, and protecting what we have for the future. That we should be trying to work together with nature to build a better world and life for both humans and nonhuman animals and for us that fall in that weird inbetween place.

Massive gripe ive been having with primarily the therian community lately, I really dont feel like we focus enough on animal rights causes considering how "connected" we're supposed to be to nonhumans.

Like I see it around for sure, but when I do it usually isn't more than just "hunting for sport is bad👍" or "dont beat your dog 👍" and that's it. The main focus of the community is still very much on biologically human individuals rather than on bio nonhumans, who are very literally treated like garbage in society and it's frustrating because i feel like we should be right there on the front lines when it comes to animal liberation.

Im not saying all of us need to be members of ALF or anything, im not even vegan and have no plans to be, but as of rn the community's overall acknowledgment and support of animal rights causes is pretty pathetic. Hell, I still hear therians confidently and proudly infantilize adult/highly intelligent nonhuman species ("animals have the intelligence of human toddlers") and spread blatant misinformation about them. Shit just annoys me

[orcinus-veterinarius]

I need to preface that i genuinely dont want to be argumenative or come off as snarky or anything so i hope it doesnt seem that way, i know its easy to misidentify tone over the internet n such

Im just wondering if you're pro captive cetaceans entirely, or just pro "people are going to keep them Regardless so may as well advocate for the best we can for them"

I can't say i'm an expert on those animals in the slightest, but my personal surface understanding is with how large, intelligent, and complex they are, i would immediately venture to guess there's no way to totally ethically keep them in captivity. I could be totally wrong! I will openly admit i watched blackfish when i was younger and while it's stuck with me, i recognize now it's a lot of unnecessary fear mongering and a disgusting play by play of an innocent woman's death. I don't want to say my knowledge wholly comes from that "documentary" especially considering we briefly studied whales in school, but that could also be obscuring my view?

I'm just genuinely curious about your take since you're so passionate about these animals specifically. I can kinda find parallels considering i have a few small parrots, and knowing what i know now i can't agree with the breeding and sale of those animals for profit, but i do advocate existing parrots get the best care they possibly can in households fit for them seeing as you can't just throw them back in the wild.

Don't worry, you're not being snarky! I really appreciate your reaching out. I love to yammer on about whales!

At this time, I do believe it's possible to ethically keep certain cetacean species in human care (for example, bottlenose dolphins). As for others (namely orcas), I think it's a more complicated issue. Many of the facilities housing cetaceans, even ones I support and consider "good zoos," are not all they could be, and I hope to use my future position as a veterinarian to advocate for better, more enriching habitats and more natural social structures. I don't approve of capturing any animals, particularly cetaceans, from the wild, except in circumstances where the animal will die if not taken into human care (i.e. stranded dolphin calves, problem bears and sea lions, cull elephants) or for conservation purposes if a species is in imminent danger of extinction (as was the case with California condors and American red wolves). I think the original orca captures were undoubtedly wrong, but I also believe clamoring to "free" the few remaining wild-born whales and their descendents is very foolish. I do support breeding in accredited zoological institutions, not only for maintaing a viable population in human care, but also since reproductive and parental behavior are extremely important to cetacean welfare. Here's a link to Dr. Holly Muraco speaking informally on the topic.

However, for all the public awe and outrage dolphins inspire, very little actual scientific work has been done on captive cetacean welfare. Folks just seemed to jump straight to "let's release them into dubious sea pen 'sanctuaries' run by people without any practical marine mammal experience" rather than "how do we improve the situations the animals are currently in," the latter of which is a cause both "pro caps" and "anti caps" can and should unite on. Dr. Isabella Clegg is a PhD scientist who's already done a lot of fantastic research into dolphin welfare... you can look at her website here... and I hope future animal advocates follow her example.

Although I don't expect to, I'm always open to changing my mind as I gain more experience and new information becomes available, and I completely respect people who come to a well-informed conclusion against cetaceans in human care and are willing to accept my point of view as well. Thanks for the ask, and I hope this helps!

[absurdthirst]

Heeey Could I get a HC of the boys, where their S/O tells them they don't want to have kids. I am curious if that would be like a dealbreaker for anybof them or if they would be ok with it.

When You Don’t Want Kids:

Javier: Okay? Cool. He’s not real sure if he wants kids either. More that he never seriously thought about it. But it’s not what he needs to keep him happy. Hell, he never really thought he was the relationship type. But here he is, doing this thing with you. If it comes down to a choice of having kids with someone else or having you, he’s choosing you. Plus there is this overwhelming fear of fucking up, messing the kid up. He’s not the best person, and what kind of kid deserves him as a father? Plus this shit with Escobar seems never ending, and he's not exactly sure if he will survive the hunt. 

Catfish: He’s going to have a hard time hearing that. He imagined giving his daughter a sibling. Wanting nothing more than to see you pregnant. He needs a bit of time to work through his own feelings on never having another child. Eventually he has to ask himself, is it a dealbreaker? No. It’s not. The dealbreaker is if you cannot accept the fact that he and his daughter are a packaged deal. While you might never have your own kids, you would be a step mom to his little girl. If you can’t handle that, there’s the door. 

Ezra: He won’t lie, he’s pondered the question of siring a child. Becoming a father and nurturing a little human from infant to adulthood. Especially since Cee entered his life. But, prospecting and harvesting is a dangerous job. And since he’s not as able-bodied as he once was, his profits are less than before. Retirement is a long ways away and that would be the only way you two would have children together anyway. So he’s not bothered by it being just the two of you and Cee. Because he has taken the responsibility of her welfare on his shoulders. She’s in school most of the time anyway, and almost grown.

Tovar: Well, there is only one tried and true method of not having kids during this time. So if you are telling him that you’ll never have sex, yeah, that’s a deal breaker for him. He’s had the idle dream of one day settling down and getting married and raising brats. It wasn’t a well defined one. He never really thought about it to much, other than to question if he had sired any bastards. When you tell him that you don’t want kids, he is a little upset that the yearning for that future isn’t ever to come to pass, but he knows its best this way. He lives by the sword and most likely will die by the sword. Sooner rather than later. He couldn’t imagine a more cruel fate than to leave you alone in this world with his child. 

Mando: Ooooh.....He’s so quiet, you have no idea what is going on in his head. Mandalorians are child-centric. Foundlings and younglings are the future. It is The Way to protect and raise them. You know his story, he was a foundling himself, saved and raised by the Mandalorians. So you are expecting for it to be a dealbreaker for Din when you tell him you don’t want children. You are shook when it’s not. He’s going to admit that it’s disappointing. You’ve already gotten the hint that this man has a massive breeding kink. The idea of your belly swelling with his child gets him going and he definitely loves watching his seed dribble from your spent body. However, you both have the implants, and its okay if you never want to bear him a child. BUT, if you cannot accept, say a little green baby with weird ass powers that is his adoptive son or any other foundlings that may come along, that will be a deal breaker for him. 

Whiskey: When his wife and unborn baby died, Jack’s desire to have a family died with them. He never even imagined finding love again. Until you walked into his life and knocked him on his ass. So that thought of maybe having kids started circulating in his brain again. Followed by a mild panic attack. Because he’s already pretty unbearably smothering over your safety due to his past, he can’t imagine how bad it would be if you were carrying his child. The idea of locking you in a tower would sound pretty good to him, even if you would murder him in his sleep. So when you tell him you don’t want children, he’s....kind of relieved. He won’t have to deal with that. 

Max Phillips: That’s good, because he can't father children. You know...being undead and all. So if you ever did get pregnant, he doesn't need to go on the Maury Povich show to find out that he’s NOT the father. And he’s hunting that motherfucker down to have as a snack. 

Marcus: While you would expect this to be a dealbreaker for our resident sweetie, it’s not. He wants to leave the decision to have children up to the baby bearer. He wasn’t going to pressure Teresa into having a family if she didn’t want one and he won’t pressure you. Did he imagine being a father? Fuck yes he did. He wanted it all. He wanted that white picket fence future with a house and a few kids and a dog running around. But more importantly, he pictures YOU in that scenario. Without that vital piece, he wouldn’t be happy. He loves you, you are his world. So if you don’t want to have children, that’s okay with him. It would have just the been the cherry on top. 

MasterList

Permanent Tag List:

@synystersilenceinblacknwhite @thewaythisis @thisis-theway @hanelijoy @readsalot73 @dornish-queen @ah-callie @cable-kenobi @roxypeanut @arrowswithwifi @badassbaker @javierpenaspinkshirt @wickedfrsgrl @lilangeldevil006 @fioccodineveautunnale @jade10077 @getinthepoolkeanu @kirstiehenderson29 @fleurdemiel145 @thirsty-flygirl @random066 @pascalisthepunkest @pedrosdoll @whataenginerd @tangledlove27 @pedropascalisadilf @behindmyeyes-insidemyhead @gamingaquarius @the-baby-bookworm @jaime1110 @yamaktaria @perksofbeingivyy @earl-01 @gooddaykate @emesispo @deathlife97 @dindisneydjarin @a-ghost-in-the-tardis @veil-of-time @theocatkov @ahopelessromanticwritersworld @sheerfreesia007 @apples-of-february @talesfromtheguild @visintaes @mandolover86 @whiskeyxinxaxteacup @scarlettvonsass @immortalstarme @promiscuoussatan @takemepedropascal @katheriner1999 @nerdypinupcrystal @artemiseamoon @paintballkid711 @sirianisrock @engineeredfiction @frietiemeloen @mstgsmy

[maybeyoumissthisf-kingpost]

Relationship between political freedom and economic freedom

Are political freedom and economic freedom related? Can we have political freedom before there is economic freedom? In this article, I will answer both of these questions.

The relationship between political freedom and economic freedom

I disagree with those who think that political freedom and economic freedom are two independent things. Like the classic philosophical question of the chicken and the egg: which comes first, economic freedom and a market economy, or political freedom and human rights? Then someone exclaims that the chicken and the egg have no relationship at all, or worse, the chicken can’t make… the egg.

The correlation between market freedom and social freedom is one of the most important questions in development. Today, a group of people who argue that free markets increase political repression is slowly reviving the movement against Capitalism. And to answer the question “is there a relationship between political freedom and economic freedom?”, I would like to answer: “yes”. Even very yes.

Looking back at America and Milton Friedman’s “virtual solution” work

More than 50 years ago, when America was “bewitched” by Keynesian doctrine, it was Milton Friedman who stood up to remind Americans of the core principles that made America the greatest nation in the world. gender. That is freedom. That greatness does not come from power, but from the people’s belief in the ideals they pursue and the US constitution embodies it.

Friedman’s vision and the promise of the United States is to put the aspirations of individuals above the aspirations of the collective and the government. This should not be misinterpreted as promoting a lack of concern for the welfare of the collective, but above all, this vision is inherently rooted in concern for the welfare of the collective. Because, a society where the interests of individuals are placed above the collective interests will bring good to everyone; But when a society puts the collective interest above the individual, it destroys both.

Friedman’s most profound argument is to demonstrate the close link between economic freedom and political freedom.

In an interview with the Young America’s Foundation, he said: “I will be the first to stand up and say that I challenge them [who see political freedom and economic freedom as two separate things] to find which country has a high degree of civil liberties and political freedom that does not use capitalism and the private sector as the dominant element in its economic structure”.

“However, political freedom can also be the enemy of economic freedom. In fact, most of the British colonies gained their independence when they were politically free, but later turned into dictatorships and mostly had a socialist economy. Therefore, even though there is political freedom, people do not have the right view, they will vote against economic freedom.” — he confirmed.

Economics not only outdoes politics, it also determines political institutions

In Capitalism and Freedom, the chapter on The Relationship between Political Freedom and Economic Freedom, Friedman explains why a politically free society cannot exist without economic freedom. He criticized the view that politics and economics are two separate things, that any political system and economic system can be combined. He called the argument “a lie” and argued that political freedom and economic freedom are closely linked. Although he acknowledged the possibility of a free economy and a politically repressed society; but conversely, he argued that a politically free society could not exist without economic freedom. Historically and logically, political freedom is inseparable from economic freedom.

Economic freedom contributes to political freedom

Friedman explains that economic freedom is not only a vital part of individual freedom, but it is also important in promoting political freedom.

