#faith vs culture

[randomnestfamily]

How are Christians Surrendering Their Kids to the Devil?

***Live Inspired by Randomnestfamily*** " How are Christians Surrendering Their Kids to the Devil? Be challenged and inspired by this video! #shorts #bible #motivation #inspiration #shortvideo #God #Christian #liveinspired #randomnestfamily

The Hollywood culture has now become overwhelmingly antichrist and we are funding their agenda. Christians, it’s time to take inventory of what we are supporting in the entertainment world. While a show might be entertaining, the content is the problem. Whatever you invest your time and money in is what you are supporting and if you have kids consider the ideas that are being downloaded into…

[miriam-heddy]

This is me speaking to @ellena-asg and @mayberrycryptid and anyone else who cares about Danny being Jewish.

When I say that Danny is Jewish, I don’t claim to know his faith or beliefs about gods, ghosties, etc. I AM pointing to his heritage, family, and CULTURE, which we DO see in canon. I’m also noticing how much of the actor bleeds into the character here.

Scott Caan is Jewish. His paternal grandparents, Arthur Caan and Sophie (Falkenstein), were German Jewish immigrants. His late father James Caan very much identified as Jewish. Scott does, too. Although we don’t ever see it, Danny is circumcised. Scott Caan sure is [Link NSFW].. And yes, it bugs me when people describe Danny as uncut in fanfic.

There’s no reason to think Eddie and Clara Williams aren’t Jewish. Tom Berenger is of Irish (not Italian) descent. Melanie Griffith (daughter of Tippi Hedren) is of Scandinavian descent.

Rachel Hollander’s also arguably Jewish. She has a pretty Jewish name, at any rate. Grace’s Hebrew name would be Chana/Hannah, btw.

So the presumption that Danny’s of Italian background comes from where?

Why erase us or the very few characters that represent us? Why not celebrate it?

Yes, Danny Williams IS Jewish. Because non-Jews just do NOT learn how to sing a Bracha like that.

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יהוה אֱלֹהֵינוּּ, מֶלֶך הָעוֹלָם

Baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu melech ha-olam,

Translation: Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe...

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Escapism

The philosophy of escapism explores the human tendency to seek distraction and relief from reality, often through activities that provide temporary respite from the pressures, challenges, or monotony of everyday life. Escapism can take many forms, from engaging in entertainment, such as movies, books, or video games, to indulging in fantasies or even using substances. The philosophical examination of escapism raises questions about its ethical implications, its effects on the human condition, and its potential as a coping mechanism.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Escapism:

Definition of Escapism:

Seeking Relief from Reality: Escapism is generally understood as the act of diverting oneself from the realities of life, especially when those realities are unpleasant or stressful. It often involves engaging in activities that provide a temporary sense of comfort, pleasure, or detachment.

Positive and Negative Aspects: While escapism can offer a necessary and healthy break from stress, it can also lead to avoidance behavior, where individuals neglect important aspects of their lives or responsibilities.

Psychological and Existential Dimensions:

Coping Mechanism: Psychologically, escapism can serve as a coping mechanism to deal with stress, anxiety, or trauma. It allows individuals to take a mental break, which can be rejuvenating in moderation.

Existential Escapism: Philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus have explored the concept of existential escapism, where individuals avoid confronting the inherent meaninglessness or absurdity of life. In this context, escapism can be seen as a way to evade existential angst or the responsibility of authentic living.

Ethical Considerations:

Balance and Moderation: Philosophers often debate the ethical implications of escapism, particularly whether it is a morally acceptable way to deal with life's difficulties. While some argue that moderate escapism is necessary for mental health and well-being, others caution against excessive escapism that leads to neglect of one's duties or relationships.

Authenticity vs. Illusion: There is an ethical tension between living authentically—facing reality as it is—and retreating into illusion or distraction. Some philosophical traditions, such as existentialism, emphasize the importance of confronting reality and finding meaning within it, rather than escaping from it.

Cultural and Social Aspects:

Escapism in Popular Culture: Escapism is deeply embedded in popular culture, with entire industries, such as cinema, literature, and gaming, dedicated to providing forms of escape. The cultural significance of these activities raises questions about their role in society and their impact on collective consciousness.

Societal Escapism: On a broader scale, escapism can also be viewed as a societal phenomenon, where entire groups or cultures may turn to escapist practices as a way of coping with social or economic pressures. For example, during times of war or economic hardship, the popularity of escapist entertainment often increases.

Philosophical Critiques of Escapism:

Stoicism and Escapism: Stoic philosophy advocates for facing reality with courage and rationality, suggesting that escapism is a form of avoidance that prevents individuals from developing resilience and wisdom.

Existentialism: Existentialists, particularly Sartre, criticize escapism as a form of bad faith, where individuals deny their freedom and responsibility by fleeing from reality. For existentialists, true freedom comes from acknowledging and embracing the absurdity of life, rather than escaping from it.

Escapism and Art:

Art as Escape: Art has historically been a means of escape, offering individuals the opportunity to experience alternative realities, explore new perspectives, and express emotions that might be difficult to confront in everyday life.

Aesthetic Experience: Some philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, have celebrated art and aesthetic experience as a vital and life-affirming form of escapism that transcends mundane reality and offers deeper insights into the human condition.

Escapism and Technology:

Digital Escapism: In the modern era, technology has significantly expanded the possibilities for escapism. The internet, social media, virtual reality, and video games offer immersive experiences that allow individuals to escape from reality in unprecedented ways.

Virtual Reality and Ethics: The rise of virtual reality and other immersive technologies raises ethical questions about the boundaries between reality and escape, and the potential consequences of living increasingly in digital or simulated environments.

The philosophy of escapism examines the complex motivations behind the human desire to escape from reality and the various forms this escape can take. While escapism can provide necessary relief and even foster creativity, it also presents ethical and existential challenges, particularly concerning the balance between facing reality and seeking refuge from it. The ongoing philosophical exploration of escapism helps us understand its role in the human experience and its impact on our lives, both individually and collectively.

[weepingfireflies]

The "us vs. them" mentality on the Internet and in politics and activism is getting fucking exhausting. Any group or movement is going to have people you view as beneficial AND people you view as harmful. Bigots LOVE to use strongly supported movements to further their own bigotry, but this does not mean every person in that movement is bigoted in that same way. Some movements have more harmful fundamental beliefs and practices that connect them than not, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon all nuance and refuse to try to understand why it formed in this way. Ideas and sentiments should be judged objectively, not rebuked or supported solely because of who said it.

[thedansemacabres]

I got my first bad faith reading anon hate. am I officially a pagan blogger

imagine lacking critical thought + bait. love it. My Maya ancestors must love seeing me get accused of anti white racism ig?? Not to mention that white natives exist lmao

[bunnyboy-juice]

uh huh yeah youre the special-est bean in the world. you Never did anything wrong. you totally arent a hypocrite. you're just so sad and everyone should bend to your whim or [they're whatever diagnosis will make them the problem, even if it contradicts everything you claim to believe with regard to the mental health system]. no one is capable of forgiveness grace or change unless they self-flagellate to every single person they meet about every wrongdoing they've ever done, So Help Them God. if their world doesnt revolve around you they are TOXIC. if they arent performing shame and self hatred ACCOUNTABLE for their behaviors you're so justified to call them out because you arent a predator who is using everyone like they are are one of the GOOD guys

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Kiyah Willis

Published: Jun 17, 2024

Not your typical red pill narrative

There are so many “why I left the left” stories, but I promise you this isn’t your typical red pill narrative. I didn't go from a Democrat to a Republican or a woke leftist to a conservative. This false dichotomy—this idea that there's only left and right—is how I got into this mess in the first place. I want to discuss how I ended up on the left, why I left the left, and where I stand now as someone disappointed by both political options we are presented with today.

