#very little has damaged the human psyche at large more than the belief in a singular god who is daddy

[dancingstickman]

raise your hand if you're also not a fan of the abrahamic religions in general

[border-spam]

Does troy really have a split jaw or is that fanon?

It's total fanon!

The design of the split lines across his cheekbones and chin coupled with the cheek clips and v shaped hinge outline next to his ears lead to a lot of people coming to that same outcome, that there is something up with his mouth from a prosthetic/mod standpoint.

So much of his design is never mentioned once or referenced in any way (hightech spinal rig with tattoos under it, neuro connector, mech arm that's much older and doesn't seem related to the spine and neuroport, implants on bicep, face mod etc) that like Tyreen's scars and possible lower body Siren markings, fandom took over when it came to coming up with logical explanations for 'em.

This actually touches ground with some Ao3 comments I wanted to share as they are all Leech Lord compliant, so I'll list them here alongside links to the fics they were related to (note warnings!)

You leave no avenue for characterization unexplored. Troy's facial prostheses finally receiving backstory is amazing

- Maw (Gore/Bodyhorror)

I LOVE the idea of it being not just decorative shit on his face, but my MO for any content I make is always based around asking why, over and over, and trying to make sense of what material I'm using in the first place. The modded mouth is a popular piece of fanon but you know... why? Why would he do that shit to himself. WHY would he want to be grotesque, why would he be chasing the reaction people would have to it when canonically he seems to really not be interested in fan attention the same way Tyreen is, what's the difference to him between being adored as his persona or being lusted after as a monster, etc. I just love deep-diving into the logic behind character and world building? It's what adds meat to the bone for me.

Big 'ol character and worldbuilding / lore responses list under the cut -

He could afford better robots but these ones UNDERSTAND Ty, don't you get it?

- Good night in (tooth rotting fluff)

Hey just because it's mangled and broken, and can't perform its intended function to a degree expected of it by everyone around it... and it's got rusty sharp bits it accidentally hurts you with sometimes... and it's cranky but it doesn't mean it... and sometimes it errors out in a way that's mildly disturbing in a way you can't place.. uh.. doesn't mean you should just GIVE UP ON IT you know? He can fix them :) They will be fine :) No one should just throw away something that's trying so hard just because it's damaged... haha... :')

It's so hard seeing how much they tear each other down when they're the only thing they have left. And what a poor self-image Tyreen has beyond all that glitter and bluster...

- Wolf in sheep's clothing

The twins function well enough as a unit till tensions rise, and I was trying to seed in The Leech's influence on them in earlier work like this too - towards anyone else Ty would become MORE aggressively confident, more assured in her complete and utter dominance of the situation, her flawlessness, but against Troy who see's her for what she is, it turns inwards and eats at her instead of lashing outwards. He switches from relatively submissive around her to almost surgical levels of dissection, he knows exactly how to go for the jugular with words, and doesn't hold back. She's The Leech's mouth but he's its eyes and it's only when they lose control emotionally enough for it to claw to the surface of their psyches that you get an idea of how much it really affects them individually. GB had an absolute goldmine on their hands here of cosmic/body horror and the concept of toxic family when all you have is each other, there's so much to work with, and I figure it's a factor in why some people still really enjoy messing around with Calypso content.

I like how you allow Troy to be a disabled character, how his congenital defects and prosthetics colour his outlook and appear in ways big and small in all these vignettes. It's easy, I think, to see him as largely untroubled by his health apart from when he needs a charge from Tyreen in the game, but you allow him to struggle with his weakness.

- Chronic (Drug use)

I'm really glad to hear that's coming through in the writing because it's something I noticed a lot too. Very often when Troy, or other characters canonically disabled / chronically unwell are written it's "told" and not "shown". Chronic pain, illness, it's not something that is just a little tickbox in a life or some descriptive terms added to a character synopsis, it's something you live and deal with. There are bad days. There are times it is a negative that has to be worked around or faced in ways that aren't pleasant. It doesn't make you lesser or weak to have times where illness does leave you unable to function to a level you want to, it's not a failure for you to be unable to perform tasks when a disability or flair up means it's not viable. I feel personally that by showing scenes like this where his health and body issues do have a very visceral and impossible to ignore the effect on his ability to function, and going through his mental processes of dealing with and managing them, it brings the character across as stronger than if he never seemed to be shown dealing with symptoms or weaknesses. People are more than their disabilities and conditions, those aren't just kinda taglines to add onto a character's description and then never address. I feel like doing that in a way undermines what people deal with who manage chronic illness, pain, and who have disabilities that affect their daily lives negatively. Appreciating the effort it takes to manage them is important.

What I really like about these is that you can really understand as a reader how their dynamic must have evolved. How even before Leda's death Tyreen would have felt demonized while Troy got the attention because of his condition, because he was less willful.

- Starlight, Moonbright

Ah man, absolutely - and that shit stayed with them. It wasn't his fault and he never wanted it, but of course their parents would have had their extremely ill child at the forefront of their thoughts, especially during weeks when he was.. bad. Tyreen by nature even without The Leech's influence is a little attention seeker, she'd be the life of any party and she BLOSSOMS if she's got the spotlight, but as a little kid who's got literally no one but her parents and her brother, and who all three of which can't give her nearly as much time as she deserved? That's rough. That's really unfair. That coupled with The Leech's warping effect on their egos as they grew up and the bitterness and resentment they harbored in different ways created a reverse dynamic. She'd never be out of the Galaxy's attention again, and he'd have no choice but to take his rightful place in her shadow.

I love how you illustrate both how much more, and yet how much less Troy is now. How the blameless child, full of potential, is inextricably linked to the brutal, larger-than-life avatar he fashions.

- DeLeon ( Graphic Violence / Gore / Hallucinations)

He's molded the monster he is now out of the bones of the man he should have been - there's no going back really. There's nothing left to go back to. He broke Troy DeLeon apart to build the persona that acts like an iron lung now, suffocating him breath by breath while forcing him to still take them. That life is over, he killed it before it had a chance, but the idea of it is still there in his subconscious. Somewhere in the absolute trainwreck of Troy's brain is the tiny, flickering belief that maaaaaybe one day this will all be over and he can shuck off the bracer and spines, peel off all the shit he's covered his skin with, and just go back to not being Calypso. DeLeon here isn't some aspect of his mental state or his sins haunting him - it's The Leech, spitting venom at a host it loathes in something that's not sound or comprehensible language. His subconscious has just translated it into something it can understand - his greatest regret.