“Political freedom means no coercion of a person by those around him. The fundamental threat to freedom is coercive power in the hands of a monarch, dictator, tycoon, or temporary majority. By removing the political power’s control over economic organizations, the market will be freed from that coercive power. This allows economic power to become the control of political power rather than its own reinforcement.” — Milton Friedman

He also outlined the government’s problems in controlling resources, especially control of the media, which abets the suppression of dissenting voices. Without resorting to understatement, Friedman exposes the truths that the political hand is in control of all areas of the economy, from making it difficult to raise funds and ambiguity in speeches to against the government and freedom of speech, even to the point of making a living. Friedman concluded that when economic power fell into the hands of the government, it was completely impossible to maintain properly liberal politics.

The more the government has economic power, the more people lose their political freedom

Friedman’s analysis holds true to this day, and we have plenty of examples to show that the more the government gets involved in the economy, the more it destroys liberal politics. Nowhere else, that is Vietnam. After the doi moi reform since 1986, instead of moving to a market economy, Vietnam followed the so-called “socialist-oriented market economy” with state-owned enterprises monopolizing the key areas. Worse is the economic involvement of the military corporation, an organization with enormous political power capable of manipulating the entire market. That is reflected in Vietnam’s economic freedom index, which is currently the lowest in the region. We can see, so far Vietnam has not been able to have political freedom.

Why shouldn’t the government have a hand in the economy?

The root cause of government intervention in the economy is the mistaken belief that government can improve people’s lives by making economic decisions for us. But in essence, that intervention is to force the inherent nature of the market. This is the nth time I would like to quote Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problems. It’s the government that’s the problem.”

There’s a rule that holds true when it comes to government dependence: as the government gets bigger, it will determine who deserves how much. This is the kind of power that is always used to protect the interests of groups that share the same views as the government. And those with “wrong views” will be forced to give up their values ​​to serve the national interest (in fact, only the interests of a group of people holding power).

Politicians on the left often complain about the imbalance of power between groups/compartments in society. Factions fight each other for group interests but they forget that the biggest imbalance of power in a country is between the people and the government. The more control the government has, the more powerless the people will become.

Isn’t that the philosophy of Socialism? The more people depend on the government, the easier it is for the government to decide how much people are allowed to keep. The old demagogues of “taxes to serve the people” are always trumpeted by governments. We need to understand that, every time the government says that they want to raise the budget from taxes, they are saying: “Give the money or go to jail”.

One of the most common “tricks” is to force the whole society to participate in a social security program from the government, which is designed as a retirement and health care savings, but rather here. is a type of Ponzi scheme that borrows money from one person to repay the other. There are no profit-generating assets to pay for wealth distribution schemes, the scheme is merely a government promise that it will force others to pay you in the future when you are already paying for it. others in the present. These programs are maintained by the police force, and therefore, those who see the essence of social security programs understand that they are reluctant to pay taxes just to avoid going to jail.

Conclude

Political freedom and economic freedom have a rather complicated relationship, some people take advantage of this to be vague about the concepts to argue that political freedom and economic freedom are two unrelated issues. respect each other. Again, economics and politics have never been separated. Friedman once stated that “Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom”. Therefore, if the government’s tendency to control economic activities increases, then the people will not be able to have political freedom forever.

Want political freedom? Let’s have economic freedom first.

All credit goes to trantuansang.com.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 28, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

It appears that it is finally infrastructure week.

Today, negotiators hammered out a deal on a bipartisan bill, which includes $550 billion in new spending. This evening, the Senate voted to move the bill forward by a vote of 67 to 32, with 17 Republicans joining all the Democrats to begin debate on the measure.

The bill is not fully hammered out yet, and the Congressional Budget Office, which examines bills to see how much they will cost, has not yet produced a final number, but it appears that the bill will cost about $1.2 trillion over 8 years. It puts together unspent monies from other programs and from new “user fees” to pay for it, but Republicans demanded that funds to increase funding for the IRS to enable it to crack down on tax cheats, who cost the United States about $1 trillion a year, be stripped from the bill.

The White House said the bill would create about 2 million “good-paying” jobs a year for the next decade. It provides $110 billion for roads and bridges, $39 billion for public transit, $66 billion for passenger rail, $73 billion to upgrade the electrical grid; $7.5 billion for electrical vehicle chargers on highway corridors, $17 billion for rebuilding our ports, $50 billion for addressing climate change and cybersecurity, and $55 billion for clean drinking water.

The bill also calls for $65 billion to expand broadband internet, tying all Americans into the same grid and lowering prices. In the White House statement, Biden explicitly tied the expansion of broadband to the nation’s 1936 expansion of access to electricity through the Rural Electrification Act. Through that act, the government tried to level the playing field between urban Americans who had electricity through private companies and rural Americans who did not because the profit margins weren’t high enough to make it worthwhile for private companies to bring electricity to them.

Electrification not only enabled rural Americans to enjoy the new products created in the early twentieth century, but also created a new industry of consumer products that helped the post–World War II economy boom. Then, as now, federal funding for a vital infrastructure need opened up the door to government oversight and regulation of that utility, a principle that today’s Republicans oppose, especially when it comes to broadband. (It’s an interesting thought, though: could regulation of publicly supported broadband help address the problem of disinformation on social media?)

That is only one of the ways in which this bipartisan bill remains precarious. There are others. It is always possible that the Republicans cannot muster the 10 votes they need to pass the bill, and continuing to tinker with it is simply a way to run out the clock on the congressional session so that the Democrats cannot get the infrastructure deal they want so badly.

From the other direction, progressive Democrats have made it clear they will not accept this bill, which focuses on “hard” infrastructure like roads and bridges, unless it goes along with a larger “soft” infrastructure bill that focuses on human infrastructure. There are not enough Republican votes to pass that second measure over a Senate filibuster, so it will have to pass the Senate through budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority. But that means it will need all 50 Democratic votes, and today Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema said she does not support the bill in its current form. She apparently wants adjustments, but what they are and whether progressives will accept them remains unclear.

Still, the idea of this new, sweeping infrastructure package becoming reality is huge. Former president Donald Trump, who wanted badly to pass an even larger infrastructure bill during his own term of office but who couldn’t do so, has responded to the idea that Biden might manage to pull this off with a demand that Republicans scuttle the entire thing. That several prominent Republicans are ignoring him illustrates the potential of this deal to weaken the Trump supporters in the party as the weight begins to shift toward measures that are popular with voters and away from the party’s more common obstructionism.

News of this historic investment in the country happened to come on the same day researchers Laura Wheaton, Linda Giannarelli, and Ilham Dehry of the Urban Institute think tank, established by the Lyndon Johnson administration to study the results of antipoverty laws passed during its years in power, published a study of the effects of the American Rescue Plan.

That $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package, passed without a single Republican vote and signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 11, 2021, was projected to reduce the annual poverty rate to 8.7% for 2021—it had been 13.9% in 2018—and to cut child poverty by more than half. The new study shows that, in fact, the poverty rate for 2021 looks to be on track to hit 7.7%. The study’s authors project the 2021 poverty rate to be highest for Hispanic people (11.8%), non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islanders (10.8%), and Black, non-Hispanic people (9.2%). For white, non-Hispanic people, the rate is projected to be 5.8%.

The study pointed to federal stimulus checks as the more important piece of this development. Those checks alone raised 12.4 million people out of poverty. Taken all together, recent antipoverty measures reduced child poverty from 30.1% to 5.6%.

For all that other issues are getting more dramatic headlines, the infrastructure bill marks a sea change from the past forty years of slashing government investment and regulation to the more traditional vision of a government that promotes the general welfare. The latter vision was behind the Rural Electrification Act that, more than eighty years later, still shapes the national economy. Getting today’s Republicans to sign onto such a measure would be momentous indeed.

—-

Notes:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/28/1021768174/bipartisan-senate-negotiators-say-they-reach-a-deal-on-infrastructure-after-hicc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-white-house-in-talks-to-finish-infrastructure-bill/2021/07/27/6f22d026-ee9b-11eb-81b2-9b7061a582d8_story.html

​​https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/564860-public-private-partnerships-key-to-providing-high-quality-broadband-to-all

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/2021-poverty-projections-assessing-impact-benefits-and-stimulus-measures

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mywitchcultblr]

The chantry is right and mages should be in the circle. Solas and anders are terrorists and anyone who believes they arent is delusional or a hypocrite. Anders killed a hundred innocent civillian non combatants and solas wants to tear down the veil killing millions in the process. But yes we should let the people causing firestorms and summoning demons go completely un supervised

                                                         MY FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST A TEMPLAR BOOTLICKER! YAAY!

 @lordaspoons Ok listen, first of all, I'm not felassan nor dalishlicious, my writings style is different and not as good as them, and I love to use a lot of profanities in my writings, so if you ever find ‘shit ‘ or ‘fuck’ in a post, not sorry  I SWEAR THIS POST HAVE MORE THAN 7K WORDS!   That’s why it took MONTHS for me to answer it 

TEMPLAR AND CHANTRY ARE GOD-AWFUL AND CIRCLE IS NOT NECESSARY 

Let’s see the canonical narrative okay? Let's take a look at Dragon Age keep descriptions of each MAGES heroes story and background.

Mage Hawke:

The son of Malcolm Hawke and Leandra Amell, Garrett has lived in many places throughout Ferelden. His father was a mage whose gifts were passed onto both Garrett and Bethany, Malcolm's daughter.

Malcolm refused to submit himself to the Chantry's rule; he kept his abilities a secret and taught his children to do the same.

Therefore, the family was constantly on the move to avoid templar hunters. Ten years ago, the family settled in the village of Lothering, building a home on the outskirts and making a life where they wouldn't forever be on the run.

Though Leandra worried constantly that the templars would one day catch up with them, Malcolm's teachings were sufficient to keep them safe.

He died three years ago, leaving Garrett responsible for the welfare of his mother and younger siblings. When the Blight began, Carver enlisted in King Cailan's regiment, saying the horde spilling from the Korcari Wilds meant their home would be quickly overrun if the darkspawn were not defeated immediately.

If the circle is not a goddamn prison that literally abused and drive so many mages to commit suicide then why the fuck hawke father decided to escaped and run away? The fact that even though his wife is a noble, a noble who should have been powerful enough to support him and their children and protect Malcom and their children with her name and connection is Kirkwall were forced to live in secret and ON THE RUN WITH HER FAMILY! is another of many many proofs that the system that chantry created for Thedas HURT everyone, whatever you are a peasant or a noble, if you have a mage in your family then they will be imprisoned in a circle that definitely will abuse them or you are forced to hide with them and run away from home.

IS QUARANTINE DRIVE YOU INSANE? ARE YOU BORED? WANNA GO OUT WITH FRIENDS? WANNA GRAB A MEAL IN A RESTAURANT? OR GET A HAIRCUT?

Remember De’Launcet fucking quote:

“You don’t understand. I’ve been in the Circle since I was six. Six! For Twenty years I was locked up. Never had a real drink, or... cooked something for myself. Never stood in the rain... or kissed a girl.”.

You cannot treat people like that! You can’t! it’s not right to imprison and enslaved people, mages, like that, there’s no justification to deny basic human rights/rights for any races. Imagine how desperate, depressed, touch-starved and horny you are, if you are not allowed to touch a woman who consented to have sex with you, imagine beingfucking locked up for twenty years and never feel the rain on your face. 

Maybe you should try being locked up for most of YOUR LIFE, for shit you never did in your life ever, aka committed horrible crimes that you never committed in the first place? 

Where’s the logic? Where’s the humanity? Andrastianism and The chantry is the worst religion and the worst religious institution in Thedas, and templars are not champion of the just, they are champion of abusers. 

But besides because of religious zealotry and dogma, why did the chantry locked up and enslaved mages in circle and put templar in circle to fucking abused them? OH RIGHT! I KNOW! its for power and profits, because using slave labor to make enchantments and used mages as soldiers who never wanted to be dragged into war in the first place,  it was and as prison/free labor to mass products enchantments is profitable for the chantry. !GROSS! DISGUSTING! Disgusting really.   The circle system is not only a prison camp, but also an institutional slavery.  