As a Gen Z individual, I witnessed social media indoctrinating many people my age into wokeness. For me, it was through school. My home culture played a part, especially the heavy emphasis on identity politics, where being black was supposed to determine my decisions, particularly political ones. But the full woke hierarchy—the idea that every aspect of your identity has to be categorized as either oppressed or oppressor—was introduced to me through my school’s DEI program. Affinity groups at school, separated by race to discuss oppression, introduced me to the privilege-oppressed hierarchy, or what could be called the “whose-feelings-matter-more hierarchy.”

I learned that white people were more privileged than non-white people, men more privileged than women, straight people more privileged than gay people, Christians more privileged than Muslims, and so on. This was supposed to determine a person's morality—judging people not by their actions or words but by these arbitrary labels of “oppressed” or “privileged” based on group identity.

At first, I didn’t buy into the DEI identity politics because it contradicted what I saw with my own eyes. I had friends of all races. I had friends that were men. I had friends that I was being told were more “privileged” than I was, but I never felt oppressed or harmed by them. However, my views changed in 2016 when Trump was nominated for president. As a high school senior in Texas, I didn’t know much about his politics (I wasn’t following any of his speeches), but I heard from teachers that if Trump were elected, America would become a post-apocalyptic hellscape where my rights would be violated, and I would be enslaved or put into a concentration camp because I was a black woman.

Living in a predominantly Republican area, many of my friends supported Trump. I never questioned their support of Trump’s policies; I simply assumed my friends—my white friends, my male friends—were voting for someone who wanted to harm me because they were privileged. That was what I was being told and taught in school.

The next year, I went to MIT in Boston—one of the bluest cities in one of the bluest states—where the DEI and identity politics culture was even more intense. Everyone was paranoid about offending someone due to the serious social and academic repercussions. The DEI department at MIT was super intense, and you could get in serious trouble for offending someone with “hate speech,” a loosely defined term that pretty much meant asking, (1) Did you offend someone?, (2) How badly were their feelings hurt?, (3) And where are they relative to you in the hierarchy? The answers would determine what repercussions you’d face.

I don’t want to pretend this had everything to do with the people around me. There was no one putting a gun to my head and telling me I had to accept these crazy ideas. No one forced me to believe that you had to validate everyone’s pronouns and identities or else you were harming them. No one forced me to believe that you couldn’t wear certain makeup or hairstyles or you were harming them. No one forced me to believe that you couldn’t state certain factual truths about history or the world, or else you were harming people. All of these were ideas that I accepted willingly.

One of the craziest things that I believed during that time was that I was non-binary. For one thing, I wasn’t a very stereotypical girly girl, and I had (and still have) some traditionally masculine traits. I tend to prefer leadership positions, and I was told that if I didn’t identify as non-binary, I would be invalidating the people who did because I shared similarities with them in the way that I acted and behaved. But honestly, there was a second, subconscious reason: I knew, on some level, that if I identified as non-binary, I would gain more oppression points in the hierarchy. I wouldn’t feel so paranoid about my words offending people.

This paranoia (of offending people) was so intense—at least for me, and I would assume for others—that I was willing to accept something or to claim that I was something that wasn’t true. By the end of my first semester in college, I was at my most woke. I was paranoid about offending people, sensitive to being offended, and aggressive in policing others’ actions and words. I even reported people to the DEI department for being offensive. (I was a menace!)

But things changed when I got sick and was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder. At 18, I ended up in the hospital with half of my body paralyzed, the youngest person in the adult ward of the hospital, in need of 24/7 care.

Even though I identified as non-binary, I was still biologically female. Needing a female nurse for my safety and personal comfort conflicted with my identity as non-binary and the fear of offending someone. To ask for a female nurse—to acknowledge a difference between male and female—meant invalidating my own non-binary identity. More importantly, I wondered about the hospital’s definition of “female.” What if I got a nurse who identified as a woman but wasn’t what I was asking for? In that case, I’d have to clarify what I meant by “female” or “woman,” which might offend someone. Offending someone (I thought at the time) meant harming them, which was the worst thing I could do.

So I’m sitting in the hospital, and I’m weighing these two alternatives: Either (1) I prioritize my safety, which means I have to give up everything that I think is moral, or (2) I do what I think is right, but that means putting myself potentially in a more dangerous situation. I decided to put my safety first. I asked for a female nurse. I was ready to specify what I wanted, but I was in Texas at the time, and this was 2018, so it was not an issue. Gender ideology wasn’t very widespread; they knew exactly what I was talking about, and I ended up with a nurse who was a woman.

But this led to a moral crisis. What I believed to be moral and what I believed to be true were at odds. And it wasn’t just this dilemma—I’d discovered a serious flaw in my entire path of thinking, a deeper philosophical issue. Were reality and morality incompatible? Surely, that couldn’t be right.

Returning to school, I had a lot of questions: Is it true that hurting someone’s feelings is the worst thing that we can do and is actually the equivalent of physically harming someone? We are pretending that “man” and “woman” don’t have definitions, but this conflicts with biological reality. Why are we doing this? Is it healthy to constantly live in fear and be paranoid about being a bad person when nothing that you’re doing or saying has any bad intent?

These questions led to a lot of pushback. Some people seemed nervous that I was asking questions, and they would either quickly change the topic or whisper something like, “Oh, of course, these ideas are true. Why are you even asking? We don’t ask if these ideas are true. It’s just obvious.” Some got angry: “Why are you asking questions?! Trump supporters ask these types of questions! Fox News right-wing conspiracy theorists ask these types of questions! Are you a Trump-supporting, Fox News-watching, right-wing conspiracy theorist?—because that means that you’re against us! Either you’re with us, or you’re against us, and if you’re asking these questions, you’re siding with the people who are trying to enslave you and put you in concentration camps and doing all of these evil things!” These reactions were, in retrospect, a very obvious red flag, and I wish that at this point I’d realized I was in a kind of cult, but unfortunately, I didn’t.

If it’s not obvious, everything that I believed at this time was something somebody else said that I blindly followed as if it were true. I didn’t have the self-esteem to think through these ideas and consider whether they made sense. My peers, family members, friends, and mentors accepted these ideas, so I had no legitimate reason to question or challenge them. I fell back into accepting these beliefs, or at least that’s how I made it appear. While I reverted to calling myself non-binary, policing other people’s language, and reporting people to the DEI department, I secretly struggled with the idea that this was all wrong.

I began to realize there were so many cracks, inconsistencies, and illogical aspects to what I believed that I couldn’t put my head back in the sand and pretend they weren’t there. This was a really hard time in my life. I became depressed because I believed that asking these questions and searching for the truth made me a bad person.