On if Borderlands Humans originated on Earth -

There's a really tenuous link between BL verse and rEarth, but it's there and can't be ignored. The cultures, accents, terminologies, so many are Earth specific despite these people being spread across galaxies, so hell yes - Earth as an emergence point makes total sense. The next question then, is why is it never mentioned - and you can cover for that with a lot of things like say, tt was so long ago that it's not relevant to anything that would ever be discussed, or it could be a mass evacuation from a catastrophe there is little record of now. I like to go with something along those lines, that the first human Siren host emergence on earth just absolutely decimated the planet. Like, we were doing fine till this random woman somewhere in the ass-end of nowhere develops weird markings overnight, then goes apocalyptic. The first Leech maybe, not understanding her powers and having them rip across continents in a spread of crackling electric death that only left husked shells of plants and animals in its wake, or the first Firehawk who went nuclear and burned the sky, or the first Voidgrasp who lost control and began to collapse the planet's core - some extreme shit that had humans fleeing en masse with barely any preparation and HUGE swathes of history and knowledge left behind. That would cover so many social things surviving into the BL verse, cultures, accents, cooking, that shit comes with us regardless of what we were able to throw into escape ships. Like so much data would be stored on any tech and data arrays within the vessels people would use to leave a dying planet even in an insane rush, but that shit waters down over time - if you're farming barely edible plants on some planet that smells like farts, are you really gonna be that stressed about teaching your kids history from a lost planet when your current concerns are not being eaten by something with 19 legs and 4 buttholes? Don't think so.

On if the other Siren entities are as influential to their hosts as The Leech -

I touch on it a wee bit throughout LL, but the others are FAR more passive and meld more to their host's whims. The Firehawk Siren wouldn't.. like.. care? If the host was burning down a planet or fighting off an evil corporation? They are removed from any nonsense happening on this side, they might not even really be able to tell, it's like asking an amoeba or a collection of sentient atomic particles what its opinion is on Brexit. That's not really its priority. The Leech is so aggressive in its control of the twins and desperation to drive them towards an outcome it desires only cause it's split, broken, removed from the song, and completely lost. We're talking a caged, half-mad animal removed from its natural environment and left totally isolated from its own kind for millennia. It's in pain, it's confused, it wants to find its way back to the song and the others and where it belongs, but it's stopped by a barrier it can't comprehend ( the twins and being ripped between them), so in its impotent rage it feeds back that hatred onto them. It's not really sentient in the way we would describe functional intelligence, but it wants, and craves, and FEELS. And it feels very, very angry.

Big thanks to @undergoingcalibrations for talking through so much of this with me!

Asks are Open!

[arcticdementor]

Ok, I'll do my best to try, because reading some of the galaxy brained takes about China and the Chinese government have cemented in my head the agonizing fact that most people prefer simple narratives and have little understanding of history, let alone an understanding of how history affects the present.

This will be long and requires some groundwork on explaining the modern Chinese mindset as a whole. Disclaimer: I am currently in Hong Kong, I hold British citizenship by birth and frequently do business with Chinese companies.

1) Big China and Collective Society.

This is something most people really don't grasp the scale of. To assign shared characteristics to fully one quarter of the human race would be broad enough to make those descriptors basically meaningless. Dividing sections of China along any non-geographical lines, economic lines, socio-political lines, this is all incredibly difficult. Despite a massively homogenous Han Chinese population, just looking at Chinese food culture would tell you just how freakishly diverse and different each section is. There are different dialects, accents, lifestyles all across China. When people say "China" it is often completely unhelpful when it comes to pinning down what they mean. For the sake of this discussion, we're assuming that we're talking about the type of Chinese person that the central government has taken pains to portray to the world. Which is, the middle class, consumerist, worldly and tech-savvy Han Chinese. Native of a Tier 1 city (e.g. Shanghai or Beijing).

Most Chinese people are aware of just how big the country is and how difficult a task it is keeping it all together, on a scale I've seen very few people outside of China appreciate. There is a real ethos of "tianxia", or the concept depicted in the Jet Li movie Hero (criticized for being state propaganda at the time, it was largely missed that most Chinese understand, if not support, this thesis). Chinese see themselves as sharing in a common destiny and collective group ethos. This can be traced back to Confucianism - a young person can have said to have "come of age" when they have fully adapted to and understood their role within a harmonious society. This both gives the common Chinese a shared purpose and skin in the game. They literally feel a stake in the collective power and status of their own country. This is not the flag-waving nationalism that the western nations consider passe, but a belief that China must hold together as a shared country and people.

…

Chinese pride is young, and very damaged. There is a sense of grievance and hurt pride that has never been resolved, and this is occasionally glimpsed in everything from their foreign policy to their mass market serialized literature. The reasons behind this can be traced back to a century of colonialism and rampant opportunism by the world powers during the 19th and 20th centuries. Chinese histories and memories are very long, and despite happening a few centuries ago this is very fresh in people's minds. An old joke about China's view of history has the Chinese waiting to see if the French Revolution is still a good idea. China has never forgotten that despite a massive population and huge amounts of territory it fell from being one of the world's oldest civilizations to becoming the "weak man of Asia", and their modern politics has mostly been about resolving this pride. There is a shared belief, or a hidden form of mass psychosis, that China has been denied its destiny as the foremost world power, either through treachery, the work of foreign powers, or other means. Even worse is the proof that the old rival Japan, a similarly impoverished nation, had managed to drag itself onto the stage of the world powers in the late 19th/early 20th century. This has caused some real complexes in the Chinese psyche.

Adding to this is the understanding of recent history. Coupled with historical understanding that ruling China is an incredibly difficult job and only people like the legendary Emperor Qin were able to unify the country in the first place, China collectively remembers the much more recent history of the Communist revolution, the Great Famine, the Cultural Revolution, and more. The fact that China's current financial power and global status is largely a result of Deng Xiaoping's market reforms and liberalism is besides the point - the defining thing that most Chinese in the older generation take away is that revolution led to some truly fucking heinous shit and a death toll enacted on its population greater than any ever seen in the history of mankind, and as a result they have no taste for another revolution. The government stays in power largely because the older generation are aware of just how much death is involved with a changing of the guard. There is also no promise that whatever comes to replace the government will be in any way better than what came before it. Sure, the kuomintang government were corrupt as sin, but was that really preferable to having everyone starve because nobody knew how to farm land for years?

…

It is no surprise that the most radical nationalist pro-Chinese are the young students sent overseas to study in western universities. The Chinese attitude towards these western academies is not great; they attend for credentials and status, but these places of study have become cultural battlegrounds and ground zero for showing Chinese students that the Western societies and arguments are fractured and impotent. Students are given courses and humanities curriculum that demonize western civilization and its achievements, and emphasize the breaking down of existing power structures. Of course this would lead to nationalist students violently attacking pro-Hong Kong protesters and demonstrations, as both sides consider each other indoctrinated suckers (and one sees the other as trying to destroy the power structure of the country). An attack on China and Chinese identity is both a dangerous attack on national and societal cohesion and stinging Chinese pride. They have been handed something that can be easily interpreted as an attempt by foreign powers to fracture the unity of Chinese society, cause chaos in their country, and stop China from achieving its destiny of world #1 power and subjugator of other nations.

…

Many people have asked me why Chinese people put up with their government being totalitarian, so many human rights abuses, this and that. Social credit system, organ harvesting. No end of horrible things we hear about Chinese government. The corruption. The dark things the CCP has done to consolidate its power. Tiananmen.

Well, the unfortunate answer is that China, as a collectivized group, wants to fuck over people who looked down on them, even if it means causing itself grievous injuries in the process. It's painful to admit, but the regular Chinese is perfectly okay with the Uighur death camps, even if the government goes to some length to pretend they don't exist. After all, surely they must be doing something to destabilize and weaken Chinese society if the government is putting them in death camps. Don't you know Uighurs can be unpredictable, barbaric, and violent? And if Chinese society is destabilized and weak, the Chinese people won't achieve our common destiny of being the #1 world power.