GROSS! DISGUSTING! But it sounds like any oppressive nations/institutions ever that used prison camp free labor to built factories and to work in their factories right? 

Disgusting really. 

Hey, LOOK AT HERO OF FERELDEN AND INQUSITOR EXPERIENCES IN THE CIRCLE! WHOA, IT WAS AWFUL!

For Mage!Trevelyan:

Born to the Trevelyan noble family of Ostwick in the Free Marches, you were originally intended for a life of privilege—until magical abilities surfaced at a young age and you were forced into a life of confinement within Ostwick's Circle of Magi. Protected but stifled, educated but isolated, the Circle would have been your entire future had the mages not rebelled against Chantry rule.

Trevelyan said that templars are a piece of shit who has two fucking faces (he said it to Josie) they smiled at mages (fake) but then they turned into as still as tone when a mage was punished ‘harshly” 

Remember what Cassandra said when mages find out that Tranquility can be reversed, dipshit fucking seeker, lord seeker lucius punished mages ‘harshly’ and there were deaths, and by definition of harsh for mages in thedas is: 

Rape

Isolation in an isolation cell (like what happened to Anders for a year!)

Starved to death like what happened to the real Cole

Tranquility or they are just killed. 

Every mages, adult or child, has seen or experiences abuses daily in their life, you can imagine the physical and physiologicalphysicological damages that templar and chantry have inflicted on them. As a person who was fucking abused by her own father, Ii know too well how lasting scars could damage you for life. 

TO ANYONE WHO DISMISSED ABUSES ESPECIALLY ABUSE THAT WAS PERPETRATED BY A RELIGIOUS SYSTEM/INSTITUTION, here take my middle finger AND SHOVE IT UP TO YOUR ASSES! 

Look Hero Of Ferelden life when she was still stuck in the circle:

The Hero of Ferelden belonged to the Circle of Magi in Ferelden, and resided in the tower at Lake Calenhad for most of her life. First Enchanter Irving recommended the Hero to Grey Warden Commander Duncan; shortly after the Hero's Harrowing, Duncan recruited her into the order.

https://mllemaenad.tumblr.com/search/mage+warden+

https://dalishious.tumblr.com/post/190968276307/mage-child-are-the-templars-coming-for-us-mage

Mage child: Are the templars coming for us?

Mage child: Is death painful? Am I going to die?

HEY WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT SER ALRIK? THE SERIAL ABUSER AND RAPIST?

 This is a letter that Alrik send to justinia before he died.To Her Excellency, Divine Justinia,I am well aware both you and Knight-Commander Meredith have rejected my proposal, but I beg you to reconsider. The mages in the Free Marches are past controlling, their numbers have doubled in three years, and they have found a way to plant their abominations in our ranks. They cannot be contained!

The Tranquil Solution is our answer. All mages at the age of majority must be made Tranquil. They'll coexist peacefully, retain their usefulness—a perfect strategy! It's simply the best way to ensure mages obey the laws of men and Maker.I remain, as always, your obedient servant,

Tranquil solution? Sounds like what Henrich Himmler said about Jews!

 Because Tranquility is a genocidal weapon that the chantry used to decreased the mages population and culling them, hmmm you heard about an 11 YEARS OLD GIRL WHO was MADE A FUCKING TRANQUIL IN KIRKWAL? 

Here I will give you a link to dalishious post about a young mage, 11 years old kid who was made tranquil by templar and chantry: https://dalishious.tumblr.com/post/620951635453149184/im-confused-it-says-that-she-requested-to-be|

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING *spit on chantry and templar* 

There’s no fucking justification for turning a kid into a tranquil, neither raped woman who was made tranquil or mages in general just because they have magic. Alrik and his man are known for abusing and raped tranquil on a daily occasion, and they were granted a title, position, money, and job by the chantry, meredith is a bitch who treated mages like a slave, she was drunk on red lyrium, she didn’t do shit for refugee and she fucking took over Kirkwall seat of government, forcefully, while it was not her job to lording over Kirkwall like a power-hungry bitch. 

And for years no one checked on this bitch, because miss little grand cleric of Kirkwall is part of Meredith group, and no matter what unless the chantry got fucking destroyed or HEAVILY REFORMED like what Divine Leliana did, people like Meredith and

Ser Alrik will never be held accountable by the chantry or any rulers in Southern Thedas (except by King Alistair who gave rebel mages a safe refugee place I guess) because most shit heads who ruled in Thedas profited from oppression and slavery of their PEOPLE, OF MAGES AND ELVES. 

You are a modern man, how could you ever side with the medieval church like the chantry? YOU KNOW THAT MEDIEVAL VATICAN AND TEMPLAR OF OUR WORLD WERE AWFUL RIGHT?

You knew that the vatican/church in the medieval era trapped people in dark ages with their regressive politic and dogma, you knew that gay people and woman were burned alive just because they were gay and just because they are? Woman? Maybe some of them truly practiced magic, but hey magic is cool.

I don’t understand at all, this fucking hatred and bigotry against mages and elves that spewed by some people in the fandom, anyone who hates mages and elves inherently hates them for who they are, for simply who they are. 

My burning hatred for templar and chantry were caused by templar and chantry terrible actions for the past 10000 YEARS!!!!!!!! And not because they don't have magic or just because they are human. 

The chantry brainwashed human to dehumanize others 

I think this is one of the most disturbing crime the chantry ever committed for the past 1000 years, I can’t even help but shudder in disgust every time i heard chantry sisters or brother calling other people ‘abomination’ or ‘heretic’ because i know how dangerous religious zealotry can be.

As a Muslim who live in Indonesia i have seen people being thrown out of their house or whipped in public (In Aceh province) 

2.NOW MAGES ALLIED BY THE THE INQUISITOR AND THE INQUISITION IS THE CANON PATH!

 (deal with it honestly) 

First of all, when The inquisitor went to Val Royeaux, the inquisition met with Lord Seeker who was arguing with chantry sister, he didn’t want to listen to her, and then he punched her (bitch fucking deserve it, to be honest, chantry members except anyone whose not bigoted like Leliana and Giselle deserve to be punched) he insulted the inquisition and the inquisitor! ( what a Bastard Dick! Well, templar order is gone and he’s going to die anyway so....Whatever) 

When the Inquisitor went back to the way he came from (from Val Royeaux gate)

FIONA LEADER OF FREE MAGES HERSELF, DESPITE THE RISK AND DANGERS, WAS WILLING TO PERSONALLY GAVE AN OFFER OF ALLIANCES BETWEEN REBEL/FREE MAGES WITH THE INQUSITION.

FIONA GOES ALL THE WAY, FROM SAFETY OF REDCLIFF VILLAGE TO VAL ROYEAUX JUST SO SHE CAN meet WITH THE INQUISITOR AND OFFERED HIM AN ALLIANCES WITH OTHER REBEL MAGES (Of course The inquisitor accepted it, he’s a rebel mage after all duh!)  

From the very beginning you can see which path is the preferred freaking option, Its In Hushed Whispers and not the other one.

Besides it would make more sense for the sake of continuity to find out about the rift, time magic, who’s the mastermind behind what happened in Redcliff Village (Alexius tricked Fiona and other mages with time magic and blood magic to signed up with Tevinter) AND HOW FUTURE WITH CORYPHEUS WON LOOKS LIKE, rather than I don’t know.....Whatever bullshit in Therinfal Redoubt.

SECOND. Free alliances with rebel mages definitely would give The inquisition more advantages, first mages knew how to deal with magic and the fade, mages are more suited and powerful to fight against enemies that cannot be defeated by shield and swords. 

THIRD. 

THERE WERE NO ACCIDENT, NO UNWANTED POSSESSION OR EVEN NO POSSESSION AT ALL, NO DISASTER, AND NO ‘ABOMINATION’ .

 FOURTH. THE MAGES CONSUMED fewer RESOURCES BECAUSE THEY DONT NEED LYRIUM TO FEED THEIR ADDICTION/CAST SPELLS.

FIFTH. 

 FOR A WHOLE YEAR DURING CAMPAIGN AGAINST CORYPHEUS, MAGES HAS PROVEN THAT THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES, MAGES WERE DISCIPLINED, RELIABLE AND BOTH THEDAS, INQUISITION, PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN SKYHOLD AND MAGES THEMSELVES ARE FINE WITH THE MAGES BEING FREE, WITHOUT RELIGIOUS SLAVERS WHO OWN THEM, WITHOUT JAILER WATCHING THEIR BACK. 

SIX. SPIRITS AND DEMONS were LITERALLY EVERYWHERE, AND EXCUSE ME, HAVE FRANCOIS EVER RECEIVED/READ REPORTS ABOUT HIS FELLOW MAGES FALL INTO DEMON POSSESSION? HELL NO! NOT EVEN ONCE

SEVEN. 

MAGES ALLIED AS FULL ALLY WOULD BE MORE INDEPENDENT, AND THEY COULD TEACHED YOUNG MAGES HOW TO SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN, THEY COULD BE MORE INVOLVED WITH SOCIETY, AND MAGES ASSIMILATED TO SOCIETY  

AND FINALLY.

DO YOU want A ANOTHER FUCKING PROOF OF MAGES FREEDOM BEING SUCCESSFUL? DO YOU WANT LITERAL CANON PROOF THAT MAGES BEING FREE IS ONE OF THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED IN THEDAS?

 The Inquisition's mages – the former rebels led by Grand Enchanter Fiona – are left with a choice.

Alliance

Leliana is Divine

When Leliana disbands the Circles, they leave the Inquisition and reform the College of Enchanters as a new order. The College, they say, will allow mages of the South to gather in peace and seek new solutions to age-old problems. For the moment, it appears to be working – mages are enjoying unprecedented acceptance throughout Thedas. 

Epilogue for mages freedom in Trespasser:

NOW College of Enchanters, Thedas third or fourth most powerful mage order and government (third if Rivain mages flocked to The College but I think Rivain mages after all mages has been freed (remember its canon) they will unite with Rivain government or if College Of Enchanters turned out to be stronger than mages order in rivain ) , the college is third/fourth-strongest order after Tevinter obviously, Nevarra death mages, and Rivain mages.

And everything is totally fine.

Leliana Divine, Mages recruited as allies

The end of the Inquisition as it had been sent shock waves through the College of Enchanters. Madam de Fer ably played on the mages' fear. Her followers united to build a new Circle - with Vivienne as its Grand Enchanter - in direct competition with the College. What the Circle lacked in numbers, they made up for in political connections; soon they were a force to be reckoned with.

Well about this stuff in trespasser it’s just vivienne stuff I guess *shrug* 

College of enchanters will always exist because like I said before so many many many times, that ever since Hero of Ferelden Era, To Kirkwall and then to Dragon 4:41/ 4:44, the canon and preferred path is to support mages and elves equality and freedom!!!!

THERE I GIVE YOU ONE, AND IT WAS MORRIGAN WHO SAID IT HERSELF.

Even a chantry sister from haven admitted that the mages looked happier and she said that she supports/give them chance to 

 SO WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT?! CIRCLE IS NEVER BEEN FUCKING NEEDED! IT WAS JUST DRAKON STUPID BIGOTED MOVES TO ENSLAVED AND COLLARED MAGES AND ELVES.

Rivain mages were fine, and their society worked well with mages have their freedom Rivain trained their female mages to be seers, and seers hold important positions within Rivain government and society, oh but what happened? When the chantry fucking find out that Rivain didn’t treat their mages like shits and slave, that Rivain treated mages with respect like any other people. 

The chantry fucking send right on annulment and committed genocide against Rivain fucking mages, chantry you shit organization, Rivain will hate you more than before and I wouldn’t be surprised if the grand cathedral in Rivain will go boom too (i will support it, fuck those people) the chantry literally murdered children there and committed genocide against people of Rivain, No one will defend them in Rivain, no one. 

Codex Entry:

 When we heard of the injustices against our fellow mages at the White Spire, the Circle of Magi in Val Royeaux, I feared what was to come. Our Circle at Dairsmuid is small and isolated; it exists largely as a façade to appease the Chantry.