Then the COVID pandemic came along, which surprisingly saved my life. During lockdowns, I was forced to sit with my thoughts and acknowledge the doubts and confusions that I had without any of the external influences that kept me trapped in this mindset. After thinking things through, I concluded that almost everything I believed was bullshit. But I still needed an extra push to fully trust my brain.

I was struggling with that self-esteem bit when I coincidentally had a conversation with my brother, who was not a Trump supporter, didn’t watch Fox News, wasn’t a right-wing conspiracy theorist, and had no interest in politics at all. Out of nowhere, he asked me, “Have you met these people in Boston who are crazy? They can’t define what a woman is. They’re offended by everything. They think facts don’t matter if they hurt people’s feelings.” Hearing this from my non-political brother made me realize I wasn’t the only person asking these questions. It was the nudge I needed to accept that it’s okay to ask questions and to explore alternatives to the woke nonsense I’d been taught. I started to pay attention to what was happening around me and think through what people were saying, what they believed, and why.

COVID may have been the catalyst for me to reassess my beliefs, but it also hit me particularly hard. Living with an autoimmune disorder, I was one of the individuals the government claimed their policies around lockdowns, mask requirements, vaccine mandates, and other measures were intended to protect. Unfortunately, they did the opposite. I know how to take care of my health. I’ve been doing it for years. I know when to wear a mask, but the government mask mandate—in Boston, you had to wear masks in public spaces—caused the price of masks to skyrocket and, in many places, created a shortage. Getting a mask under those policies was much harder for me.

Further, I needed to go to my specialist for treatment, but I had to travel to get there. The government required vaccines to fly, but my disorder makes certain vaccines riskier. I faced a dilemma: Should I risk my health by getting the vaccine or by not getting it? Not getting it would mean that I couldn’t travel to see the one specialist who could treat my rare condition. The shutdowns were another challenge. I preferred staying home to avoid crowded grocery stores, but when they closed all “non-essential” businesses, the remaining “essential” ones became overwhelmed. This, again, led to shortages of necessities like food and medical supplies (not to mention toilet paper!), and since delivery services were also suspended, I was forced to venture out for supplies that were often out of stock. None of these policies improved my life in any way.

I remember confiding to some of my friends (who happened to be woke leftists), “Hey, I have an autoimmune disorder, and these policies are not helping me, I don’t think I support them.” Their unsympathetic response was, “Are you listening to Trump supporters? Are you watching Fox News? Are you suddenly a right-wing conspiracy theorist?!”

Not long after, the BLM riots happened, and I had friends who couldn’t leave their houses because they were under curfew. It became apparent that these riots stemmed from non-factual beliefs about a police shooting. I remember asking questions like, “Do you really think that burning down buildings and businesses is going to get you what you want in this situation, which is policy change?” And the response that I got back was (can you guess?) that I must be a Trump-supporting, Fox News-watching, right-wing conspiracy theorist. There were no facts or logic behind their beliefs, just parroting what they heard, believing it made them good people.

Many had their “red pill” moment in 2020, leaving the Democrats and embracing conservatism. And let me be honest: when I left the left, I first called myself a conservative, not because I believed everything conservatives said, but because I saw it as the lesser of two evils. When I took the time to explore the full range of ideas out there—because there’s more than just woke or conservative, there’s more than just Democrat or Republican—I realized that I didn’t have to call myself a conservative or woke. Neither label applied. I realized I could reject both, and I did.

The conservative movement has almost all of the same flaws as wokeness. Many conservatives are easily offended, valuing faith and feelings over facts. They might get upset when they see a man wearing a dress, a woman expressing her choice not to marry or have children, or someone speaking Spanish (rather than English) at the grocery store. Many conservatives are religious, and like wokeness, their beliefs often lack a factual or evidentiary basis. Christianity, like gender ideology, relies heavily on subjective belief. I was briefly labeled a conspiracy theorist for expressing some ideas associated with conservatives, and I even joked about it. But there’s truth to the stereotype. Many conservatives blindly accept claims from sources like Fox News or personalities like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens without demanding evidence.

Conservatives often engage in identity politics as well. It’s common to see individuals on social media disparage the achievements of black people, attributing their success to affirmative action or DEI policies without evidence or consideration of the individual’s merits. They make assumptions based solely on race, mirroring the flawed privileged-oppressed hierarchy often associated with the left. This is the point where some will say, “Oh okay, well you’re not an ‘extremist,’ you don’t believe in the extreme left or the extreme right, so therefore you’re a ‘centrist,’ you’re somewhere in the middle—you believe in a mix of both.” Frankly, that’s absurd. I don’t think of myself as halfway between crazy and crazy. Rational thinking is not on a spectrum with crazy at each pole; consequently, I reject this left-right dichotomy altogether. It’s illogical to place conservatives on one end of a spectrum and woke people on the other. I don’t identify as woke, conservative, or a centrist. So, what am I?

First, I am a rational thinker. I value logic, facts, and evidence. I think for myself. You won’t hear me deferring to anybody else to determine my views. I will never say, “Oh yeah, so-and-so thinks this is true, or so-and-so has these credentials, therefore, everything they say is right.” That’s not how I think. I also will never claim morality should be based on people’s feelings regardless of facts; morality and reality are not opposed. Second, I consider myself an individualist. I completely reject the idea that someone’s race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, or any of these unchosen characteristics determine what somebody should say or do, how they should think, or how they should be judged. I have my brain, as everybody else on the planet does, so I will judge each person based on their beliefs and actions in their unique circumstances, not based on some unchosen group they’re part of. Third, I’m a capitalist without apology. I believe in the individual’s capacity for rational thought. Every person should be allowed to live according to what they know best suits their circumstances.

I don’t believe that either the Democrats or the Republicans truly embody these ideals. They fail to grasp that people have their own minds and require the freedom to make decisions for their own lives. This lack of understanding is reflected in their policies. Someone will inevitably say, “Well, you must be a libertarian.” No, I don’t identify as a libertarian, and the reason behind that deserves its own dedicated story (perhaps I’ll share one if there’s enough interest).

Despite the abundance of “why I left the left” stories out there, my motivation for sharing this testimonial stems from the realization that many people find themselves in a situation similar to mine. They are abandoning the left, recognizing the presence of an incredibly bizarre and cultish ideology that’s reaching a boiling point. Yet, they’re simultaneously dissatisfied with what they observe in the conservative movement, leaving them feeling lost and unsure where to turn. Like me, they feel politically homeless.

I understand that this sense of political homelessness can be isolating, but I want to assure anyone experiencing these feelings that you are not alone. Countless individuals share our perspective, and I am committed to creating content that challenges the false dichotomy that you must be either left or right, Republican or Democrat, conservative or woke. This notion is fundamentally flawed and simply untrue.

There are many ways of thinking, and I want to explore them on my YouTube channel and in other forums, including the Journal of Free Black Thought. You can be your own person. Build trust in yourself, use your brain, and come to your own conclusions about things. How do you describe your political philosophy or orientation? Do you consider yourself left or right, woke or conservative, Democrat or Republican, or libertarian? Or are you politically homeless like me?

-

Kiyah Willis is a fellow at Objective Standard Institute focusing on cultural trends and their causes and consequences. A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kiyah worked as a data analyst before transitioning to philosophy. You can find her advocating reason, individualism, and liberty on Twitter and TikTok and on her Substack, Growing to Truth.