Chinese people don't care that there is anti-Chinese sentiment internationally. In fact, it even helps. It plays into the narrative that people hate China now because China is strong.

Privately, Chinese people will celebrate the NBA and Blizzard backing down in fear, because they equate this with power and respect. It is perfectly natural for the NBA to apologize for offending the Chinese government, because this is a display of strength. How will you be able to tell that you are stronger than someone, if they are not underneath your boot heel?

…

China has gone from largely a nation of rice farmers to modern state with terrifying speed. They are now the world leader in 5G communications technology, technological integration into daily life, the world's biggest consumer market. By every single metric, logistics, travel, entertainment, living standards, Chinese life has gotten better. And they are completely aware of this. Twenty years. Thirty years?

…

So there is an unspoken pact between the government and the people. In exchange for getting rich, the people have willingly given up their freedoms. Because you can't eat freedom. Many of the social problems in China are rooted in this short-term manner of business thinking; tomorrow, there may be trouble. Maybe the country would be in trouble. I'll never see this customer or client again. Why bother maintaining anything? If I can get a benefit out of cheating, why wouldn't I do it?

Chinese, especially the older generation, understand existential failure on a level the western nations don't. They don't take anything for granted, including the attitude of the government (and this has in fact driven a lot of asset flow out of China into other nations). They remember the Cultural Revolution, the societal madness that took hold when roving gangs of diehard Communists went around lynching people who wore glasses or owned books. They understand that the possibility of that shit happening again, or coming for them, is non-zero. So the attitude is to use every trick in the book to make sure that they come out on top.

…

There is a recurring belief from Americans that most Chinese are brainwashed by their authoritarian government, and if they only understood democracy, knew about the atrocities of the CCP, or were exposed to the taste of an All-American cheeseburger, there would be a great awakening and China would truly "become free". While certain elements of brainwashing and information control are most certainly true, there is a certain level of arrogance in this method of thinking.

For one, this viewpoint has completely ignored the possibility that China already knows exactly how cheeseburgers taste, all about the atrocities of its own government, and about democracy.

…

China's political and social state project has openly stated its intent to utilize and take advantage of what worked before, while adapting it to fit their own situation. Throwing away what doesn't work, surgically excising elements they consider dangerous or don't like. 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'. 'China Dream'. These are adapted policies, methods, and ideals, refocused through the lens of the Party. Yes, they are stealing. They are also adapting.

Any good propagandist will tell you that the ideological battle is the first battle that must be won, and on this note America has failed utterly at defending democracy and personal freedom. This is not by Chinese design; rather, a combination of factors including financial inequality, changing demographics, chaotic governance, political point-scoring and media clickbait have done their best to demonstrate that American government is both unstable and spectacularly inept, and no longer believes in the values set down in the Declaration of Independence. America has considered the argument for democracy so thoroughly won that it has forgotten to defend it, or even the value of it. Into this void steps the Chinese government.

…

It is impossible not to watch. The US is the world's only really global power, and the current measuring stick by which all global powers are compared against. China wants what the US has, but is going to attempt to do so without the mistakes the Americans have made. After all, American empire is ending, or so everyone says. The bars are equalizing. America was a leader in space travel, so China will become a leader in space travel. America was a leader in world culture and entertainment, so China will become a leader in world culture and entertainment. America has a strong military, so China will have a strong military.

…

To leave with one last note, in the online kerfluffle surrounding Hong Kong's current situation, Chinese netizens think it's fair play to "support 9-11" and advocate for California seceding from the United States, as payback for a mistaken belief that the fight in Hong Kong is over independence. When confronted with the fact that edgy teenagers in America have been making 9-11 jokes barely a week after the tragedy and a non-zero amount of non-Californians in the US would also prefer it if California sunk into the ocean, they are legitimately surprised. The idea that this kind of independence would be preferred by both parties is almost completely alien to the Chinese, who wonder and are surprised at the fact that Americans apparently wish their country to be weaker.

[sight-decoding]

The Duality of the Hidden Masters: The Illuminati according to Lash

The telestai of the Mysteries were sophisticated shamans, past masters of "archaic techniques of ecstasy." Traditional shamans were the intermediaries between the human-made realm of culture and the non-human realm of nature.

Their special calling demanded a schizoid capacity to move between two worlds, keep the two worlds distinct, and effectuate exchanges between them. Schizophrenics naturally have this mobility, but without a proper spiritual orientation and appropriate training they are easily undone by it. Successfully managed schizophrenia can result in great works of mythopoesis, as seen in the writings of Antonin Artaucl, Philip K. Dick, and Carlos Castaneda, to cite just three (male) examples.

Mystery adepts who were responsible for the cultivation of human potential to its optimal level took grear care not ro risk schizophrenic damage with their pupils and neophytes. They realized how easy it is to induce and exploit schizophrenic states that can arise spontaneously in the process of initiation. The requisite lowering, or total dissolution, of the ego-self produces high suggestibility in the subject. Neophytes in the Mysteries were prime subjects for "imprinting," the process in which a predetermined psychic content or program is implanted in the subconscious mind. Imprinting occurs universally in nature as the means by which instinctual programs are transferred from one generation to another. Ethologist Konrad Lorentz (1903-89) famously imprinted new-born ducks, convincing them that he was their mother. Lorentz coined the term "inner release mechanism" (IRM), whereby organisms are genetically predisposed to respond to certain stimuli. The ideas expressed in his popular book On Aggression (1966) were known to initiates through their intimate, firsthand observation of psychomimetic activities, formulated today in the science of neurolinguistic programming.

In short, the psyche can be trained to imitate behavior modeled for it ritualistically, or repeat assigned behavior when exposed to a specific signal (posthypnotic suggestion). Such manipulations of the psyche depend on the primary condition for initiation: temporary dissolution of the filter of self-consciousness. 

Behavioral manipulation, psychological programming, and mind control were utterly repugnant to the genuine telestai of the ancient Mysteries. Such procedures represented to them a path leading away from consecration to Sophia and the Great Work of co-evolving with nature, toward social engineering and personal power games. The goal of the telestai was to foster a sane and balanced society by helping individuals reach their peak potential, and never to interfere directly in social management.

Over the course of time some initiates did take the path of social engineering, however. Dissident members of the Gnostic movement who came to be known as "Illuminati" chose to use initiatory knowledge to develop and implement various techniques of behavior modification. Originally, the Illuminati were members of the Magian order, an ancient Persian lineage of shamanism from which the Gnostic movement was derived. Historians understand the Magi to have been the priesthood of Zoroaster, or Zarathustra. According to a scribal note written on the margin of Alciabides, a work attributed to Plato, "Zarathustra is said to have been older than Plato by 6,000 years."' In her extraordinary and little-known book, Plato Prehistorian, Mary Settegast situates the rise of The Magian order, the original priesthood of ancient Iranian religion, in the Age of the Twins, around 5500 b.c.e., a date supported by the Greek sources. The Age of the Twins, or Geminian Age, lasted from 6200 to 4300 b.c.e. The motif of duality associated with the constellation of the Twins is consistent with the central theme of Iranian religion: absolute cosmic duality, Good versus Evil.