When the other Circles rose up, the Chantry sent Seekers across the bay from Ayesleigh to investigate. They found us mixing freely with our families, training female mages in the traditions of the seers, and denounced us as apostates. Perhaps they thought we were spineless robes who could be intimidated with a little bloodshed. Before I was first enchanter, I was the daughter of Captain Revaud, of the Felicisima Armada. I know how to plan a battle.They brought with them a small army of templars. We fought. And we might have won. But they invoked the Right of Annulment, with all the unrelenting brutality that allowed. 

It is their right to put screaming apprentices to the sword, burn our "tainted" libraries, crush irreplaceable artifacts under their heels, tear down the very walls of our home. 

No mage has the right to disagree. We of the Dairsmuid Circle wait now, behind barricades. I have sent word to our brother and sister mages of this outrage. When they breakthrough, we will not die alone.—Final journal entry of First Enchanter R

Whoaa look at the chantry and templar, casually committed genocide because they are ass hole who cannot accept that they are wrong, maybe they should accept those different nations have different cultures and traditions? Hmmm, maybe templar and chantry should accept that people are not a mother fucking weapon and slaves to be used and imprisoned since they discovered their magic, chantry and Templar  should learn when to stop, and they should learn that they didn’t know shit and doesn’t want to know shits about spirits? self-righteous much? 

Circle system, templar system, and chantry system cannot be saved because it’s just awful, those systems systematically oppressed and abused people, and we all know that time and time again YOU CANNOT KEEP PEOPLE OPPRESSED AND ENSLAVED FOREVER, THEY WILL REBEL AND SOONER OR LATER THEY WILL WIN THEIR FREEDOM AND THE OLD SYSTEM WILL BE BURNED TO DUST.

No matter how you tried change the circle/templar system, it will always be prone to corruption, because the system put templar above mages, and when someone have more legal immunity and power above other people, then abuses of authority will always happen, hey....LOOK AT COPS IN OUR WORLD.

if anyone tries to prevent other people from being equal and free just like any outer people there who have privileges and advantages, holy shit you are horrible, that’s a shitty bigoted view. 

BEFORE INQUISITION WAS EVEN REBUILT, MYTHAL AND MORRIGAN PREDICTED THAT THERE WILL BE GREAT CHANGES COMING, MORRIGAN PREDICTED THERE WILL BE A HERALD OF CHANGES IN THEDAS. 

They were talking about The Inquisitor who will completely turn Thedas upside down and changed systems that Thedas know it with better ones. 

SO why even bother to fucking keep an old system that doesn’t work and very oppressive and it was designed to imprison and enslaved people? 

okay, listen here you little templar- oh I mean Ex-Templar, because templar order of the south is just gone forever  ( who the hell wanted to be a templar again after people knew how dangerous lyrium could be? Especially after they saw lumbering red templar ABOMINATION, *not sorry they are really ugly bastard* Wrecking havoc all across Thedas 

3.MAGE FREEDOM AND DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLAR ORDER IS A GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE AND FOR THEDAS! 

Let me explain it to ya! 

1. Mages won their freedom means, no more tranquil, there would be no more long-suffering half walking, half living person who’s cursed in the emotionless body (well at least in the south) 

2. Mages could finally raise their own children, have family, married without fear and they don't have to run away from templar and chantry if they want to marry someone, mages children who were taken forcefully from their parents could finally meet their parents again, you don't want kids who were kidnapped from their family since a young age to be reunited with a family who loves them and misses them so much? Holy shit that’s monstrous.

3. Mage Orphan who has no relatives/family/home/ or friends to return could stay with College of Enchanters with other mages.

4. No more children will be kidnapped from the parents, no more mother who will lose their mage baby again because the templar and chantry ripped their baby away from their arms, never again.

5. New Generations of Mages kids who never have to endure torture and abuses in the circle, they can grow up in a safe and happy environment with their family or with the college.

6. Mages actively participated in society, and they can invent a great many things for Thedas modernization and advancement, remember Zither? He’s a mage and he uses his magic to play in a band, imagine the possibilities of Thedas technology-magic advancement with unrestrained magic, boi based on the newest leak, it seems like Arlathan was a magical cyberpunk empire. 

7. As a free citizen, many mages abilities/ skill can be implemented for different kinds of jobs, hey remember Lysas who wanted to be a mage farmer? Agriculture in Thedas could be improved with magic, Medication, and medical studies could be greatly modernized with magic, not to mention fashion, opera/plays, and music, hell even professional chef jobs will be much easier with magic, The inquisitor used telekinesis/spell to fixes broken bridges, and lit a veil fire are another example that magic could be used for mundane stuff and not just for

8. College of Enchanters definitely would be a steadfast ally for The Inquisition and The inquisitor, and not to mention that the Inquisition new operations area would be in the north/Tevinter, mages would be able to help greatly.  9. With templar order gone forever in southern Thedas, then there will be no more people who are force feed lyrium and suffer from lyrium addiction to the point they become a beggar because they wasted all of their coins for lyrium. 10. So mages now are free, no more circle, then what’s the point of templar or seeker anymore? Actually Seeker, circle and templar are never needed, then how southern Thedas  should handle with magic related crime or just crime in general, well I’ts easy, you see mages guard in Tamriel world? You know those guards in Skyrim? Or guard/law enforcer in Warcraft world who use magic? With mages free they also can work as guards

Why templar and chantry bootlicker literally believed in The chantry fearmongering false propaganda about mages and magic? It’s like medieval Vatican bullshit! fearmongering about technology and ‘sin’, fearmongering about spirit and magic? 

We live in the modern era! So stop believing chantry propaganda! 

Stop living as if its the 10th centuries, don’t keep clinging on the awful terrible system and it’s past, dude, see the future in front of you, and  try to be positive about progressive changes. You know what happened to a world who refused to change? Yeah man look at Anor Londo, everything rot there.  And have we ever heard about terrible accident that was caused by mages from College of Enchanters? Or by any mages at all? NO ONE EVER CONFIRMED THAT FREE MAGES OF THE SOUTH WRECKED HAVOC ALL ACROSS THEDAS, BECAUSE THE FREE MAGES DIDN’T DO ANYTHING AT ALL. AND THE MAGES HAS BEEN FREE FOR TWO YEARS! COLLEGE OF ENCHANTERS HAS BEEN OPERATING FOR TWO YEARS WITHOUT ANYONE ENSLAVED AND JAILED THEM  Hey man, i gave you straight fact that mages being free is the best choice to support, and facts that nothing bad happened with mages being free, so your theory and your fear (that actually is just wrong, and it’s sounds kinda like paranoia to be honest Persecution is really stupid, that’s why it’s called persecution in the first place. HA!  

ANDERS WAS, RIGHT!

‘Terrorist’ is a term that can be overused and utilized by people in power to demean and demonized freedom fighter/Resistance movement against tyranny.

  https://mllemaenad.tumblr.com/search/is+anders+terrorist%3F

There’s fuck tons examples of people who were falsely accused as terrorists by tyrannical power to labeled them as a danger and to demonize them, while ‘the terrorist’ who fight for equality and freedom were demanding their people to be treated like a human, and they wanted equal rights. 

 examples: 

[ I am an Indonesian btw, so I knew personally some stuff about dictator and dictatorship government]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQ&ab_channel=PhilosophyTube

 https://www.britannica.com/event/resistance-European-history

https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2020/09/07/long-road-to-see-justice-over-munirs-murder.html

As an Indonesian woman, our people were oppressed by many European nations, from Dutch To British to French and Portuguese, our nations were stripped and reduced to mere colonies of European powers, our people were enslaved in their own lands, woman raped and children murdered, then after Dutch leave, because Hitler almost sunk their nation during WWII, Japan fucking invaded our land and then enslaved us again! 

Japan lost the world war alongside with its axis allies, YAAY! We are free, but wait, the Dutch Empire was such a baby they wanted their ‘toys’ , they fucking demanded the allies to helped them invaded Indonesia again because in the eye of Dutch Empire we are nothing but their slaves to be milked dry and taken advantages of, but we fought back! And now all Indonesian people from children to the elderly are free!

Did Indonesian people won their freedom and built their nation with being subservient and asked nicely? 

FUCK NO, blood was spilled and heads were cut, a lot of head, but at least now generations upon generations of Indonesian people will never taste the brutality of slavery and how does it feel to be enslaved. Our first president was considered as a menace and a terrorist by Dutch Royalty, he was imprisoned in isolation but managed to escape over and over again! 

|

But wait, if any person who rebelled against the government regardless of their intentions can be labeled as a terrorist *gasp* IS THAT MEAN GEORGE FUCKING WASHINGTON WAS A TERRORIST?! Apparently, by British Empire standards, he was.

 The guy and his friends waged a war against the crown, because British Empire keep treated American colony like shit, from the perspective of King George, Washington was a piece of shit who kept ruined his country and his colonies, but boi Americans would be angry if someone called Washington a terrorist right? Because for them, Washington's struggle and rebellion were righteous. 

YOU CAN’T SIMPLY USE THE LABEL OF ‘TERRORIST’ TO CONDEMN ANDERS AND HIS ACTIONS WITHOUT EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS MOTIVE.

Because if you keep doing then, in your perspective every single freedom fighter who rebelled against cruelty and tyranny should be condemned? 

We are talking about what is a ‘terrorist’ here, and if you want to label someone as a terrorist then you have to read their manifesto, understand their motive, try to hear what they wanted to say, and understand the core of ideas behind their rebellion. 

Here’s the thing, will you call the Stonewall riot as an act of terrorism? ( i presume from your blog description you are a supporter of LGBT right? ) 

What about Joachim Ronnenberg? A man who leads a daring raid against Nazi Germany nuclear weapon factory had the german succeded in their efforts, we might have read devastating histories about the nuclear bomb that destroyed London like what happened to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

From the perspective of Nazi Germany...This guy  wasis a terrorist and an enemy!

But it feels so wrong to describe freedom fighter as a terrorist right? How could we label people who resist nazi Germany as a terrorist?!

Because we know, despite the casualties, despite everything that happened, what they did was right, and they needed to fight back. 

Allies marched to Berlin was the right thing to do, American colonies rebelled despite they knew that a lot of people will die in war, but have you ever condemned the founding father and his people for their rebellion? Or argued that it wasn’t necessary for them to rebelled. Soekarno wars and rebellion against dutch colonists and invaders cannot be condemned, because objectively, no one should support slavery and colonization of other nations. 

French people were so sick and tired of their nobilities and royalties bullshit to the point they cut off their own monarch head, but they were right, because French Monarchy was corrupt and incompetent, while nobles and royalties were feasting and drinking as if there’s no tomorrow, poor people in French can’t even afford bread. 

Trans and Gay people who fight back and demonstrated against injustice was right, the woman who demonstrated and rioted against the oppressive system and patriarchy was right.

WE KNEW DEEP DOWN THEIR CAUSE ARE NOT EVIL, OR CONDEMNABLE, THEIR CAUSES ARE OBJECTIVELY RIGHT! 

But what if it were someone like Adolf Hitler who hmmm rebelled against the Weimar Republic, back before his raises to power around 1920-1923, I’m sure that you are familiar with his Beer Hall Putsch, when he held 14 mass meetings in Germany, for the nazi it was a historical moment, ‘a glorious resistance against the weak and incompetent Weimar Republic’

For his supporter it was glorious, but despite their best efforts to convinced themselves that they were right, WE KNEW HE WAS NOT RIGHT, Nazi was god awful.

What is the core idea of nazism? (I'm going to compare it with socialism/communism because some people keep saying that communism is just like nazi, and it's absolutely wrong) 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism/Marxian-communism

https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism

They are very different. Ya see despite some people who keep yelling that communist is just nazism by any other name. ( and I’m not a communist) 

Adolf Hitler might see himself as a savior, a martyr, and his party also people who supported him

richard spencer, see himself as a ‘liberator’ and voice of white people, but behind all of his fucking bullshit, his core ideas are just Naziism, he is a nazi, Richard Spencer is a white supremacist so does any other alt-right edge lord on the internet who insisted that they are not nazi, despite the fact they fucking followed nazi ideologies and practiced hatred ( btw nazi ideology is based on white supremacist and eugenic ideologies too, so what’s the difference really?” Nazi is white supremacists and white supremacists will always be a nazi) 

Alright and how all of it ties back to Anders and mage rebellion, you might ask, ‘why did you write about histories lessons that I already knew about?’ 