Editors’ note: This essay is a lightly edited transcript of a YouTube monolog. The video is linked below, in the body of the essay.

[monotheistreal]

Dive into the world of Henotheism with our latest video exploration. Henotheism, a unique belief system, focuses on devotion to a single deity while acknowledging others. Join us as we unravel the origins and intricacies of Henotheism, offering a clear understanding of its place in the tapestry of religious ideologies. Subscribe for straightforward insights into Henotheism, and stay tuned for more content simplifying the complexities of faith. At Monotheist, we're dedicated to making the exploration of religious perspectives clear and engaging. #Henotheism #ReligiousBeliefs #DeityWorship #MonotheisticViews #TheologyExplained #FaithJourney #ReligiousDiversity #BeliefSystems #SpiritualInsights #UnderstandingHenotheism #OriginOfBeliefs #ExploringFaith #ReligiousIdeologies #MonotheismVsPolytheism #CulturalBeliefs #GodsAndDeities #PhilosophyOfFaith #SingularDevotion #HenotheismExploration #MonotheistChannel

[cats-in-the-clouds]

i keep getting stuck being forced to take classes i despise and that have no relevance to me so i’m going to go all malicious compliance on every single assignment and subtly insult the class material and/or professor

[daisyachain]

Another axis for story description should be Homeliness vs Exoticism.

Homeliness: Some depictions of real or real-analogue places are rooted in an understanding of the logic of that place. Geography/climate is described as welcoming or at least non-hostile. Customs are treated as common-sense. Details of everyday life are accurate.

ex. Oofuri shows life in a major Japanese urban area with very little deviation even in the name of story convenience. The logistics of train rides, local landmarks, sunset, and distances factor into the plot.

ex. Infinity Train Book 4 sets its real-world portions in the Canadian music scene during like one of two 5-year periods in history when the Canadian music scene was ever relevant. Its characters’ backgrounds are rooted in two real-world demographics (third- or fourth-generation Japanese-Canadians whose parents grew up in internment camps, first-generation Korean-Canadians whose parents were displaced by the Korean War) and their backgrounds match (Ryan’s family are more assimilated, Min-Gi’s are less).

Exoticism: Some works depict settings with no understanding for why the community depicted came to exist in that way in that place. Worldbuilding doesn’t add up. Rules of culture aren’t explained and have no reasonable basis. Any questions about the setting are shut down or are answered with absurd responses. The setting is bizarre, hostile, impossible to understand, difficult to question. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; just as homeliness enhances realism or emotional connection, exoticism can enhance performance. Depictions of real-world customs are outright false, inaccurate, or twisted.

(loose) ex. 1990s-2000s DC Gotham City depicts a version of New York that gets razed to the ground every 6 months and never gets any new buildings. The people living in it are hardened criminals, child vigilantes, and also murder victims, with nobody apparently working in insurance. The city is full of glowing green chemical vats while also, apparently, being the home of the nation’s ruling class. There’s an evil clown there. The place is not meant to feel real, it’s a caricature of 70s NYC as depicted by conservative news channels. The real forces and pressures that created 70s NYC (waves of immigration from Europe in the early 20thC, hostile WASP power structures, the Cold War turning the federal government’s resources to overseas imperial conquest) don’t really exist except by implication.

ex. Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time has dozens of gimmick fantasy cultures that function by nonsense rules designed to waste the reader’s time and put female characters in situations that only he, personally, finds sexy.

In-Between: Then other depictions have a grab-bag of the two. Some rules about the setting are treated as normal, others are nonsensical or shown to be strange. There are outright mistakes, but there’s an effort at accuracy. Something like that.

ex. North American writers using the UK as a setting while writing with US colloquialisms and demographics.

ex. Pathologic, which scores full points on the Homeliness scale except for the treatment of the Kin characters, who are firmly on the Exoticism end of the spectrum.

Homeliness and Exoticism don’t have to be determined by the creative team’s ID. A lot of US writers treat the US with Exoticism by having 0 clue about the history of their country and writing about its customs without any sort of context or understanding for where they came from. Writers from one region can do enough research with enough good will to treat another region with Homeliness. The above Infinity Train example is a piece of work by a US team set in Canada that feels really homey from a Canadian perspective. Admittedly these are 2 really similar nations, but I’ve seen US writers fuck it up before. Can’t ever expect anything from those mfs.

[trapangeles]

Pookie F’n Rude: Rebirthing the West Coast Vibe with Authenticity, Faith, and Unstoppable Energy

Long Beach native Pookie F’n Rude is more than an artist; he’s a movement. From turning anger into art to reigniting the West Coast sound, Pookie’s journey is built on faith, manifestation, and a relentless drive to uplift his community. Known for his captivating music, unforgettable events, and genuine integrity, Pookie is a force to be reckoned with. Here’s a deep dive into the story behind the man who’s reshaping the West Coast’s musical landscape.

Turning Pain Into Purpose

Every artist has a moment when emotion drives creativity, and for Pookie, it was a day of pure frustration. “I went into the studio mad that day. Hash was already working on something, and he forced me to record,” he recalls. That session birthed a spark that became central to his mission of spreading positivity and faith through music. “Honestly, it came together through pure faith, consistency, and manifestation. The legends hit me up wanting to be a part of it, and that was dope.”

The Vision Behind the Vibes

Pookie doesn’t just create music; he curates experiences. His creative process is rooted in ensuring every vibe in the room is pure. “I can’t be in a dark setting or around dark energies. We have to start from scratch and create from there,” he explains.

His connection to Long Beach and the broader West Coast is undeniable. “My music represents not only Long Beach but also surrounding areas like L.A.—honestly, the whole West Coast,” he says. He channels the culture, diversity, and vibrancy of his community into every track. “It helps me connect with people of all races. Long Beach is full of different cultures, and that makes it easier to relate to people beyond just my race.”

Music and Events: A Perfect Synergy

For Pookie, music and events go hand in hand. “I use my experiences from promoting, elevating artists, and hosting events and parties in my music. They amplify each other,” he explains. His events are not just about entertainment—they’re about respect, faith, and making people feel seen. “I pray over my whole event. My goal is to make sure everyone is seen in the right light. That’s what sets my events apart.”

One standout moment for Pookie was hosting the RJ vs. Greedo shows. “It was all about respect—from the viewing party to the performing party. I had the crowd in control, and it was amazing to see everything flow so well,” he reflects.

Rebirthing the West Coast Sound

Pookie F’n Rude sees his mission as more than creating music; he’s bringing the West Coast back to its roots. “Everybody seems to have forgotten the West Coast vibes. My job is to make sure people’s attention stays rooted in where it came from,” he says. His music resonates deeply with the motorcycle community, the car scene, and the Lowrider world. “Everything that has to do with the West is now attached to me,” he proudly shares.

“Turn Up” as a Lifestyle

For Pookie, “turn up” is more than a party anthem; it’s a way of life. “It means every step has to be greater than the last one. Turn up the volume in your life and everything you do—elevate,” he says. His music reflects this mantra, inspiring listeners to push themselves and stay motivated.

What’s Next for Pookie F’n Rude?

Growth is at the forefront of Pookie’s mind. “I want to show people more than just the entertainment side of Pookie. I want to start giving seminars, teaching people the power of faith, manifestation, and believing in self,” he reveals. Acting, skits, and more creative endeavors are also on his horizon.