But this type of duality is not what we find in Gnostic teachings. The problem faced by the Magian predecessors of the Gnostics was the duality of human intention, not the dichotomy of cosmic absolutes. Around 4000 b.c.e., with the rise of urban civilization in the Near East, some members of the Magian order chose to apply certain secrets of initiation to state-craft and social engineering. They became the advisors to the first theocrats of the patriarchal nation-states, but in fact the advisors were running the show. Their subjects were systematically programmed to believe they were descended from the gods. The Illuminati inaugurated elaborate rites of empowerment, or kingship rituals. These rituals were in fact methods of mind control exercised on the general populace through the collective symbology and mystique of royal authority. Kingship rituals were distinct from the rites of initiation that led to instruction by the Light and consecration to the Great Goddess. Their purpose was not education and enlightenment, but social management. Gnostics refrained from assuming any role in politics because their intention was not to change society but to produce skilled, well-balanced, enlightened individuals who would create a society good enough that it did not need to be run by external management. The intention of the dissident Magians to run society by covert controls was based on their assumption that human beings are not innately good enough, or gifted enough, to create a humane world. This difference in views of human potential was the main factor that precipitated the division of the Magians.

Historians recognize a split in the Magian order, but do not understand either its origin or its consequences. Within the order, the telestai were given the title of vaedemna, "seer," "wise one," as distinguished from the priest, the zoatar, who officiated openly in society and advised Middle Eastern theocrats on matters of statecraft and social morality, not to mention agricultural planning - for Zoroaster was by all accounts responsible for the introduction of planned, large scale agriculture. It is generally agreed that women discovered, by gathering plants, how to cultivate them, and men later expanded this discovery into the ancient equivalent to agribusiness. So arose the first theocratic city-states in the Fertile Crescent. (Civilization may be defined as the way of life that begins by amassing vegetables to increase population, and ends with a population of vegetables.) Urban populations required social control, and the Illuminati assumed the role of planners and controllers more often than not, hidden controllers.

ln Plato Prehistorian, Mary Settegast explains that "at one extreme Zarathustra has been described as a primitive ecstatic, a kind of 'shaman'; at the other, as a worldly familiar of Chorasmian kings and court politics."''The distinction between the shaman-seer and the sacerdotal figure engaged in court politics exemplifies the split in the Magian order. In book 3 of the Republic, Plato disclosed the Illuminati rationale: "contrive a noble lie that would in itself carry the conviction of our entire community." The first recorded use of the word gnostikos occurs in Plato's Politicus (258e-267a) where the ideal politician is defined as "the master of the Gnostic art."' From its introduction into the Western intellectual traditions gnostikos was wrongly associated with the Illuminati faction and hence the name came to be disowned by the telestai who did not engage in statecraft and social management, using the "noble lie" rationale. In fact, gnostikoi like Hypatia would never have used that term to describe themselves. Six centuries after Plato, it came into use as an insult. The Church Fathers ridiculed the teachers in the Mysteries with the term gnostikos, intended to mean "smart ass," "know-it-all." Among themselves, the initiates would have used the term telestes. Paradoxically, "gnostic" comes down to us tainted by the condemnation of the Roman Church and associated with the very members of the Magian order who were disowned by the guardians of the Mysteries.

The Illuminati program was (and still is) essential to patriarchy and its cover, perpetrator religion. While it cannot exactly be said that the deviant adepts known as Illuminati created patriarchy, they certainly controlled it. And still do. The abuse of initiatory knowledge to induce schizophrenic states ("entrainment"), manipulate multiple personalities in the same person ("platforming"), and command behavior through posthypnotic suggestion (the "Manchurian candidate" technique) continues to this day, with truly evil consequences for the entire world. If we accept that the Mysteries were schools for Gaian coevolution dedicated to the goddess Sophia, they could not have been run by the llluminati, as some contemporary writers (who believe they are exposing the Illuminati) have supposed. Everything the Gnostics did in the schools was intended to counterbalance and correct the machinations of the deviant adepts. Initiation involved melting the ego boundaries in preparation for deep rapport with nature, not lowering of ego consciousness so that the subject could be "sectioned" and behaviorally programmed using the power of suggestion, imprinting, and other psychodramatic methods. These behavioral modification tools of the Illuminati were strictly forbidden in the Mysteries overseen by Gnostics.

This has been an excerpt from 'Not in His Image: Gnostic Vision,  Sacred Ecology and the Future of Belief' by John Lamb Lash

[talabib]

A Guide To Managing Your Money.

Things used to be a whole lot simpler. Once you found a good job, you stuck with it until you retired. At that point, your employer took care of things, regularly paying out a fixed-sum pension tied to your old salary. Retirees could then put their feet up and relax. 

That's all changed over the last three or four decades. The generous pension plans of yesteryear are long gone, and today’s employees have to look after their own nest eggs. That means playing an active role in how your pension pot is managed, and investing your savings. 

This can be daunting – after all, one false move in the turbulent financial markets can wipe out your savings. So how should you manage your finances? That’s what we’ll be exploring in this post as we take a look at a holistic guide to money management. 

Financial insecurity is the new normal, and our instincts stop us from investing our money wisely. 

Historically speaking, pension plans are a pretty recent invention. In fact, they only really became common in the nineteenth century as certain societies became more financially secure.

Today, however, that era appears to be over. With financial insecurity ever more widespread, pension plans are once again becoming a rarity.

That’s because there’s been a big change in how pension plans are funded. Before the 1980s, employers typically stumped up much of the cash to pay for their employees’ retirements. Now, however, workers are expected to pay this themselves. In the United States, retirement is now most often self-funded through 401(k) investment plans.

Statistics reflect this sea-change in retirement funding. Between 1980 and the present, the number of employees entitled to a full company pension dropped from 62 to just 17 percent. The number of employees self-funding their retirement through 401(k) plans, by contrast, rose from 12 to 71 percent.

Unsurprisingly, this has created a great deal of insecurity. Take a 2017 survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. It found that less than one-quarter – just 18 percent – of all Americans expect a comfortable retirement.

But here’s the real kicker: Our efforts to self-fund retirement are undermined by our instincts, which lead us to make poor investment decisions. 

Let’s unpack that. When there’s an economic downturn, we feel less secure. As a result, we begin hoarding money. And how do you do that when the economy stalls and stock prices plummet? Right – you sell the stocks you already own and put off purchasing new stocks.

But this doesn’t make any sense. Think of it this way: You don’t rush to your local supermarket when it hikes its prices; you wait for the sales. This is exactly the logic we should apply to the financial market. The best time to buy stocks is when prices are low – because of, for example, an economic crash. Put differently, if you weren’t buying up cut-price stocks during the 2008 financial crisis, you missed out! That’s a mistake to avoid in the future. 

Investment isn’t the only path to greater financial security, though. We’ll be exploring some of the tools you can use to put your finances in order.