Well templar child, it’s all lead back 

TO THE CORE OF ANDERS IDEAS AND MANIFESTO AND WHY HIS IDEOLOGIES/BELIEVES AND MAGES REBELLION WAS ON THE FREAKING RIGHT SIDE. 

I wrote that fucking long-ass paragraphs so people will be able to differentiate the righteous kind of rebellion (or ‘terrorism’ from the perspective of the power/oppressors) and the god-awful kind of rebellion/terrorism.  

Because instead of listening and learning about what anders wanted, some people are often so fixated on the semantic of the word ‘terrorist’ and got too distracted by that stupid chantry explosion. THE CHANTRY EXPLODED IS THE SAME KIND OF THING IF HITLER OR STALIN’S OFFICE too  

People died? Yeah so does people who died during USA war against British Empire, was it terrible that people died? Yeah it was terrible but just like what i wrote before, the rebellion had to happened. And you said that he killed hundreds? Huh the numbers was never 100% confirmed because i don't think Isabela count the bodies, and second we cannot be sure about numbers of the casualties, because we never really see  ALL them in the first place. And actually arent Hero of Ferelden, Hawke and Inquisitor killed SO MANY PEOPLE? What about The Dragonborn? No to mention that in their journey they also destroyed private and public property and killed so many god damn animals to the point they could have been the reason why some species of animals are endangered.  And no one ever protest or raised a fuss when heroes killed tons of people.  Arent templar and chantry also killed and tortured so many people? What about mages who were killed or made tranquil for the past 1000 years? What about mages who committedcommited suicide like Orsino friend who locked herself in a closet then set herself on fire? Because she no longer can’t stand living in Kirkwall Circle prison? What about Anders friends who often committedcommited suicide because what templar did to them and that lead to severe depression? What about mages and elves who were hunted down and killed just because they escaped from their circle prison, they were killed by order of the chnatry and templar cut them down with their sword? What about Elves of Dales who died because Orlais wanted to expand its fucking territoryterrtotry and justified their racial superiority? Chantry and templar supported that. What about Karl who asked Anders to killed him because he preferred to die rather than be a tranquil again? Or captured by templar again? TEMPLAR AND CHANTRY COMMITED MORE CRIMES FOR THE PAST 1000 YEARS MORE THAN ANY PERSON DID, THE TEMPLAR AND CHANTRY MURDERED, ENLSAVED, TORTURED AND IMPRISON PEOPLE ALSO SUPPORTED GENOCIDE FOR 1000 YEARS!  IF WE CALCULATED NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO DIED BY THE CHANTRY ORDER AND TEMPLAR SWORDS, IT’S MORE THAN FREAKING MILLIONS!  ANDERS DID WHAT HE DID TO FREE THE MAGES AND FUTURE MAGES CHILDREN, SAME THING WITH FIONA  AND THE MAGES WHO REBELLED TO FREE THEMSELVES AND  FOR THE FUTURE OF MAGES, THEY ALSO REBELLED FOR FUTURE MAGES FREEDOM, THEY REBELLED FOR THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE (because unlike what noodle and chantry said and spread, mages are PEOPLE!) so what are you saying again? HUH ? what is your justification? What is your defense? CHANTRY AND TEMPLAR CRIMES CANNOT BE DEFENDED!   If you justified Templar and chantry crimes then THE EVANURIS AND TEVINTER and the stupid qun ideals  can be justified too? From OBJECTIVE perspective Anders ideology WAS RIGHT! HE AND THE MAGES BELONG WITH THE RIGHTEOUS REBELS. Let’s compare chantry/templar mentality and moral vs mages and elves believes and pursuit of freedom. 

Let’s see examples of chantry/templar mentality based on evidence and popular opinion in Thedas that was forced by The chantry to people head.

1. The interpretation of chant of light that mages and nonhuman are abhorred by the maker, and they are ‘evil’ and corrupt’ i must remind you that MODERN and RELEVANT andrastianism in modern Thedas, has twisted whatever Andraste said and they strayed so far away from what andraste possibly could have wanted. 

What if Maferath Betrayal was not based on maliciousness? Or not just based on maliciousness? What if Andraste was truly a mage? The chantry lied about Shartan, the chantry fucking lied about Ameridan, if there’s one IRONIC TRUTH about the chantry, they lied, they twisted story and histories for their political power and their gains.

the whole ‘magic must serve man and not rule over him’ was purposely misinterpreted to fucking justify drakon fucking fanfic holy book, and his campaign to conquer the rest of Thedas. And the chant verses were twisted as a stupid and terrible justification to demonize and enslaved mages and elves in circle towers. 

In a nutshell that chant actually said that magic is a gift that should not be used for terrible deeds. But andrastian changed the meaning and twisted their own prophet words to enslave and oppressed southern mages.

2. The chantry believes about Everything that related to the fade/spirits/ or demon are dangerous and inherently evil, I ALWAYS LAUGHED MY ASS OFF, whenever templar/chantry/andrastian/non mages spouting hateful shits about the fade and spirits, it’s incredibly ironic, because there’s an implication that ALL PEOPLE who were not made by Titans (dwarves was made by titan) were spirits from the fade who ‘created body from the earth’ after they descended to the material world.

The evanuris, first of elven people, Solas and his people were spirits, it can be safely assumed that modern elves, humans and qunari in their truest form are spirits as well. 

 I think during his personal quest, All New Faded forFor Her, Aka The Dreadwolf Fen’harel, Solas has explained the truth about what human, elves and qunari truly are and what is their true form would be once they are died ( if they are not a remarkable person then they will simply be lost to the fade ) 

Besides it’s the chantry who spread hateful and ignorant propaganda about evil of spirits/demons, the fact that chantry spread such misinformed propaganda and derailed hates of the fade and spirit into people mind actually is one of the reasons why demons and unwilling possession as modern thedas know it exists, I know Cole explained that  spirit who crossed from the fade to the world was simply traumatized by their journey, the veil hurt them ( we can blame Solas for that) rules in the material world is just confusing, the earth and it’s mostly inflexible and unchanging rules confused them.

But if The fade can be bend and shaped by powerful dreamer/mages/ dreams and believes of people. That means...Demons were also created by The chantry ignorant and hateful propaganda. If many people believed that spirits are dangerous or ‘they are demon’, that spirits and the fade are scary then that’s how they will manifest.

The fade and spirit can be influenced by people's collective beliefs and perceptions. That’s mean it also The chantry and their dogmatic backward propaganda that made spirit/demon as we know it today, I mean for some reason Cole called himself a ‘demon’? While the boy was never corrupted nor twisted from his true nature, i think it’s because people perception of him and spirit.  The chantry dogmatic believes backfired on their own face. rule about 

3. Blind devotion to Orlais Chantry, theThe chantry foundation was made of bones upon bones and blood, emperor kordilius drakon butchered many cults and stamped out any non-andrastian religion or branch of andrastianism that didn’t conform to his cult believes so he can establish his cult of andraste as the dominant religious power in southern thedas or thedas in general. 

The Daughters of Song 

Wine. Music. Poetry. And the wanton and frenzied indulgence of carnal fancies. These things characterized the hedonistic cult known as the Daughters of Song. Calling them an order of the faithful lends them a legitimacy they do not deserve. The daughters (and sons, though they saw themselves also as "daughters") celebrated Andraste's holy union with the Maker in almost every way imaginable. And it was only the "holy union" they venerated. Andraste's life, her war, her teachings, and her sacrifice were blithely ignored.

At its height, the Daughters of Song numbered in the thousands. They maintained a stronghold in a village called Virelay, in the Fields of Ghislain. Virelay saw a yearly event during which the Daughters of Song paraded carven images of the "Maker's Glory" through the square.The Daughters of Song were wiped out by the righteous forces of Emperor Drakon during his campaigns to unite all of Orlais. When the emperor's forces sacked the village, the Daughters would not arm themselves and were either killed or captured. The village was destroyed, and the cult never recovered.—From Before Andrastianism: the Forgotten Faiths by Sister Rondwyn of Tantervale

HA! Blithely ignored her fucking war and ‘sacrifice’ is much better than using the story of andraste life as propaganda and tools to conquer, murder, enslaved, and wiped out groups of people who didn’t buy to your shit.

The daughter of the songs was not a cult of a sex-crazed hedonist, they were another group of pacifist andraste cult who didn’t do anything wrong at all (seems like they were peaceful, they didn’t even willing to armed themselves when Drakon butchered their people) and they just wanted to be left alone to their own device, but of course Drakon,  that egotistical bastard who sees himself as a martyr and narcissistic self-proclaimed holy man, so he put any people who didn’t want to listen to his bullshit to sword. 

The chantry and Orlais using their god, their prophet words, and their religion as a bludgeoning tool to conquer and forcefully converted people, the foundation of modern andrastianism religion was based drakon totalier philosophy his ambitions to rule all of Thedas. 

Ironically if there are people who smeared and desecrate andraste and the maker, its their followers. 

This kind of religious militant mentality has ledlead to people justification of exalted march, because they thought that they were doing it for the maker, they believed that the march is the maker works, anyoneany one who supported exalted march were so convinced that they were right to spilled so many blood and butchered so many people for their religious zealotry (and political ambition of their rulers but eh peasant rarely know anything about what happened in winter palace right?) 

if you supported exalted march of dales or exalted march against mages then.... As a Muslim i just want to say, what’re the differences between exalted march and Christian crusade? And we know that Crusade was a waste of resources and lives  or ISIS ambition for expansionism? 

Military and Religion is a dangerous and scary combination. And I can’t comprehend why any modern human could be so thirsty and horny to destroy other people's nations for their religion and their interpretation of their religion. and let me remind you again, the chantry and templar supported this mentality and often using the maker as a reason and justification of their terrible deeds.  The chantry refusal to acknowledge and respect different kind of andrastian religion and their outright rejection of different religion lead them to wiped out pre-chantry andrastian cult aka their own brethren and destruction of The dales, destruction and deaths of so many dalish clan, prejudice and bigotry against qunari and dwarves. and we don’t have to talk about what happen to old god religion worshipper. Y’know sounds like dark age church and their obsessions to stamped out any kind of ‘heresy’ , you like that shit? You supported it? EWWWW. D:  4. Templar and Chantry brainwashed people to be hateful bigot, I don’t care about any kind of justification or ‘positive deeds’ that andrastianism has done, a thousandthousands years of proofs and facts has proven that most of the time they spreading bigotry and hate for their own political power and gains, the chantry instilled intolerance on people mind and using terror as a way to control population of Thedas, people except for the ruling class are live in uncertainty and fear, we might see peasant in thedas just living their simple life, but if the temple and chantry find out that they are doing anything ‘suspicious’ or they hide their relatives who can use magic then that’s it, their life will end by chantry order and Templar sword, not to mention that the chantry bigoted cheating also lead to  these kind of situation, remember  that mage who were murdered in the storm coast by villager? She died because the chantry brainwashed people to hates on anything non-human and to hate on mages. NOW THE MAGES, let’s take a look at the mages and elves. 1.The mages and elves just wanted to be free and to be treated as an equal in society, not as a walking weapon to be enslaved and imprisoned and not as a servant/slave to non-mage human (or in tevinter and the qun not as a slave in general for elves and mages too who suffer under the qun ) if anyone supporting an ideology or people who deny other people rights, BASIC RIGHTS, then all of you fucktard can rot in hell. 2. Fiona, despite the chantry and Templar oppressed and enslaved her people for must I remind you again 1000 year! Fiona Was still willing to let other fraternities and other circles to vote, whenever they wanted to follow her rebellion or not, AND THE SOUTHREN MAGES CHOSE TO REBELED AND FOLLOWING HER! 3. Now mages freedom is canon, the mages now have their own government and they   rule over themselves( college of enchanters) and they never try to enslave, oppress, brutalize and hurt non mages 4. Now Briala rule in Orlais, she  could help to keep:  1. Remember that mage who died in Gaspard on leash and preventing him from invading other nations, not to mention that she definetly

4. 