The Motivation Behind the Movement

Pookie’s drive comes from his two sons, who look up to him as a role model. “The fact that they see me as someone great is the best feeling,” he says. But he’s also fueled by doubters. “The people who didn’t believe I could do it—they motivate me to prove them wrong every day.”

A Dream Collaboration

When asked about his dream collaboration, Pookie doesn’t hesitate. “Honestly, I would’ve loved to do a track with James Brown. Imagine the energy of James Brown and Pookie F’n Rude on a live performance track—that’s crazy.”

Believe in Yourself

Pookie’s message to his fans is clear: “Believe in yourself beyond any means, beyond any measures. It starts with you. Stay motivated, keep the faith, and stay consistent by believing in yourself.”

Connecting With Pookie F’n Rude

Pookie is ready to take the world by storm, one step at a time. Whether through his music, events, or motivational messages, he’s here to inspire. Follow him on social media and watch as he continues to rebirth the West Coast sound, one track and one event at a time.

Have you been spending all your money and time on making music and shooting videos, but still not getting any exposure? Tired of just spinning your wheels? You know to get exposure you need to get featured on blogs, radio stations, playlist, and get your music e-mail blasted out to the masses. Need help getting all that done? Then check out the Package we’ve made available for you below!

Like & Listen To Our Spotify Playlist

trapLAXradio On The Air Now!

The Latest Music, Videos, News, Entertainment……

[magicalmanhattanproject]

Okay, so with Quackity Studios tweeting about adding new people and the need for tolerance and patience with people who don't speak English, let's just take a second and have a chat about what that's gonna look like.

First: you will hear things or read things on the translator that hurt or offend you.

This is inevitable. Do not immediately post about it. What you need tolerance for is hearing things that hurt or offend you and what you need patience for is figuring out of malicious intent was present or if this is a hill worth dying on right now.

As an example, we're pretty sure at this point that Korean is gonna be the next language added. The second person pronoun in Korean sounds a lot like the n-word in English. The n-word in English, if you're not aware, is like the single most offensive slur we have. It's not something that you want to hear unexpectedly. But also, if we get Koreans, they're gonna be using the word for "you" and English speakers are gonna have to be able to tolerate that.

On the other side of things, Korean has a complex system of honorifics and addressing someone without an honorific would be considered very forward and intimate at least if not very rude. None of the QSMP languages have honorifics though and only French really retains formality* so no one else is going to address them with honorifics unless they specifically explain it to people and walk them through it. That will probably be weird and uncomfortable for them and they're going to have to be able to tolerate that.

*Spanish and Portuguese do technically have formal vs informal but it's disappearing quickly in both of them.

These natural cultural clashes and pain points are going to be harder to overcome since we also know that at least some of these creators won't speak English at all so they can't just switch to English to helpfully explain things to us easily in a way we understand. We're going to have to deal.

So here's the thing: just because there can be cultural miscommunications and mistranslations, that doesn't mean that people can't also be assholes. How do you distinguish between the two?

Step One: Assume good faith. Assume that everyone in a given encounter is trying to communicate respectfully and compassionately and that a failure to do so can be overcome

Step Two: Don't get involved. Especially not in Twitch Chat. Two or more people trying to communicate through a language barrier does not get easier when they're also trying to wrangle hostile viewers.

Step Three: Are you sure you heard what you thought you heard or saw what you thought you saw? Did the translator fuck up? Is it a word that just coincidentally happens to sound like another word? If this is the case, the streamers can ask for clarification or use another tool and get it cleared up. Keep watching and see if they do.

Step Four: If they did say what you thought they said, are the streamers handling it? We had a thing a while back where Bad called some friends, including Bagi and Etoiles, uncultured because they didn't get a reference he was making and Etoiles was like "bro I'm French" and Bad apologized. That should have been the end of it, but I had to see people arguing about it for weeks. The problem was solved in 10 seconds.

Step Five: If the person is doubling down, are you sure this is something you can fix by yelling about it on Twitter or Tumblr? Would it be better to let people who actually know them talk to them behind the scenes? Pierre made a few missteps in the beginning of the server, Quackity said they had a chat, Pierre hasn't misstepped since. It's just easier to sort things out in private, one on one conversation than yelling at someone in public.

In short: it's fine to take note of behavior in case patterns start to emerge in it, but yelling on social media about how so and so is the worst person possible is not constructive.

[pawberri]

The key problem with "proship vs anti" discourse is that the most extreme versions of each side, the ones who actually bother to identify with these labels, accepted each others worst takes as arguments they had to debate. "Fiction =/= reality" is, in practice, an absurdly reductionist, anti-intellectual, thought-terminating-cliche that dictates we can learn nothing about a person via art and that their fiction reflects no political or moral messaging worthy of critique. In response to this, the "puriteens" who are too young to possibly hope to articulate their discomfort, to untangle their position from what is often real trauma experienced online, simply argue "yes, fiction influences and reflects reality in a 1 to 1 capacity." They, and people who want to use the groundwork they laid to make bad-faith callouts, make bad arguments about how the action of engaging in problematic fiction is on equal ground to real life abuse, or is a clear indicator of interest in real life abuse. Both of these arguments are terrible, but each side seems to radicalize the other further and further into their own brands of anti-intellectual reactionary belief. "Proshippers" become libertarian absolutists about free speech and view all transgression as righteous and alternative and therefore leftist. They gain a reactionary nostalgia for the past, desiring a time when people didn't seem to care about the implications of art. "Antis" become authoritarian and hypervigilant for signs of moral decay, at their worst, willing to align themselves with government bodies that offer carceral solutions to the debate. They are willing to use harassment as a tool of punishment, which then leads to false accusations and a fear of openness that puts people at risk of being triggered via obfuscation. (That said, proshippers also take part in plenty of harassment.)

I will say that I believe both of these movements are equally sensitive to co-opting by right-wing forces. We see the authoritarian tendencies of anti culture in harassment campaigns and even the way Republican law makers co-opt "grooming." The proship/fic crowd has such extreme nostalgia for the past that I often see people align themselves with the cultures of 4chan or other happily right-wing websites. They so heavily reject the idea that a drawn sexual depiction of a child could reflect any desire that they are disinterested in analyzing what the motivation behind the depiction is. i.e If we track the history of lolicon in Japan we do find that is, yes, countercultural, but that counter culture is right wing, very misogynistic, and defensive of patriarchial Japanese culture as it is and was including its culture around rape and abuse. Plenty of fictional content works as radicalization material, and radicalization material needs to be ambiguous. There is a valid reason to be hesitant to trust people who consume this content, even if I do not believe most of them will ever be dangerous towards children. The mere presence of sexuality is not enough to make a movement left wing. This kind of thing can again be seen in right-wing libertarian movements in the US. (And even leftist movements can be bigoted and even "pro-pedophilia" or otherwise disinterested in social reform around abuse.)

Is all content with elements of age-play this way? No. But to me, that is why kink media deserves to be treated as art and analyzed, critiqued, treated seriously. It doesn't have to do anything to anyone to be worthy of a moral critique. Said moral critique just doesn't warrant harassment and cruelty and reactionary exaggerations of the person consuming said content.