We can’t control every aspect of our financial lives, but we do have a surprising amount of agency.

Insecurity might be on the rise, but that doesn’t mean we’re doomed to monetary misery. Luckily, we all have a powerful tool for solving financial problems – the human brain. Now, the brain isn’t all-powerful, and it can’t resolve every conundrum or make us all financial moguls. But it does give us some leverage.

Let’s start by looking at our brains’ limitations. In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, the psychologist and economist Daniel Kahnemann argues that our default cognitive setting is “fast thinking.” This is an automatic reflex triggered by events in the world around us. When you’re driving a car and see someone dart into the road, for example, it’s fast thinking that makes you instinctively hit the brakes.

This is because our brains are constantly scanning our environment for threats. When we encounter danger, our reactions are lightning-fast and largely unconscious. That means we can’t control our “fast brain” – it simply makes decisions for us. Sometimes those are financial decisions. If you’ve ever spent a huge amount of money you don’t have, chances are your fast brain was in the driving seat.

But fast thinking isn’t the only setting on which the human brain operates. According to Kahnemann, we also have a “slow brain.” This is responsible for rational thought and analyzing complex data. It’s this setting that allows us to, say, calculate the annual returns on high-yielding savings accounts.

So what can our slow brains control? To answer that, we need to look at a study by social scientists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan published in the Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in 2015. It suggests that around 60 percent of our ability to make sound decisions and be happy is determined by genes and circumstances.

That puts a lot of decisions beyond our control, but it also means that a full 40 percent of the decisions we make over our lives are conscious choices. If you use your slow brain to make those calls, you’ll be well on your way to financial happiness! 

The best approach to risk management is to minimize your exposure to losses. 

The seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal had an interesting take on two of the biggest questions of his day – God and faith. According to Pascal, the decision to believe or not believe in God is a wager, and this explains why it’s better to have faith. If God does exist, you reap huge rewards. If you believe but it turns out that he doesn’t exist, you don’t lose anything. Belief, in other words, is simply a lot less risky.

So what does this have to do with money? Quite a lot, actually. Minimizing risk isn’t just a sound strategy when it comes to belief – it’s also a great way of approaching financial decisions.

Sound money management is all about striking the right balance between risk and reward. The more you risk, the more you stand to gain. But risking everything also means you might just lose everything. You can see how this works by looking at start-ups. When you win in this industry, you win big – just think of Google or Facebook. But, as the CEO of Trepoint, Bill Carmody pointed out in a 2015 article, 96 percent of all start-ups launched in the US over the previous decade had gone bust.

Betting everything on red clearly isn’t a sustainable option, but you also can’t grow financially without taking some risks. So how should you approach risk-taking? Simple: minimize your exposure to losses.

Take the insurance industry. When you buy a house, you’re taking on financial risk. Houses are expensive, after all, and they can – and sometimes do – burn down. To avoid losing everything, you take out insurance on your house, thereby diminishing the risk of financial ruin in case the worst happens.

The same principle can be applied to investment. Look at the world’s most successful investors, like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, and you’ll find they all have one thing in common – they’re obsessed with avoiding damage and limiting risks. Their great strength is that they wait until the odds are stacked in their favor before striking. By focusing on risk prevention, they make bets that simply can’t lose.

Start planning your finances by determining your net worth and setting financial goals. 

Now that we’ve explored general approaches to managing your finances, it’s time to look at the specifics. Let’s start with something very few of us ever get around to doing – working out our own net worth.

This is extraordinarily effective. Even better, it’s easy to do. First off, you’ll want to calculate the sum of all your assets – your house, car, retirement fund, savings, the value of individual items in your home, and so on. Put this in one column. Next, tally up your debts in a second column. This will contain everything from your mortgage to credit card debts, college loans, and car loans. The difference between the total of these two columns is your net worth. Calculate this every year to get a sense of how you’re doing over time. 

So why is this such an important exercise? Well, once you’ve gained an accurate overview of your current financial health, you can start thinking about your financial goals.

Knowing what you’re aiming for is the alpha and omega of money management. Obviously, you can’t always predict what your needs will be in the future, but you can make some pretty decent estimates based on your current wants and needs.

Say you already know that you want to be able to put a $50,000 down payment on a $250,000 house in about five years, or you’ve worked out how much annual income you’ll need to live comfortably when you retire. Once you’re clear about these goals, you can create a financial plan to reach them. Check this every year, and you’ll be able to assess whether you’re on track or need to put a little bit more aside each month.

Gratitude is good both for your wallet and your psyche.

Financial health isn’t just about balancing budgets and picking the right investments. In fact, it’s just as important to consider less-tangible things – like practicing gratitude, for example. Sound strange? Actually, it makes a whole lot of sense.

The truly wealthy have more than material riches – they’re also happy. Why? Well, as psychologist and world-leading gratitude expert Robert Emmons notes, thankfulness is a key component of happiness. Put simply, expressing gratitude makes you feel good.

And that’s something you can learn. Emmons recommends two gratitude-boosting techniques. First off, take stock of everything you already have. The problem here is that we often want to compare ourselves to others. Resist that temptation and simply reflect on your own progress, and you’ll feel much more grateful for your lot in life.

Secondly, it’s vital to recognize that where you are today isn’t down solely to your talent and hard work – luck and the help of others also played their part. According to psychologist Kristin Layous, humility is a foundation for gratitude. That means learning to thank others – whether in words or thoughts – is an important catalyst for feelings of happiness and contentment.

Gratitude does more than change your attitude, though – it also changes your spending habits. When you’re constantly looking over your neighbor’s fence and enviously worrying about his new car, you’re likely to end up in a spending competition and splurge on unnecessary luxuries of your own. That isn’t financially sound – and it won’t make you happy, either.

And that’s where gratitude comes in. If you’re grateful for the food on your plate, you don’t need a gourmet meal. Similarly, if you’re thankful for the friends you already have, you don’t need to impress new friends by buying the latest gadgets or following fashion trends. It really is that simple: gratitude is good for your soul and your wallet!

Simple beats complex every time when it comes to financial decisions.

Before we talk more about money, let’s take a moment to rewind back to the 1840s. Our setting is a maternity ward in a hospital in Vienna, Austria, where a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis is pondering a strange situation. The death rate among women giving birth on his ward is one in ten. The death rate among women during so-called “street births,” by contrast, is just one in 25. What was going on? 

Semmelweis racked his brain for solutions. In the end, with the benefit of hindsight, the answer became glaringly obvious – it’s safer to give birth outside a hospital than to be treated by a doctor who hasn’t washed his hands. And that’s the lesson here: simple answers are usually the correct answers. 

The human brain, however, loves complexity. The more choices we have, the happier we feel. No wonder – choice is synonymous with abundance, which in turn gives us a sense of security. This, incidentally, explains why Starbucks’ huge coffee menu, with all its size and ingredient choices, is so popular. 

Simplicity doesn’t trigger these reactions. It’s pragmatic and boring and leaves our brains craving more stimulation. Given a choice, we’d rather look at a beautiful painting that’s been hung up in a buzzing café serving great food as a band plays than in a museum. Complexity sells.