Oh, Solas where are thou ~

Now about Solas and the veil, we might speculate to our heart content about Solas plans and what he might do in the future, but to be honest, truth to be told, NO ONE EXACTLY KNOW what is his actual plan for the evanuris, for the blight, for titans and to tear m down the veil. We only have morsels of information about his plans from trespasser, and Tevinter night (also from the leaks).  Who knew maybe Solas plan will ironically save the world? Doomed it? Saved some people? Only doomed half of the world? Will the world end? Or survive?  Now i want all magic to come back but without have to kill millions of people in Thedas, Because it will solve non-mages vs mages problem, everybody will be mages and the centuries of problems will be solved, not to mention that with the minuscule amounts of magic Thedas physical world now have, people seemed to slowly devolving, being cut from magic of the fade is not only horrible for mages but also for non- mages (Because the fade is the sources of power and life itself, not to mention that Solas referred to it as ‘The sea of souls’ in Tevinter Nights)  Here’s the thing, with or without Solas even waking up from his long sleep, i think The veil will be destroyed either way, here’s the evidences that supported my theories (But i still have no idea about What exactly will happen just like many other people out there ) Sandal Prophercy:  “Sandal: One day the magic will come back. All of it. Everyone will be just like they were. The shadows will part, and the skies will open wide. When he rises, everyone will see.”  Grand Duchess Florianne: “ A great CHANGE  is coming for all of us lord seeker lucius:  “ We created a decaying world, and  fought to preserve it even as it crumbled, we had to be stopped” Kieran:  “My mother is the inheritor of the next age” Mythal: WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT SOLAS PLAN IS, what is he going to do with other evanuris? What bout the titans? What about mythal? and ghilan’nain creatures that has been slowly emerge from the sea? What about the blight and darkspawn? I feel  like Solas wouldn’t be the true next main villain, he wouldn’t be Corypheus 2.0, why? Because unlike the blight or Corypheus, Solas have important relationship with The inquisitor, while most any other fucking villain have little to no relationship with heroes. So here Solas quote from Tevinter Nights: His look pinned her “I have no choice.What  I am doing will save this world, and those like you- the elves who are still remain-may find it better, when  it is done.” Solas might call himself “Prideful, hot headed and foolish.”  but he’s not a fucking idiot, he wouldn’t just tear down the veil  just to bing elven glory back,  there must be something bigger behind his motives, like the evanuris and well titans I don’t want to say much about the possible consequences of what might Solas  do, because frankly we don’t know anything about it. It is possible tho that the veil destruction will be the same thing just  like the fifth blight, mage and elves vs Templar and chantry/human war, Corypheus rises and fall  and the fucking explosion of both Kirkwall chantry and temple of sacred ashes,  it just going to happen, it is what fucking it is man. To quote Steve Jobs “One more thing” Patrick  fucking Weekes and their wife supporting mage and mage rights MEANWHILE... if you could live anywhere in Thedas, where would you live? PATRICK: I would live in Rivain. Because Rivain is not as hung up on magic, because they have seers who let themselves get possessed... they also have a relatively peaceful relationship with the Qun. And they're kind of a melting pot and multicultural... they're a place where a lot of different cultures come together. And also? Beachfront property. KARIN: I was just gonna say... if you need further justification, they get to say, "I want to live on the beach."

Yeah, that was a really good one. Okay, moving on: Mages or Templars? PATRICK and KARIN (in unison): Mage

http://www.dumpeddrunkanddalish.com/2020/05/castles-fennecs-and-player-engagement.html http://www.dumpeddrunkanddalish.com/2020/04/chatting-with-weekeses-part-3-romances.html

[datodarrenyaw]

Dato Darren Yaw, Champion of Animal Rescue

Dato Darren Yaw is an animal lover. The renowned veterinarian has always been a compassionate guy when it comes to treating animals with all the love in his heart. If you are interested to learn more about why Dato Darren Yaw is passionate about animals, give this blog a quick read.

“I love animals. They are my everything. I love their intelligence; I love their cuteness and I love the simple joy of being around them. I am a firm believer in ongoing animal education and care. It is important that our culture reflects the value of these creatures and acknowledge that we should take time to see them not only as objects of curiosity but as interesting beings whose wellbeing should be on par with our own.

I really love animals and want the world to love them as much as I do. It was hard for me to choose the right words that would portray my feelings for animals in general. I wear my heart on my sleeve most of the time and don't be mistaken. I am not referring to a lack of compassion or feeling sorry for other living beings. It is just simply that they distract me from doing what I want to be doing. I love helping animals because it means I get to spend some quality time with them. It is very relaxing for me.

I adore animals especially dogs and cats. I do have a very soft heart for sickly and old animals in need of rescue. I’m always thinking about how to get and give a dose of love and tenderness to animals in need of a second chance at life. I always try to do my part when it comes to helping a little animal get well.

I do not believe that animals should be killed for food, or political gain, or for fun. I think it is wrong and should be illegal. I am in favour of educating people about animal welfare issues and adopting animals into new homes when it is deemed necessary. I believe that people should read and learn as much as they can about these issues so that they can make an educated choice when adopting pets, or any other animal for that matter.

Rescue animals are a cause close to my heart. After all, it is my life's work to protect our planet from destruction. Animals are our family, and they belong to everyone. They need our help to live a long, healthy life. Africa is currently facing serious challenges from poaching. These animals are being systematically killed for their body parts from which they can make a bloody but profitable marketplace.

I believe that learning about animals is important in order to be a compassionate and caring person. I have been involved in animal rescue for over eight years now and this interest continues to form my outlook on life. I want to inspire others to read and learn as much as they can about these issues so that they can make an educated choice when adopting pets, or any other animal for that matter.

I believe we can all agree that animals are incredible creatures. Whether to own, care for, or have as pets; animals bring so much joy to our lives. Humanity needs to be more aware and educated on the effects we are implicating on the planet.”

Dato Darren Yaw leaves us with this message that we must remember that Earth is not only home for humans, but to millions of species living, eating, breathing every day and struggling to stay alive. It would be a great loss for humanity to lose more and more species, global warming is destroying natural habitats and humans are grazing their homes for financial gain! So, let’s be more compassionate towards animals.

[rabbitcruiser]

National Horse Protection Day

The majestic horse has long been considered a close companion of humans and a vital contributor to our species’ progress. Horse Protection Day is all about returning the love of our four-legged friends by raising awareness of the various plights that horses face and by protecting them from abuse, exploitation and neglect.

History of Horse Protection Day

Throughout the centuries, equines have carried us on their backs, pulled our carriages, fought in our wars, tilled our fields and traveled miles and miles across our countries. They have been a key part of human civilization for over 5,000 years and have cultural significance all over the world. In the US, for example, the horse has a legendary status as an icon of the American spirit, a symbol of freedom in the West.

Although the advent of the automobile and various other technological advances has meant that these creatures are no longer required as frequently on the roads or as laborers, today horses still remain a steadfast companion to animal lovers and equestrian fans alike. As well as being great pets, they are a beloved therapy animal, often providing support to people with disabilities, assist with important work such as policing and cattle ranching and have become a key part of some popular sports.

Yet despite the wonderful loyalty and dedication of horses, they are frequently mistreated, exploited and abandoned.

Horse Protection Day was first observed in 2005 when it was founded by pet lifestyle expert and animal behaviorist Colleen Paige. Having grown up around horses, Paige created the day to make others mindful of the plight of unwanted and neglected horses, those that end up being slaughtered or served as food and those that are abused and exploited. The day aims to encourage the rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming of horses.

Although Horse Protection Day began in the US, it has since spread and is celebrated elsewhere too – a testament to how universally valued these animals are.  

Why horses need our protection

There are a whole host of reasons why horses around the world need our protection.

Because of the resources and expense needed to care for them, horses are especially at risk of a poor quality of life, neglect and abandonment, even by well-intentioned owners who lack sufficient knowledge or simply fall upon hard times. However, there are also many horse breeders and dealers who care not about animal welfare but rather about generating a profit. This can lead to large numbers of horses living in poor conditions and even suffering from abuse.

Although horse meat is consumed in various parts of the world and often considered a delicacy, there are also many who are against horses being treated as a food source. Horses that are slaughtered for meat often come from auctions, but sometimes they are abandoned pets, retired working animals, bought from private sellers or captured from wild herds.

With the horse considered an American icon, the US is particularly averse to horse meat – it’s illegal to sell or eat horse meat in some states such as California and there’s a movement to make this the case across the country.

While sports can be a great way for people and horses to bond, the equine’s wellbeing isn’t always given the priority it deserves. Horses may be overworked, maltreated and injured, sometimes fatally, in the pursuit of glory in the sports stadium.  

And even wild horses (known as mustangs in the US) require our protection. Finding a humane solution to the problem of overpopulation in America is a real challenge – while many consider the rounding up of wild horses to be cruel, with a small number adopted but most living out the rest of their lives in holding pens, if numbers aren’t properly handled this could lead to drought and starvation for thousands. Humane management is therefore key to their flourishing.

How to celebrate Horse Protection Day

Horse Protection Day is a day to be mindful of the trials and tribulations of horses without a home, without companionship and without love. Horse lovers will often say that these creatures are just as much our four-legged friends as cats and dogs are – and if you have ever been lucky enough to know these shy and gentle animals, you’ll know this to be true.

There are plenty of ways you could observe Horse Protection Day. Of course, not everyone has the space to adopt a horse and keep one to look after, but if you live close to a stable, offering a helping hand with the horses or dropping off food and bedding would certainly be appreciated.

Perhaps you could think about supporting a horse through a charity or donating to your local horse sanctuary. By supporting organizations such as these, you’ll be contributing to a whole range of activities aimed at improving the lives of horses everywhere, from rehoming and rehabilitation to educating and supporting owners and breeders. And if you spot a horse that seems neglected or abandoned, don’t be afraid to call an animal welfare charity or equine sanctuary for help.

If you’re especially passionate, you could even get involved in lobbying efforts to improve legislation on animal welfare, livestock protection and responsible breeding.

Horse Protection Day is also a great opportunity to connect with these amazing animals. Why not go on a trail ride or take up a sporting activity involving horses such as polo or showjumping? You can also venture into the great outdoors to places where wild horses can be found roaming freely! However, you decide to celebrate, remember to spread the word on social media, and be sure to find out more about this important observance by visiting the Horse Protection Day website.

Source

[disembodiedapparition]

Neoliberalism: explained

Neoliberalism is a concept that has largely shaped the world we live in today. First popularized in the 1980s by world leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, it was the successor to the Keynesian economic system that most developed nations had adopted post World War 2. However, for a system as influential as it is, there’s still a great deal of confusion about what it really stands for and whether it’s ideal for a strong economy or not.

Neoliberalism is a school of thought that believes that every human interaction is driven by greed. In other words, people’s actions, relationships, and choices are all motivated by what that person might gain economically from them. Neoliberalism argues that self-interest is the driving force for any economy and for human progress as a whole, and that it should be encouraged rather than treated as a vice. It also posits that the competition an individual may face while propelling their self-interests would only encourage them to work harder and produce a product or service that meets a much higher standard. Without adequate competition, people are less motivated to do the very best they can – their consumers simply have no alternative to buy from.

Although this particular school of thought is often referred to as “capitalism”, it’s important to remember that by definition, a capitalist system is simply a system that aims to acquire capital, or profit. Neoliberalism, the system that many developed countries still incorporate into their economic systems today, is a type of capitalism – it promotes economic gain by increasing market competition and advocating for more privatized industries over public (government owned) ones.

The term “neoliberalism” in today’s context can be a little confusing, especially since the word “liberal” is commonly associated with civil rights and social equality advocacy (the ideals that these movements revolve around actually support government run industries and propose a tilt of the current economic model towards socialism). However, the “liberalism” that the term originated from referred to economic liberation – that is, a transfer of economic power from the government to individuals. It was popularized in the 19th  century, and has dominated the global economy ever since.

After the Cold War, the people were largely turned off by capitalism. The economic crises and recessions of the 1920-30s were fresh in mind, and it was clear that a new system, that would prevent the economy from crashing periodically, had to be drawn up. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom concluded that “both socialism and capitalism [were] dead”, and the Keynesian economic system subsequently adopted a blend of the two – it recognized the importance of market competition and individual economic liberty, while also implementing policy interventions aimed to curb the inherent flaws in capitalism that so often resulted in financial breakdowns, depressions, or mass unemployment epidemics. This system soon began rising in popularity in previously neoliberal nations, and for good reason. Their economies were booming, and growing at consistent rates.