Anyway, what's my point in saying all this? I don't know. I'm just begging you to tag your God damn content with specific tags instead of random and nebulous shit like "dead dove" or "dark content", and also begging you to stop harassing people who do tag their content so I don't have to guess what "dead dove" and "dark content" mean. No one will erase incest kink fics or people who feel sickened by the idea of them off this earth because we aren't god, but we could at least all be responsible about tagging, flagging, and age-gating our stuff.

[horizon-verizon]

The fact that the Andals forged iron has been taken by some as proof that the Seven guided them—that the Smith himself taught them this art—and so do the holy texts teach. But the Rhoynar were already an advanced civilization at this time, and they too knew of iron, so it takes only the study of a map to realize that the earliest Andals must have had contact with the Rhoynar. The Darkwash and the Noyne lay directly in the path of the Andals’ migration, and there are remnants of Rhoynish outposts in Andalos, according to the Norvoshi historian Doro Golathis. And it would not be the first time that men learned of the working of iron from the Rhoynar; it is said that the Valyrians learned the art from them as well, although the Valyrians eventually surpassed them. For thousands of years the Andals abided in Andalos, growing in number. In the oldest of the holy books, The Seven-Pointed Star, it is said that the Seven themselves walked among their people in the hills of Andalos, and it was they who crowned Hugor of the Hill and promised him and his descendants great kingdoms in a foreign land. This is what the septons and septas teach as the reason why the Andals left Essos and struck west to Westeros, but the history that the Citadel has uncovered over the centuries may provide a better reason.

A World of Ice and Fire, pg. 17

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

Of Lust and Sex on Tolkien lore: Sauron x Galadriel in “Rings of Power”

Many fellow fans have complaint there’s a trend among the Tolkien fandom to de-sexualize Galadriel, but folks, this is not exclusive to her character. This is, actually, an on-going theme on how many see Tolkien’s world and work, in general, and it runs deeps.

There’s this weird headcanon that, just because Tolkien was catholic and a “gentleman”, the world he built is somehow devoid of sexuality or sexual matters, and asexual in itself. Nothing wrong with that, except we have countless examples of “sexual stuff” happening in the legendarium, from characters lusting after each other, to actual sexual assault. Just because Tolkien didn’t write explicit sex scenes (let’s say like George R.R. Martin, who devoted himself to try subvert Tolkien) doesn’t mean is not there. Not everything needs to be “in your face” meaning explicit.

Firstly, Tolkien cared enough about sexuality to write several essays on the matter, namely about the Eldar sex culture and customs. It’s clear that the Elves try to be the “perfect Catholics” on his lore, and this reflects on their views of sex = marriage, premarital sex is frowned upon, repression of sexual desire, adultery is unthinkable, and divorce is forbidden. The Eldar sex culture is purity culture in a nutshell. And it reflects Tolkien’s own views on the subject:

Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur [...] Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him – as hunger may be kept off by regular meals [...] No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial.   [...] Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament [Marriage].... There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires.  Tolkien Letter 43

In Tolkien lore, there’s a strong connection between sex and morality. This is clear on the most iconic romances on his legendarium: Beren and Lúthien, Aragorn and Arwen, etc., which follow the medieval tradition of Chivalric romance: adventures of knights, courtly love, codes of honor and chivalry, trials and tribulations in the pursuit of love and glory.

“Courly love”, in the European tradition, is a highly idealized portrayal of human romantic relationships, that emerged in the medieval courts of the continent. Is a form of ritualized love between a knight (Beren/Aragorn) and his lady (Lúthien/Arwen), characterized by restrain, discretion and devotion.  Tolkien himself talks about this, as well: 

It idealizes ‘love’ - and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service’, courtesy, honor, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. 

It’s clear Tolkien sees the lustful side of relationships as something sinful, but does this equal “evil”? No, because his characters (including the Elves) and the legendarium are complex, and this is not a pure Good vs. Pure Evil world, as Tolkien says himself: 

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only a fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Tolkien Letter 154

For Tolkien, is more about being on the “right side of History” (let’s put it this way) than being an immaculate hero. His characters are complexed and nuanced:  

There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict. A judge must assign right and wrong according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and Justify its cause throughout. (I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right', that is not valid. The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.) Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side. In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil.  Letter 183 

This is why, in "Rings of Power", Sauron can be in love with Galadriel and still be the villain he is. Tolkien doesn’t deal in absolutes, and Sauron is not pure evil, either.

And if people can’t wrap their head around nuanced and complex ideas, it’s not Tolkien's fault, really. This concept that “evil can love” (and it doesn’t make it any less evil) is absolutely fascinating to me, because I wholesome agree with this. Folks have this idealized notion of love (even Tolkien himself talks about this), like it’s only valid if it’s Beren and Lúthien. When it’s not. “Lord of the Rings” is meant to reflect our “fallen” world; and, in our world, tyrants and dictators can love, and have families, and still be genocidal monsters. Their ability to feel romantic love has no direct connection in how they treat their subjects. This is why Tolkien says that “good actions” on the wrong side don’t excuse it nor make it any less evil.

This is not “Harry Potter”, and Sauron is not “Voldemort” that can’t never “know love”. Tolkien was a college professor at Oxford, a renounced linguistic, the father of the modern fantasy genre, and a classic of World literature, he would never write just a basic concept.

This leads me to the idea that “Elves are not wholly good”, and that, they too, can be sinful, and that doesn’t make them “evil” (= on the wrong side). We see this with Galadriel in Tolkien legendarium; not only she commits the sin of pride, and greed, but also lust.  

In "Unfinished Tales", Tolkien tells us: Celeborn was the lover of Galadriel, who she later wedded. In Letter 43, Tolkien defines what he means by “a lover” (in general): “engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by sex”.

So, it’s safe to assume that Galadriel was having sex with Celeborn before they were even married (premarital sex). Probably that’s why he had no quarrels with the wild John Boorman script of her and Frodo f*cking in the middle of the woods.

Galadriel doesn’t care about the Eldar sex customs, because, of course, she doesn’t, she's above that, being Noldor royalty and her own authority. Which makes sense with her “repentant sinner” character arc in the legendarium, actually.

Because, as Tolkien, told us: “in The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour” (Letter 183). And “sin” is considered a transgression against divine law (aka God); an offense against religious and moral laws.

Tolkien was religious, but he wasn’t a Catholic priest, and he was well aware that women have sexual desire, and some are, indeed, promiscuous and have no problems acting on it: “You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them” (Letter 43). Pardon the language, but Tolkien was, after all, a man of his time. 

The “Higher Beings” Nonsense 

This is one of the occasions I completely disagree with Charlie Vickers when he calls Sauron a “higher being”. He probably means it in sense he’s a Maia, a demigod or an angel in Tolkien lore, but his use of words can cause some confusion. Sauron is, in no way, shape of form, an “higher being” (in the Christain sense): he’s a literal demon, a satanist, a follower and a servant of Satan himself, in Tolkien legendarium. Demons exist in the lowest frequencies of existence in Christian theology.

Tolkien makes this very clear on his letters: Melkor/Morgoth is Lucifer/Satan on his myth, he straight-up calls him “diabolus” (Letter 153). It should be obvious enough on his entire character: he’s the one who corrupts God’s creation and is the symbolic archangel/Valar (like Lucifer was). Him being dragged in chains and imprisoned until the end of time also parallels a biblical event.