But making decisions on this basis can be financially ruinous. That’s why it pays – literally – to keep things simple. To do that, all you need to do is remember three straightforward rules.

First, buy when prices are low and sell when prices are high. Second, diversify your portfolio of assets, or – in everyday terms – don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Third, stick to your guns and don’t jump from one investment opportunity to the next. This rule isn’t as self-explanatory as the other two, so let’s unpack it a little. 

In most cases, when you invest, you’ll either be lending your money to a company or buying stocks or shares in a company. If you’re playing the long game, your best bet is to invest in stocks, which offer the highest return on investment stretching over several decades. If you’re making a short-term investment, on the other hand, bonds are a safer choice. Keeping this in mind, all you have to do now is choose a company you trust that has a strong product!

Investing isn’t a precise science, and good investors accept that they don’t know it all.

Finance is often associated with sophisticated equations and algorithms that make complex market movements perfectly knowable and predictable. Unfortunately, this just isn’t the way investment works.

In reality, investing isn’t the precise science it’s often made out to be. Paradoxically, this is actually a good thing – after all, it means that you don’t have to be a math genius with five PhDs to make money on the markets.

Take Charlie Munger, one of the world’s most successful investors. According to Munger, investors don’t know the precise outcomes of investment decisions – the best they can do is pick investments that have a high likelihood of working out.

This might sound like false modesty coming from an investor who earned billions on the stock market, but it’s a sound approach. If you want to make sound investment choices, you have to accept that you’re playing a “game” that is largely governed by chance. Staying humble and realistic is your best bet if you want to avoid losses and make the right calls.

In practice, this means that you need to admit to yourself that you don’t know it all. That can be hard, especially if you’re a high-profile investor with tons of financial information at your fingertips. But despite the Hollywood image of aggressive, arrogant traders duking it out on Wall Street, the best investors understand that humility trumps overconfidence.

Why is that? Well, look at it this way. When you recognize that you can’t predict every outcome in the financial markets, you’re much more likely to have the patience to stick with your investments and pay close attention to portfolio diversification and risk management. That’s a better approach than simply jumping on the latest bandwagon and putting all your money on the most hyped investment option.

There is a predictable average return on stock investments, but the range of possible outcomes is much broader.

Ask your mother or your neighbor what kind of return you can expect on your stocks and they’ll likely name a figure like ten percent. This reflects the common sense understanding of how investment works, and it’s not a million miles from the truth: the return on most investments is pretty predictable.

According to data collected by the Ned Davis Research Group, for example, the average yearly return on investments in stocks is indeed about ten percent. During the first two years of an investment, average returns actually rise slightly above that number due to swings in company performance. These typically have a larger impact over the short term than they do over the long term.

That means we can bank on a ten percent return on our investments, right? Not quite. This figure leaves something important out of the picture – probabilities. And that in turn leads to false expectations. Let’s break that down.

In reality, the range of possible investment outcomes is unpredictable. Rather than a steady ten percent return, you’re much more likely to see a large number of highs and lows as rates ping up and down. This is something the average rate of return doesn’t capture. Consider the United States stock market. Some years, it grows at an astonishing clip – in recent times, it’s grown by 167 percent! Then there are sharp downturns. In some years, the stock market has contracted by 67 percent.

The range of positive and negative outcomes, in other words, is huge, especially in the first years after an investment. But here’s the good news: the longer you stick with your investment, the more this range diminishes. In the long run, you’re looking at a range of between, say, zero and twenty percent, though small losses can’t always be ruled out.

The lesson here is that it’s important not to get too excited by the early up-and-down swings in your stock’s value. Give it a couple of decades, and there’s a strong chance things will even out.

When it comes to finances, it’s important to keep a level head and remember that luck plays its part in the financial markets. Recognizing this and staying humble is a crucial part of becoming a successful investor, which is all about limiting risks and avoiding bad calls. Once you’ve done that, you can stack the odds in your favor by investing in simple, reliable schemes, and sticking with your investments over the long term.

Action plan: Diversify your investment portfolio.

As we’ve seen, luck plays a big part in financial investment, since it’s impossible to be sure which companies will grow and which will crash. If you expect an average ten percent return on your investment, and only invest in one company, you’re liable to find yourself in trouble if that firm crashes or underperforms. The alternative approach? Simple: hedge your bets and spread your investment over multiple companies. If one set of stocks goes bad, you’ve always got a safety buffer. 

[kylebathfilm3p18]

Chapter 2

This chapter focuses solely on the idea that audiences are objects to the media texts and the effects that these messages has on a mass scale. As I come from a film background, I will center my focus on the ideas and theories presented in this chapter that pertain to motion pictures. The premise of this notion of audiences as objects is that the general public is unable to construct their own ideas and opinions furthermore, it considers the audience to be easily influenced by what is being transmitted. This ideology brought forward concerns over what media messages are being produced and how they can have a negative and potentially damaging effect on the human psyche. With this, a number of case studies and research on media effects were introduced and concluded that the media does carry information that if exposed to, can lead to changes in a persons ideas, behaviours and beliefs (Sullivan, 26). Charles Horton Cooley was one of the first to observe the impacts of media by linking an individuals psyche and worldviews with 1) their surroundings which include where they grew up, when they grew up, their social group, the institutions they are apart of etc.; and 2) the communicated messages delivered by mass medias (Sullivan, 27). The motion pictures was one of the first mediums to market at a much larger demographic of people as tickets were affordable and pictures were distributed and exhibited across the globe, therefore creating mass audiences which Sullivan explains as individuals who are dispersed across time and space, act separately and have little to no knowledge of each other (p.6). As a result, those in powerful positions of creating the media messages realized they could use the medium to control and influence audiences to side with their beliefs at a more efficient and larger rate than indicated prior to the 19th century. Cooley’s emergence of mass media and its potential impacts led to a number of systematic studies and theories that would highlight the idea around audiences as outcome.

Hugo Münsterberg is an important film theorist who was attracted in researching how audiences engaged with moving pictures. In his book, The Photoplay: A Psychological Study, Münsterberg examined early cinema and came up with a certain theory on how audience members sense of reality became altered while watching a moving picture. Münsterberg argued that spectators had to escape the realities of their world in order to be fully engaged with the films story which meant having to accept, for the duration of the film, the constructed images projected (Sullivan, 28). This theory concerned Münsterberg who suggested that in time, the practice of entering the altered reality implemented in movies and becoming vulnerable to the images and messages could leave a lasting impact as the medium could be an effective tool in humans psychological formation of the world. The ideas presented by Münsterberg created a proliferation of studies on the effects of mass media that began in the 19th century as America was becoming more industrialized and people were moving to urban environments for job opportunities.

German sociologist, Ferdinand Tönnies analyzed the large shift from rural to urban environments that produced a social organization he called Gesellschaft which refers to a large group of individuals that live together in an urban environment (Sullivan, 30). Tönnies argued that those living in urban environments felt a sense of displacement as they were surrounded everyday by different people whom may not share the same culture, background etc. Unlike those who resided in smaller rural communities that were deeply rooted in social connections which Tönnies coined as a Gemeinschaft, individuals in larger cities were in fact isolated more which established the Mass Society Theory that examines the role media has on industrialized societies and poses the statement that the media is harmful as it has “the capacity to directly influence the attitudes and behaviours of individuals” (Sullivan, 31), which links to Tönnies thoughts on the vulnerability of audiences when confronted with forms of mass media.