However, in the early 1970s, the Keynesian system started to see another recession coming its way. The reasons for this recession were external and had little to do with the economic model being followed, but the economic elites who previously profited off capitalism began panicking, worried that their wealth may be in danger. The elites understood that a compromise was necessary following the devastating impacts of the war, and they were willing to share their wealth with the masses. However, once they felt that this wealth was in danger, they began advocating reverting to the old capitalist system – marketed to the people as a new one called neoliberalism.

The idea posited by Keynesian economists that government regulation was necessary to keep big industries in check, avoid future economic breakdowns, and protect the interests of the environment, the society, and every individual was rebranded as an overextension of power and an attack on individual liberties. It’s also important to note that during this time, the anti- Vietnam war crowd was also resentful of the restrictions that were placed on behavior and thought, and the way that government mandated controls were being implemented all over the country. This greatly contributed to the rhetoric that government intervention was bad and needed to be shut down.

All of this was only talk, however, until neoliberal leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were elected into office. They each began reforming their respective governments – loosening regulations on industries, de-centralizing certain industries (like telecommunication or energy production), and cutting down taxes on the people, mainly the economic elites. By the time Reagan was out of office, the highest tax that an individual in the U.S could pay dropped from 70% to 28%. The rationale was that the wealthiest people in society, when taxed less by the government, would use their wealth to make larger investments that would, in turn, lead to astronomical economic growth which would benefit everyone. This proposed chain of events is often called the trickle- down economic theory, and is still referenced today (U.S. President Donald Trump used it to justify his tax cuts on the wealthy).

However, as Owen Zidar has recently shown in a research study published in the Journal of Political Economy, the assumption that the wealthy would use saved tax dollars to create jobs, foster economic growth, or bridge the gap between the rich and poor is a fallacy. Instead, he found that they are actually more likely to simply hoard their wealth. The U.S, which currently taxes its billionaires at a rate of 23% (while the average tax rate for the public is 28%), is one of the best examples of the massive wealth inequalities triggered by relying on trickle-down economics – as of 2013, the top 10% possessed 76% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 50% only possessed 1%. Back when the ultra-rich were taxed heavily, the government implemented welfare programs which sought to stabilize this gap, but neoliberal economic policies provided a way for the wealthy to keep national wealth all to themselves – which doesn’t promote economic growth at all.

Today, neoliberalism’s biggest advocates are right wing or conservative parties, although the term itself might indicate otherwise. However, not many openly identify with the label, as it’s gained a bad reputation because of leaders like Pinochet, the former President of Chile. Although Chile’s economy did much better than her Latin American counterparts and she experienced a sharp decrease in poverty levels, the rampant inequality that neoliberalism inevitably triggered led to a divide between the business/political elite and the people of Chile, sparking nationwide protests and a call for more public provisions and greater taxes on the wealthy. However, the ideas of unregulated industries, privatized businesses, and minimal government interference are still hugely popular. Countries like the U.S, which were founded on individualist over monarchial government systems, often claim that the free market capitalism that neoliberalism champions is one of the core values of the nation, and cannot be compromised on.

Not only has neoliberalism led to an increase in wealth and income inequality, but it has also stripped power away from governments and given it to powerful and wealthy multinational companies. For example, the way that governments were forced to immediately fold and bail the banks out in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, and the inability of governments to prevent social media platforms from infringing on the integrity of their own elections - or even force them to attempt to do so. Governments are becoming increasingly powerless in comparison to the ultra-rich. Ironically, even though neoliberal ideals acknowledge that the government still plays a small role in the economy, the nature of the system enables large corporations to accumulate enough wealth and power to influence the few decisions that the government actually gets to make. For example, a corporation that is essentially a pillar of the economy – providing millions of jobs and paying a large percent of the tax the government receives from its people – could threaten to relocate to a different country if they don’t comply with their demands.

Neoliberalism is a very unique system of organizing society. It’s played a massive role in shaping the world we live in today, and even though the label has been defamed, the ideas that propelled the revolution are still highly popular today. Today, political parties remain conflicted over whether Keynesian or Neoliberal economics are the best way to minimize adversity and maximize economic growth. David Harvey has classified neoliberalism as “a project to achieve the restoration of class power”, and unfortunately, this holds true. Decades of neoliberal reforms have stacked the odds increasingly in favor of the ultra-rich and the billionaires, and have dug the economic lower and middle classes further into poverty and debt. In addition, the idea has changed the way we think about the world, and invited us to view society as a market, where every interaction is made out of self-interest, and where economic gain is the only kind of gain you could ever hope to make in your lifetime.

“Neoliberalism is the flood that raises those who can afford ships and drowns those who cannot.”

[radical-desiderium]

I've been seeing a lot on my dash about plastic surgery discourse, and I wanted to talk about why I consider plastic surgery to go against doctor-patient ethics. So most of you probably know the Hippocratic Oath, the most famous oath applied to doctors, which in its modern form goes something like this:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

I bolded the parts I wanted to specifically address.

The Hippocratic Oath states that medicine is to "apply all required measures for the benefit of the sick." People who undergo cosmetic surgery are not physically sick nor are the surgeries they undergo in any way "required measures" as they will not die or have their physical health decline as a result of being denied that surgery. The oath also states that one's goal should be to avoid "those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism", and in my opinion, plastic surgery falls squarely in the former category. What else could you call an elective surgery if not "overtreatment"?

The oath then goes on to state that with great power comes great responsibility, and that doctors should not take the lives that rest in their hands lightly, and that "this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty." People die under the knife receiving plastic surgery all the time. People die in recovery from complications in those surgeries often as well. Any deaths resulting from plastic surgery are inherently unnecessary deaths and the responsiblity for those deaths lies firmly in the hands of the physicians who agreed to do it. There was no tangible benefit for the patient and they took the risk of that patient dying, however small, in return for being paid to perform their services.

Leading into my next point, the Hippocratic Oath states that doctors don't treat illnesses, they treat patients, and that the welfare of those patients should be at the forefront of the doctor's mind when performing their duty. The next line expands upon that, stating that it is a doctor's duty to "prevent disease whenever [they] can, for prevention is preferable to cure." Plastic surgery goes against the patient welfare. It does less than prevent disease, it even goes so far as to cause it. There is the introduction of injury and the potential for infection to previously healthy tissue in pretty much any cosmetic surgery procedure you could name. The patient has to undergo months of post-operative recovery from a surgery they didn't need. Complications with permanent health effects can develop, such as those seen with Breast Implant Illness. If prevention is truly preferable to cure, then it would be reasonable to say it would preferable to not perform these procedures at all.

In 2017, the World Medical Association revised the Declaration of Geneva and made a sort of successor to the Hippocratic Oath called the Physician's Pledge, which goes:

AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;

THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.

The second line already is broken by cosmetic surgeons; it's apparent that the the health and well-being of their patients is not their "first consideration", because if it was, they would have refused to perform the surgery initially. They are prioritizing something over the health of the patient, whether that may be the patient's own desires or the monetary gain they stand to receive.

And I would also go so far as to say that they go against the fourth line as well, because I would argue that you cannot be a plastic surgeon and still maintain "the utmost respect for human life". Any self-respecting medical professional takes any and all surgeries seriously and understands that regardless of human ability and technology, there remains an intrinsic risk in every surgery, no matter how small or routine. Plastic surgeons are aware that the procedures they perform could very well result in either the death of their patient or a severe decline in their quality of life, and any doctor who refuses to acknowledge that is likely overconfident in their skills. That's not saying that every procedure will end that way, but that the possibility for complications is always there. To perform plastic surgery is to weigh that risk, to weigh the value of a human life, against the gain of that cosmetic procedure being performed, and to then decide to proceed anyway.

My problem with plastic surgery doesn't lie in the "choice" of the patients, it lies in the ethics of the doctor. Plastic surgery is not an issue of whether or not it is right for consenting patients to seek out those surgeries; it's an issue of whether or not it is ethical for the doctors to be performing them.

There are variations upon variations of the Hippocratic Oath, but the heart of the message stays the same: prioritize the health of your patient and don't play around with life. Plastic surgeons had to become doctors first before they became plastic surgeons. They should be upheld to the same ethical code as other doctors, they took the same or similar oaths as any other doctor, and a surgery done for no health reason whatsoever is a surgery that should not be performed.

TLDR: Plastic surgeons are doctors first and plastic surgeons second, and performing plastic surgery violates any and all oaths they have taken regarding their medical career, as they profit off of performing procedures where there is no tangible benefit to the patient's health.

[spiritualdirections]

More on Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood whom Planned Parenthood itself has denounced as a racist. This is from a left-wing, pro-abortion article, which adds “nuance” and “context” to her racism and support for “forced or coerced sterilizations of tens of thousands of women, mostly Black or Latina”:

...Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

“The argument has always been there,” says Alex Sanger, Margaret Sanger’s grandson and the chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council—echoing other leaders who can’t remember a time when accusations of racism weren’t made against reproductive-rights activists.

Over the years, the name of the early twentieth-century birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger has become toxic. Recently, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award, anti-abortion stalwart Senator Chris Smith (R-NJ) raised such a stir that Clinton asked Ellen Chesler, the historian and author of Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (1992), to submit testimony regarding Sanger’s history to the Congressional Record. Likewise, Gloria Feldt, the author of The War on Choice (2004) and a former president of Planned Parenthood, recalls that when Sanger was nominated for the Arizona Women’s Hall of Fame, the debate was so heated that the Arizona legislature de-funded the entire Hall of Fame.

Much of the ire comes from epic misrepresentation of Sanger’s work, especially her ideas about eugenics, or human “selective breeding,” explains Alex Sanger. “Her discussions of eugenics are very complex and nuanced. She said a lot of stuff that nobody at Planned Parenthood agrees with today, but she’s also quoted as saying things she never said.” Among the quotations frequently and incorrectly credited to Sanger is, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.” It is so widely misattributed to her that it appeared on the wall of an International Center for Photography exhibit on eugenics. Another common offender showed up in a recent fundraising letter from Priests for Life: “Colored people are like human weeds and have to be exterminated.” The historian Esther Katz, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University, explains that Sanger never said anything of the sort.

According to the “Black genocide” movement, Sanger worked in cahoots with the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis to advance a theory of White supremacy and forced sterilization. The truth is more complicated than this caricature. Sanger did embrace ideas about eugenics that were popular in the 1920s; the eugenics movement offered her legitimacy, says Chesler, adding that Margaret Sanger had no choice but to engage eugenics. It was a mainstream movement, like public health or the environment today. It was to sanitize birth control and remove it from the taint of immorality and the taint of feminism, which was seen as an individualistic and antisocial group that addressed the needs of women only, and immoral women at that.

... In 1939 Sanger founded the Negro Project, a birth control campaign for southern Blacks. As soon as it secured funding, the project was wrested from her control by the White men running the Birth Control Federation of America—a merger between Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League—and by Robert Seibels, the chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association. The new leadership dismissed Sanger’s plan to introduce the project with a widespread educational campaign that would be run by black experts and leaders. It was in this context that Sanger had written, “We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Sanger meant that she didn’t want rumors to spread of nefarious intentions behind family planning (a key reason, Alex Sanger adds, why she never allowed herself to profit from her birth control innovations). However, generations of activists have presented Sanger’s remark that she didn’t want word to “go out” as proof that she secretly intended genocide. Sanger had nothing to do with the project’s implementation, and indeed, as the Margaret Sanger Papers Project holds, it was a failure, enacted without regard for Black needs and in terms that today sound blatantly racist. Nevertheless, her early involvement is still cited by the Black genocide movement as evidence that she supported coercive programs.

...Of course, serious abuses sprang from the eugenics movement with which Sanger was allied, including forced or coerced sterilizations of tens of thousands of women, mostly Black or Latina. Although Sanger opposed racially based eugenics and generally believed that sterilization should be voluntary, she made an exception in the cases of people she thought were unable to parent their children, such as the mentally ill—a position upheld by the Supreme Court in its 1927, eight-to-one Buck v. Bell decision concerning an allegedly “feebleminded” White woman. But while this is downplayed in biographies of the judges involved, Sanger’s association with eugenics has been so overemphasized it often eclipses her role in promoting birth control.