Sauron is the chief satanist demon in the lore, the #1 servant and follower of Morgoth/Satan: Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron; in which Evil is largely incarnate, and in which physical resistance to it is a major act of loyalty to God (Letter 156).

And here, too, there’s a weird attempt of de-sexualizing these characters (mostly Sauron) in the Tolkien fandom. Despite the fact almost everyone recognizes the Christian inspiration here, and the Devil being seen as the creator of all kinds of sexual depravity, deviation and promiscuity in the world (according to Christain faith); the same way Morgoth was responsible for "corrupting" Arda. Apparently, sex had nothing to do with this corruption, according to some. Odd, to say the least, when Tolkien gives us descriptions of “indominable lust” on both characters (Morgoth and Sauron).

Them being magical and demonic creatures might indicate they have the ability to control whenever they want to reproduce or not. We know from the lore that Morgoth bound himself to his physical form because of his non-stop corruption of Arda. 

On Note 5 (“Vinyar Tengwar”) of “Osanwe-kenta", Tolkien writes: 

The things that are most binding [to Valar and Maiar] are those that in the Incarnates have to do with the life of the hroa itself, its sustenance, and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound and form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.  We do not know the axani (laws, rules, as primarily proceeding from Eru) that were laid down upon the Valar with particular reference to their state, but it seems clear that there was no axan against these things. Nonetheless it appears to be an axan, or maybe necessary consequence, that if they are done, then the spirit must dwell in the body that is used, and be under the same necessities as the Incarnate. The only case that is known in the histories of the Eldar is that of Melian (...)  'The great Valar do not do these things: they beget not, neither do they eat and drink, save at the high asari, in token of their lordship and indwelling of Arda, and for the blessing and sustenance of the Children. Melkor alone became at last bound to a bodily form...' 

This might suggest that Morgoth became bound a physical form because of his “great lust”. "Begetting and conceiving” might, indeed, mean more than just standard reproduction, because Morgoth did “begot” with creation and mastery of several races and creatures. However, the only other example of a Ainur (in this case a Maia) getting bound to a physical form in the lore is Melian, when she became pregnant with Lúthien (after reproducing with her Elf love, Thingol). 

* Trigger warning: Mentions of Sexual Assault *

Then we have the fact that Morgoth might have been a serial r*pist. In “Myths Transformed” section of “Morgoth’s ring”, Tolkien has Morgoth r*ping Arien, the Maia who ruled the sun, and was “the most ardent and beautiful of all the spirits that had entered into Eä with [Varda]":  

. . . afire at once with desire and anger, [Melkor] went to Asa  [The Sun] and he spoke to Arie, saying: 'I have chosen thee,   and thou shalt be my spouse, even as Varda is to Manwe,   and together we shall wield all splendour and majesty. Then the kingship of Arda shall be mine in deed as in right,  and thou shalt be the partner of my glory.'  But Arie rejected Melkor and rebuked him, saying:  'Speak not of right, which thou hast long forgotten.  Neither for thee nor by thee alone was Ea made; and  thou shalt not be King of Arda. Beware therefore;  for there is in the heart of [Asa] a light in which  thou hast no part, and a fire which will not serve thee.  Put not out thy hand to it. For though thy potency  may destroy it, it will burn thee and thy brightness   will be made dark.'    Melkor did not heed her warning, but cried in his wrath:  'The gift which was withheld I take!' and he ravished Arie,  desiring both to abase her and to take into himself her powers.  Then the spirit of Arie went up like a flame of anguish and wrath,  and departed for ever from Arda; and the Sun was bereft  of the Light of Varda, and was stained by the assault of Melkor.  And [the Sun] being for a long while without rule . . . grievous   hurt was done to Arda . . .  until with long toil the Valar made   a new order. But even as Arie foretold, Melkor was burned   and his brightness darkened, and he gave no more light,   but light pained him exceedingly   and he hated it.    Nonetheless Melkor would not leave Arda in peace . . . 

So, yes, Tolkien really had the Devil r*ping the Sun... Can this be a parallel Sauron and Galadriel’s scene in “Rings of Power” Season 2 finale? When Sauron ravishes Galadriel's soul using Morgoth's crown? Since Sauron said he would make Galadriel a “queen as fair as the sea and the sun”, in 1x08? No quite. But more on that later.

Then we have the infamous Lúthien episode. There is an on-going debate on Morgoth’s intentions in this scene, but, in my opinion, and taking in consideration the incident with Arien, the “since he fled from Valinor” bit might indicate his intention was, indeed, to r*pe Lúthien. 

Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty [Lúthien] conceived in his thought an evil lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart since he fled from Valinor. Thus he was beguiled by his own malice, for he watched her, leaving her free for a while, and taking secret pleasure in his thought. The Silmarillion [Lúthien dances for Morgoth on his Dark Throne, before she puts him and all the host of Angband to sleep with her magic singing]

Tolkien comes back to this “evil lust” Morgoth felt for Lúthien on several works:

…Yet I will give a respite brief, a while to live, a little while, though purchased dear, to Lúthien the fair and clear, a pretty toy for idle hour. In slothful garden many a flower like thee the amorous gods are used honey-sweet to kiss, and cast then bruised, their fragrance loosing, under feet. … A! curse the Gods! O hunger dire,O blinding thirst’s unending fire! One moment shall ye cease, and slake your sting with morsel I here take! In his eyes the fire to flame was fanned,and forth he stretched his brazen hand.Lúthien as shadow shrank aside. ‘Not thus, O King! Not thus!’ she cried. … …And her wings she caught then deftly up, and swift as thought slipped from his grasp, and wheeling round, fluttering before his eyes, she wound a mazy-wingéd dance… The Lay of Leithian, The Lost Road and Other Writings

“Nay,” saith Melkor, “such things are little to my mind; but as thou hast come thus far to dance, dance, and after we will see,” and with that he leered horribly, for his dark mind pondered some evil.  Book of Lost Tales vol.2

Then Morgoth laughed, but he was moved with suspicion, and said that her accursed race would get no soft words or favour in Angband. What could she do to give him pleasure, and save herself from the lowest dungeons? He reached out his mighty brazen hand but she shrank away. He is angry but she offers to dance. Commentary to the Lay of Leithian (The Lays of Beleriand)

Almost every servant of Morgoth either came to resent him or were absolutely terrified of him. The most notorious case being Sauron himself, as he went into the hiding after his spectacular defeat in Tol-in-Gauhoth (at the hands of Lúthien and Huan, the Hound of Valinor), probably to escape being punished by Morgoth.

“Rings of Power” already had Sauron talking about the unbelievable tortures he endured at Morgoth’s hands, and taking into consideration all of this… well, those “r*pe of Mairon” dead dove fanfictions might be on to something here.

Do you know what it is to be tortured at the hands of a god?

Sauron’s entire dialogue in this scene can be interpreted as that of a r*pe survivor, actually: we have the dissociation element of “sometimes, the pain almost became a reward. Became a game"; and the self-guilt of “no, you chose it” (which is something many victims of sexual assault go through).

And then, we have the fact that the “feminization of hyper-masculine Mairon” was a consequence of his corruption by Morgoth, as I’ve already talked about in this post.