A quick background on the early history of cinema:

Films in the beginning were very short in duration due to the belief that audiences could not concentrate for a long period of time. People watched them either individually or in small groups, as they were shown in temporary locations usually positioned in front of storefronts. The shorts consisted of single shots that portrayed everyday life and activities whether staged or authentic such as people getting off a train which was a short created by The Lumière Brothers in 1895.

There were hardly any cinematic techniques however people were fascinated with the introduction of moving photographs and by 1914, theatres that allowed for larger audiences and wider screens were constructed along with the public demanding lengthier films with storytelling and narratives. As the need for information, education and entertainment was strong, companies saw a commercial value in the industry and began producing large numbers of films annually and by the 1920s, film became the most powerful mass medium on societies around the world. As a result of this growing mass media, studies on the perception of how movies affected viewers were performed in the late 1920s referred to as the Payne Fund Studies which is important in the understanding of media effects as the comparisons between the 20s and today are evident.

The Payne Fund Studies was organized by social scientists with the goal of examining the impact of films mainly on the culture of America’s youth with scientific evidence. Questions of whether films inspired acts of violence, what ideas do children receive from watching movies, how emotionally effected are children after watching, and how often do children engage with this form of media were addressed in the studies. The subjects used in the studies not only responded emotionally, but they also mimicked many of the acts and attitudes they experienced. Another finding in the research was the increased emotional impacts that were established through the viewing of content that evoked fear and anxiety thus creating moral panic.

In the 1930s, government intervention in cinema grew, symbolized by the enactment of the Film Law, which gave the state more control over the film industry. The government encouraged the production and promotion of propaganda films which was a tool used to install fear into American audiences about the ‘enemy’ that as a result influenced their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Sullivan describes media propaganda as a “deliberate attempt by one party to control or manage the information environment of another through the manipulation of symbols or psychology” (36).  During the Vietnam War, American cinema was embedded in telling stories about their military systems and portraying their country as the heroes in contrast to the Orient’s image, idea and personality which were presented in a negative light. The way Hollywood narrates the events of the war in Vietnam is a classic example of Orientalism. Hollywood commercialized the war and cultivated a dominant discourse to Americans that there was an external threat that should be fear which ultimately dominants the publics feelings and thoughts. The most effective approach to inject propaganda theories into the minds of the public is to use entertainment as with this type of means, individuals do not realize they are being manipulated by the media. And as I do not intend to ruin your childhood, this practice was used by one of the biggest contributors to popular culture, Disney. In its earlier years, Disney displayed various racist stereotypes which contributed to American ideals of the world.

Walter Lippmann explored the notion of stereotypes and the effect that mass communication has on our knowledge as we are presented with images of what is considered reality before we even get to experience it for ourselves and therefore, through these dominant stereotypes that are continuously projected, thoughts and beliefs begin to form about the world around us that are not our own which then become self-perpetuating, meaning we do not question them. Often marketed to a younger audience, these films are vital in shaping their expectations of the world based off the representation and narratives provided which effects their psychological viewpoint. This brings me to my final theory in this chapter on the effects of media messages, Cultivation Theory. The media provides people with perspectives into environments that may be vastly unfamiliar plus the media could potentially be their only exposure, and the cultivation theory looks at the long-term effects of media on children behaviours and their attitudes towards reality, suggesting that television is to be held accountable for the conceptions of social reality. Therefore, it is important for voices that are excluded, censored, suppressed and silenced to be given the opportunity to be represented through mass mediums in projections that do not illustrate negative stereotypes in order to fight back against the hegemonic ideologies.

References

Sullivan, J. L. (2020). Effects of Media Messages. Media audiences: Effects, users, institutions, and power, 25-52.

[churchworker]

Thoughts On A Presidents Day.

We’ve been through a lot since November 9. We’ve been through a lot since January 20.  We’ve encountered legislation, executive orders, and political uprising that many never considered before the 2016 Election. I can’t imagine how non-political folks are feeling - especially those who avoid politics to stay out of the crossfire.

I used to be the guy who avoided politics. I thought that focusing on my faith, prayer, & worship with my community of Christians would create a safe space & belief system to help me survive day-to-day, just dealing with my inner chaos. Sadly, I realized my wife and I would have to take that journey outside of the Church, realizing that the church was adapting to hard line conservatism, rather than honing in on the message of grace & love.

It’s clear to see that in and out of the church, conservatism is lacking any tangible expression of grace & love. Yes, the anti-abortion crusade is supposed to be an outpouring of fiercely expressed love… but in the context of Christianity, people have taken this issue out of God’s hands, and created hordes of self-appointed control freaks & fear mongers.

If these Christians truly put their trust in God, they’d understand that free will is a part of a faithful reality that not even the rightest of the Right-wing can control- try as they may.

Again, Free Will is determined by God. Not even the most weaponized right-wing Christian zealot can change that. Notice how every zealot who’s tried to change the author of Free Will in our past has been stopped? That being said, it should be clear by now that whether a person be stopped or if, God forbid, the world ends, human assertion over Free Will is destined to be stopped.

Did you know that Donald Trump has actually proposed working with mega-churches to become Trump Super-PACs? Yes, scary.

I’m resisting. I’m connected with a local Indivisible group, and I design anti-Trump/anti-GOP banners on my Twitter feed. I’m doing my part to be a part of the conversation. I speak intentionally about my values, and I’m adamant about seeking solutions & progress to reversing the mess that is so aptly progressing, thanks to Donald Trump & the establishment GOP.

One question that keeps coming back to me: Why didn’t President Obama do more to proactively stop Trump?

For a while, I was infuriated. I saw Obama’s low profile in the last days of his term as his checking out. I wondered if he was cornered due to the GOP obstructionism in Congress. I wondered if maybe his power with Executive Orders had a limit. I heard things like… he didn’t want to create the impression of the White House assisting in Hillary Clinton’s campaign (?) The hindsight on that line of thinking must be a significant source of regret.

So many serious issues were coming up… Russian interference in the election, Trump’s conflicts of interest, etc. There was very little response from Obama to those issues.

“I told Putin to cut it out…” among these lengthy, diplomatic, broken answers at Obama’s final press conferences were a disappointment. I was deflated, and I sank into the reality that he would not be the savior from a Trump presidency.

I was impressed with all he was doing to address pardons & commutations, Planned Parenthood, environmental issues, and human rights in the last days of his term. I am grateful for those things, but I was deflated.

Since Obama left office, I’ve started to grow a possible understanding towards his last months as President.

As I’ve become a more informed constituent – I’ve started to realize the physical & psychological damage potential of the far-right conservative movement - and the role that establishment GOP’s are playing in that. I’m starting to realize that America is now a country where just under half of the citizens have passively and/or proactively exercised support of racist & religious bigotry, sexism & misogyny, and Fascism.