Reproductive rights advocates have successfully refocused population-control programs from abusive tactics such as sterilization to women’s choices. Yet we’re too close historically to the abuses of eugenics to ignore them—especially since the abuses aren’t all in the past... Alex Sanger concludes that his grandmother’s attempt “to co-opt eugenics in a bid for respectability” was a resounding failure, with dangerous fallout that continues to this day.

[internaljiujitsu]

The You Effect: Now Is The Time To Reevaluate Your Impact

Change comes at a cost. Be it time, money, sweat equity, instant gratification or attention, there is a price for progress. To genuinely feel as if you’ve profited from your efforts, you have to have contributed at least a little piece of yourself — otherwise, being given things doesn’t feel the same. You’ll think you don’t deserve what you have. You’ve gotta deem yourself worthy to be insulated from self-sabotage.

As we strive to achieve our goals, we may valiantly attack our to do lists, eagerly anticipating the day that our hard work pays off. The big things — life’s macro chores — treating people kindly, helping those in need or caring for the welfare of strangers, may not carry the weight they should as we simply look to check items off our agendas. Our self-worth attaches itself to a narrow view of accomplishment, with things that don’t seem to help us get ahead being devalued. Just as a rich man can feel like a pauper when devoid of the things money can’t buy, discounting the smile you put on a sad friend’s face is turning your nose up at the power to create change that is already yours.

Our outcomes most often come as a result of what we do for those around us. The tiny actions we take, no matter how seemingly insignificant, reverberate far beyond the fleeting effect we may observe. While the investment is minimal, a gesture like holding a door open or giving up your seat on the subway can be the nudge that allows a row of dominoes to fall, or shifts the direction of one just enough to avoid such an effect.

Helping you is an important part of the growth of those that come to your aid. It enriches their lives and earns them favor with the universe. They know that the more they help, the bigger their network becomes. While today they may be in a position to pull you out of a ditch, tomorrow they could find themselves face down in the dirt. Most of your network will remember you down the road, when they think they can return the favor. Those people get how the game works. They accumulate points by being genuinely generous and use them when necessary, thereby virtually guaranteeing that they’ll always have a helping hand at the ready.

It’s possible to contribute without feeling like you’re doing anything. So much of the way we communicate with each other is unspoken. Our “vibe” is felt by those in our proximity and though many of us do our best to mask our feelings, a generally shitty attitude is corrosive. Conversely, a bubbly mood is contagious, and a random smile to a passing stranger will often result in at least a grin back. There are some people that singularly affect the mood of a room, brightening it up or dragging in dark clouds, but most simply adjust to blend into their surroundings. Even with no thoughts being shared aloud or any actions performed, the atmosphere informs the stories playing out in people’s minds.

So sensitive are humans to the power of our own thoughts that the mere suggestion of grievance or admiration is enough to elicit a cascade of emotion. When so many of our personal interactions are done in a flash, it’s easy to disregard our influence on those we come across for but a moment. We’ve all declared someone we don’t know as evil over a perceived slight that we simply misinterpreted. Getting cut off in traffic, skipped in line or ignored — because we literally were not heard — all leave us feeling unseen, unappreciated and insignificant. While we are left fuming, the offender — with no emotional connection to the situation and unaware of your agitation — goes on his or her merry way, oblivious to the impact on your life.

The clueless agitator’s lack of mindful attention is partially to blame for the misinterpretation of events. Usually, it’s not that they have deemed their target unimportant, but they have, hopefully only temporarily, disregarded the very existence of other people and their relevance in the grand scheme of things. Everyone lives in a vacuum sometimes. The outside world plays little role in their decisions while in such a state.

Of course, the “victim” in this particular case is also to blame - Or more specifically, their baggage is. Without the hangups we all carry around, none of this would matter. We would not be affected by the perceived slights of strangers, but would smile and wish them well, fully aware that they are sleep walking through their day. Instead, our insecurities leap to the surface when we feel as if our feelings have not been considered, especially when someone acts like we don’t even exist. For people that need validation to prevent them from feeling worthless, a harmless oversight is akin to confirmation that their meaningless life has left no mark on the world.

But no one is free from responsibility for our collective experience. Those who feel worthless have simply failed to focus on the qualities they’ve brought to the table. Choosing destructive behavior to affirm our significance is often the result of minimizing the value of the little things we can do to foster positive change in the lives of those around us. Any great accomplishment was preceded by innumerable unremarkable events and forgettable interactions without which everything would be different.

Impact cannot be measured in an instant. It’s impossible for any of us to know the eventual effects of all our decisions, but we can be assured that our absence would not have led to the world unfolding exactly as it has. Everything you do plays a role in how the entire picture plays out. While the ripple extends far beyond you, your vantage point may not change — but the influence of your actions will echo through space and time.

[awed-frog]

If I may ask, what do you think of the whole sea watch 3 mess? And indeed of the whole migrant situation in Italy?

Well - I have messy thoughts about that. Mostly I’m angry, disgusted, worried and pretty hopeless about the whole thing.

As a recap for people who haven’t been following this (complicated stuff ahead, so I don’t claim to be right about everything): 

1) In 1990, the EU decided on how to deal with migrants by drafting the Dublin Regulation, which came into effect in 1997. The idea was charmingly simple: people seeking refuge in Europe should ask for asylum in the first European country they got to. Optimists claim it was difficult back then to imagine any complications, since immigration was very low and European countries still had borders and everything else, but in hindsight, you have to wonder why countries like Italy agreed to this at all. You obviously can’t get to Germany or the UK without crossing through Italy or Spain first, so the Dublin Regulation was bound to cause huge problems. The other ridiculous thing is that the Italian government that signed this was headed by Andreotti, a nearly immortal ghoul princeling who’d been in politics since the 1750s and had been implicated in at least two murders.

(He’d also been found guilty of collaboration with the mafia, but was let go on a technical detail.)

2) In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi, ‘Brotherly Leader’ of Libya, was killed. We still don’t know exactly what went down - more on that in a second - but a general problem the West has in the Middle East and Africa is that we tend to support dictatorts, no matter how brutal, because it’s just easier to do business and get our way with one greedy and corrupt person than it is to deal with an entire Parliament, but the risk we overlook, time and time again, is that all-powerful dictators tend to become more and more ambitious and form their own plans, which may or may not align with Western interests. In the case of Gaddafi, Hilary’s emails (I know, I know) seem to indicate the real reason the West - and particularly France, as in former President Nicholas ‘I’m the son of an immigrant but he was the right kind of immigrant’ Sarkozy - suddenly got annoyed with Gaddafi is that Gaddafi was planning to introduce a new banking system in Africa - a thing that would rival the CFA franc. 

(That’s a currency used in fourteen African countries which is basically a leftover from French colonialism - it’s managed directly from the French Treasury, and that gives France more or less full control of those countries’ economies). 

So anyway, NATO got all tough on Libya, Gaddafi was killed, and as a result Libya is now a failed state with - if that’s possible - more human rights violations than before - particularly relevant for your question is a very harsh treatment of black Africans (down to and including literal ‘slave markets’ where people are bought and sold, also torture camps and everything in between). This happens partly because it’s lucrative af, and partly because there’s been bad blood between ethnic Arabs and black Africans for generations.

So, aynway, that’s the general context. What happened next is what we’ve seen for the last few years - an increase in the number of immigrants coming to Europe, therefore an increase of the number of deaths in the Mediterranean, therefore widespread panic leading to 

immoral and unethical deals with people like Erdogan (I say ‘people’, lol)

a sharp rise of the extreme right and 

a general inability to welcome those desperate enough to come here and offer them a decent life.

Most recently, Italy’s far-right Interior Minister decided to close down the harbours to prevent NGOs-operated rescue ships from docking. The Sea-Watch 3, which was carrying 42 migrants, decided to ignore this and go to Lampedusa, in Sicily - the closest and safest harbour. Now its captain has been arrested, but it’s unclear what will happen next.

If you’re asking me what do I make of all this - I don’t know. It’s a mess. 

For instance, there are studies showing that if NGO ships patrol international waters, the crossing gets more dangerous, because people smugglers don’t bother finding good ships - they know they just have to get migrants off the coast of Libya, and someone will pick them up. This means more risk for the immigrants themselves, and more money for the smugglers. But on the other hand, no rescue ships there means no help at all, so if something goes wrong, those people are doomed. The same ‘yes but’ applies to many other issues concerning migration. Like, a lot of migrants coming in (and these are people who were left with nothing, including ID) means more of them disappearing into thin air, because of the badly-organized and overcrowded camps. We know thousands of them end up exploited by criminal gangs - in Italy, a particularly brutal business is managed by the Nigerian mafia, which trafficks thousands of women into prostitution and terrifies them into obedience thanks to ‘black magic’, but there’s also agricultural workers, people forced into drug trafficking, kids who end up homeless and so on. Another major problem is that - other than the Syrians - the immigrants who got to Europe over the last decade are difficult to integrate into the legit labour market because they lack the necessary qualifications. Most of the European is now tertiary-based, which means you need some kind of post-high school diploma to do anything, and research shows about half of those coming here didn’t even finish primary school.

(To be very clear: I’m not saying this is in any way their fault, or something that can’t be fixed. But: it does encourage a battle of the have-nots, as people at the bottom - including chunks of the native population, immigrants from Eastern Europe and more recent immigrants from the rest of the world - compete for those few and miserable options open to them, like run-down housing, meagre welfare checks, and a handful of jobs you don’t need qualifications for.)

On top of that, many migrants would need a lot of support, because they escaped from horrific situations - not only those torture camps in Libya, but everything else you can think of: civil wars, political persecution, brutal rapes, whatever - that’s also something that has a cost no one wants to cover. And finally, since coming to Europe is so dangerous, most immigrants tend to be young men on their own - which is exactly the ‘worst’ group of people in any culture.

(Sorry if that sounds bad, what I mean is - we know that for whatever reason, young men everywhere tend to be more reckless than other social groups, and that increases the chance for risky behaviour - especially when the person is not ‘kept in check’ by a well-structured community. Thus, a young man without family or friends is more likely to make stupid or dangerous choices - for himself or others - than, say, a middle-aged father or a young woman.)  

All of this, as daunting as it is, could be solved - after all, this is not an invasion: it’s numbers we can manage - but probably won’t because:

1) There’s some interest in keeping the situation as it is. More migrants means more political success for right-wing and extreme right parties, not to mention huge profits for a lot of people.

2) Right now, the EU can’t agree on anything because of reasons. 

3) Nobody wants to do the right thing, ie treat Middle Eastern and African countries with a modicum of respect and actually support them and their development instead of propping up whatever strongman is convenient and robbing their citizens of whatever isn’t nailed down.

4) The countries on the EU borders have their own issues and right now it’s very hard to imagine those issues ever going away. Like, under many respects Italy’s basically a failed state that relies on the goodwill of half its citizens to keep trudging forward. It never rooted out clientelism, corruption, or tax evasion - plus, it still hasn’t defeated its own mafias, and despite an exceedingly brave and dedicated bunch of policemen and judges (plus all those ordinary citizens risking their necks every day by saying no and living an honest life), the battle against foreign mafias (like the Albanians, and more recently the Nigerians) is probably a task beyond its means.

So, well - sorry this turned into a novel. I guess what I think is - I admire people like Sea-Watch 3 captain Carola Rackete and everyone else who volunteers and fights for the most vulnerable, and I think the current government is a disgrace, but ultimately immigration is a political problem whose only solution is the usual solution to everything else: more courage, more competence, more transparency; less inequality, less greed, less corruption. More democracy, and a democracy operating without the (overt and covert) influence of powerful lobbies. Less support to dictators, fair wages for workers and fair prices for raw materials - even if that includes higher prices for Western consumers. And, above all, more regulations and less power to corporations and stakeholders.

Very few people actually want to leave their homes, but if we keep forcing them out, then they’ll keep fleeing - with all the consequences that entails.