Tolkien himself talks about the Christian devil in terms of sex and lust, so it’s odd why the Tolkien fandom plays mental gymnastics trying to equalize Tolkien’s use of the sin “lust” with “greed” (these are two different sins in Christian theology, even though they are connected). 

The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. Letter 43

Greed vs. Lust in Tolkien Lore

Indeed, Tolkien uses the sin “Lust” in connection with "Power" and "Jewels" (Silmarils/One ring/gold), but this might be a metaphor for sexual temptation, as well. Mainly because of his Christian inspiration behind the whole story.

Some examples of Tolkien’s usage of the word “lust”, that might be interpreted as “greed”:

The oath of the sons of Fëanor becomes operative, and lust for the Silmarils brings all the kingdoms of the Elves to ruin."  "But also they [rings of power] enhanced the natural powers of a possessor – thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."  "Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, 'neglected by the gods', he [Sauron] becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power – and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves)."  Now Sauron’s lust and pride increased, until he knew no bounds, and he determined to make himself master of all things in Middle-earth, and to destroy the Elves, and to compass if he might, the downfall of Númenor

"Also so great was the [One] Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it..."  The Númenóreans attempted to take the Undying Land by force of a great armada in their lust for corporal immortality.

“Greed” is the disordered desire to consume (wealth, power); while “Lust” is the disordered desire to possess (something or someone). Lust is “consumption” and “action”, while greed is “hoarding” and “possessing”. Someone who is greedy wants more and more of something (not necessarily do anything with it); while someone who is lustful wants to do something with the thing it desires.

But “desire” that is not acted upon in Tolkien lore is not sinful, nor it’s a transgression of God’s (Eru) laws.

“The Original sin” (or “The Fall") is central to Tolkien world-building: “The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall [of Adam and Eve]”. And this means is that Lust is the “original sin”, and the gateway to sin, and from where all other sins originate.  

St. Paul writes "cupiditas radix malorum": “the root of all evil is cupidity". This is motivated by the fact that Eve ate the forbidden fruit because "she saw it, was beautiful". This explains why Christians have such a bad view of sex, especially when it’s not restrained by marriage.

There is lust for the forbidden fruit (the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve were instructed not to eat in the Garden of Eden). This is when “sin” is first introduced into the world, leading to their banishment from paradise. The themes here are: disobedience to God, and succumbing to temptation (Devil).

And it’s the serpent that inflames Eve's lust, and "Rings of Power" wasn't even being subtle here (even the OST for this scene is called "The Fall of Galadriel"): 

“Lust”, in his biblical/catholic sense, is the misuse of the body, sexually. The opposite of “lust” is “temperance” and “chastity”. “Lust” is disorderly sexual desire, and the subordinated enjoyment of sexual pleasure (against God’s law). It’s not just promiscuity, but extra-marital sex, as well.

In the Bible, “lust” is thematized by adultery (because marriage is a sacred sacrament, and acting against it, it’s breaking God’s laws, hence being a “deadly sin”). We also see this sin in connection with “idolatry” (one of Sauron’s crimes in Tolkien lore), when characters (such as Solomon) take foreign wives, symbolizing the forsaking of one’s partner for another.

But the catch here is: Eve wanted to eat the forbidden fruit. She wanted to bite into it, it was consensual. She was tempted, and she succumbed to temptation, to lust.

This pretty much goes hand with hand what I wrote on my “Of sin and sinners” post, that made the purity police gone wild. Galadriel and Sauron’s dynamic is not only hyper sexual, but it’s being consummated as well, and that’s why Galadriel gets banish from Valinor.

Sauron ravishing Galadriel using a sharp object parallels another Christian event (demonic version): the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa.

Beside me, on the left, appeared an angel in bodily form…. He was […] very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest rank of angels, who seem to be all on fire…. In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one’s soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.

This is, essentially, a description of a Catholic saint having an orgasm. The “lorebros” wanted the Virgin Mary that never was, and “Rings of Power” delivered. Iconic. And that probably provides the subtext to this unhinged expression over here:

Happy with ourselves, are we?

So, yes, in the end, Sauron did take Celeborn’s woman as foreshadowed by Season 1 with the “clams” scene in Númenor (1x03). And now that his blood is inside of her, stuff is about to get wild.

[roseaesynstylae]

A Collection of Posts about the Jedi, Part 1

I am pro-Jedi and interested in worldbuilding. Here are some a lot of posts I've found on Tumblr. Some are long, some are short, all are interesting. Hopefully you'll find them helpful, inspiring, and/or useful. There's also my collection of fics, My Favorites of Jedi Appreciation.

They're not really in any order, but they are roughly grouped by subject.

Edit: I'm just going to keep updating and organizing this with any interesting posts I find.

Here is Part Two, as Tumblr made me split it.

Jedi Defense

why the jedi couldn't walk away from the republic

Debunking more myths in the GFFA: the Jedi and the clones.

Mace Windu

before the acolyte releases

agape love

i would not want a romantic relationship if i was a jedi

the jedi did everything they could

jedi are aro

When a Star Wars writer engages with the material but not the narrative.

jedi and attachment

jedi and attachment 2

jedi and dbt

in defense of the jedi

the je'daii order

shmi skywalker adhered to the jedi code more than anakin ever did

Attachment Theory and Master Yoda - the Jedi Way to Security

The Parallels Between Antisemitism and Certain Arguments Against the Jedi

Jedi do not steal children

Some basic points to remember

Color and Jedi

Jedi as peacekeepers

Three flaws in the Jedi order you can concede

in defense of the jedi 2

The Jedi Council were reasonable in the Wrong Jedi Arc actually

The Jedi are not out of touch

An analogy

A defense of Ki-Adi-Mundi

Every instance of touch between a Jedi and another physical being

Jedi are allowed to visit their families

Jedi are allowed to leave the order

Jedi do not steal children 2

Kanan and Hera are not against the rules

Mace and his troops

Jedi do not steal children 3

Why the Council couldnt've prevented Order 66

1000 Jedi isn't a lot

The Jedi aren't corrupt & slavery isn't their fault

Padme, the Jedi and slavery

Prosset Dibs is a moron

"Jedi-Friendly" bashing of the Council is not a thing

Yes, the Jedi have flaws (everything has flaws)

Jedi and compassion (+ Ki-Adi-Mundi)

Mace Windu is a compassionate person

The Jedi aren't eugenicists (that's the Kaminoans)

Padawans are not child soldiers

Debunking the lightsaber vs bullet thing

Legends!Luke is not better than the PT Jedi

Jedi Culture

psychometry

jedi culture

martial arts

jedi-as-family

Guide to Jedi Ranking Terminology

jedi "labels"

jedi melting pot

jedi gifts

jedi healers

jedi culture 2

young jedi

jedi and taxes

jedi sects

jedi weddings

jedi robes

jedi order corps and subdivisions

jedi order bureaucratic structure

Jedi robe significations

Jedi clothing

Jedi Temple Guards

Jedi culture 3

Feelings soaking in

Jedi and teaching

Jedi are empaths

Bag of flour and the 212th

Plo Koon

Jedi debates

Jedi views on blood ties in Lucasfilm canon

Other faiths in the order

Jedi meeting their bio families

Different adoption scenarios

Jedi music

Telekinesis

Jedi healers

Jedi and emotions

Padawan attire and conduct

Jedi younglings