As I research more deeply into those things – I am easily overwhelmed by what is a new & unavoidable reality. Sure there is potential to re-establish a political majority for the left and experience a sigh of relief for 4-8 more years from having a majority of folks who resemble your values, but what do we do with the reality that 50% of a nation ranges from being an obligatory tribal voter to being completely psyched up about Trump’s vision for America?

That is a horse pill to swallow.

You can’t deactivate millions of people who are fired up about Trump’s vision. In fact, there are huge conventions & rallies being planned to get even more people fired up – and more hardline Right-wing folks voted into office.

I wonder how many Democrats have witnessed the slow decent of conservative America, and wondered if allowing folks to actually experience a Trump America is the antidote. Let them have it. Let them make their bed. Let them live in a sick environment. Let them exist in a work environment where sexual harassment is celebrated. Let them go to church where they can worship Jesus & Donald Trump in the same building. Let them put society in boxes. Let the hate groups flourish and mobilize.

All the while the reality sets in… there will be no jobs or prosperity for them. Foreclosures and short sales on homes start to increase again. There are no able bodies doing the jobs that immigrants have been doing for several decades, because they’ve all been deported. They have to decide what medical conditions are severe enough to have to go to the doctor, because you have to plan for a $25,000 emergency room visit. You have to plan for a $300- $500 prescription.

Meanwhile, the Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan & friends’ bank accounts are getting fatter (they’re already million/billionaires), and the American people foot the bill for their medical insurance, vacations, and employment.

There will be some “reality overlap”, meaning the Trumpers won’t realize they’ve been completely dicked over while still suffering the effects of having been gaslit.

Unimaginable damage has already been done. Apparently there’s more to come. Maybe the real solution is to just let it happen. Rebuild in the background, and when reality kicks in, Humanitarians & Samaritans rise up to clean up the mess.

What’s my point? I’m wondering if President Obama’s brokenness & inattentiveness at the end of his term was less about his legacy being torn down and more about seeing the inevitable.

Donald Trump clearly isn’t the answer, because it’s obvious that he’s in the game for financial gain. He doesn’t care about unemployment, or immigration, or health care, or anything he’s built a platform on. Everything connects to financial gain.

He hired the worst people to run our institutions. Why? Trump wants to dismantle them, & free up finances to siphon into wealthy bank accounts.

This is the most amazing, large-scale bank robbery in the history of the world. The aftermath will be devastating – and in the end, if we haven’t moved to Canada, we’ll be there to pick up the pieces.

This can only go on for so long right? The news outlets tout, “Never in American history…”, and I agree. A president can lie to the American people, but it’s only effective until they realize it, and they have. For a while now.

If they keep Trump in power, it’s on all of us. Yes - it will partially be on Russia, but we will bear most of that burden. Those of us who voted, those of us who were apathetic, those of us who doubted Hillary Clinton’s credibility, and those of us who bought into the hateful rhetoric and Trump’s empty promises – it will be all of our responsibility as Americans.

I’m a Progressive Democrat – and feeling hopeless and overwhelmed. It’s hard to see past today. When you look back 6 months and struggle to remember something resembling stability, it’s hard to see past today.

A final thought for President’s Day… 

Despite my pondering his last days in office, I believe it will become increasingly obvious as time goes on that President Barack Obama did the absolute best with the resources at his disposal, having faced a brick wall of opposition.  Obama will undoubtedly be regarded as one of America’s great presidents. He’s a Washington, a Lincoln, a JFK. He is one of those who embodies & personifies the best of America’s identity.

God be with us, God heal us & strengthen us – and give us Peace.

[pensarelvirus]

‘The impossible has already happened': what coronavirus can teach us about hope / Rebecca Solnit

.

Disasters begin suddenly and never really end. The future will not, in crucial ways, be anything like the past, even the very recent past of a month or two ago. Our economy, our priorities, our perceptions will not be what they were at the outset of this year. The particulars are startling: companies such as GE and Ford retooling to make ventilators, the scramble for protective gear, once-bustling city streets becoming quiet and empty, the economy in freefall. Things that were supposed to be unstoppable stopped, and things that were supposed to be impossible – extending workers’ rights and benefits, freeing prisoners, moving a few trillion dollars around in the US – have already happened.    

The word “crisis” means, in medical terms, the crossroads a patient reaches, the point at which she will either take the road to recovery or to death. The word “emergency” comes from “emergence” or “emerge”, as if you were ejected from the familiar and urgently need to reorient. The word “catastrophe” comes from a root meaning a sudden overturning.

We have reached a crossroads, we have emerged from what we assumed was normality, things have suddenly overturned. One of our main tasks now – especially those of us who are not sick, are not frontline workers, and are not dealing with other economic or housing difficulties – is to understand this moment, what it might require of us, and what it might make possible.

A disaster (which originally meant “ill-starred”, or “under a bad star”) changes the world and our view of it. Our focus shifts, and what matters shifts. What is weak breaks under new pressure, what is strong holds, and what was hidden emerges. Change is not only possible, we are swept away by it. We ourselves change as our priorities shift, as intensified awareness of mortality makes us wake up to our own lives and the preciousness of life. Even our definition of “we” might change as we are separated from schoolmates or co-workers, sharing this new reality with strangers. Our sense of self generally comes from the world around us, and right now, we are finding another version of who we are.

As the pandemic upended our lives, people around me worried that they were having trouble focusing and being productive. It was, I suspected, because we were all doing other, more important work. When you’re recovering from an illness, pregnant or young and undergoing a growth spurt, you’re working all the time, especially when it appears you’re doing nothing. Your body is growing, healing, making, transforming and labouring below the threshold of consciousness. As we struggled to learn the science and statistics of this terrible scourge, our psyches were doing something equivalent. We were adjusting to the profound social and economic changes, studying the lessons disasters teach, equipping ourselves for an unanticipated world.

The first lesson a disaster teaches is that everything is connected. In fact, disasters, I found while living through a medium-sized one (the 1989 earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area) and later writing about major ones (including 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan), are crash courses in those connections. At moments of immense change, we see with new clarity the systems – political, economic, social, ecological – in which we are immersed as they change around us. We see what’s strong, what’s weak, what’s corrupt, what matters and what doesn’t.

I often think of these times as akin to a spring thaw: it’s as if the pack ice has broken up, the water starts flowing again and boats can move through places they could not during winter. The ice was the arrangement of power relations that we call the status quo – it seems to be stable, and those who benefit from it often insist that it’s unchangeable. Then it changes fast and dramatically, and that can be exhilarating, terrifying, or both.

Those who benefit most from the shattered status quo are often more focused on preserving or reestablishing it than protecting human life – as we saw when a chorus of US conservatives and corporate top dogs insisted that, for the sake of the stock market, everyone had to go back to work, and that the resultant deaths would be an acceptable price to pay. In a crisis, the powerful often try to seize more power – as they have in this round, with the Trump Department of Justice looking at suspending constitutional rights – and the rich seek more riches: two Republican senators are under fire for allegedly using inside information about the coming pandemic to make a profit in the stock market (although both have denied wrongdoing).

Disaster scholars use the term “elite panic” to describe the ways that elites react when they assume that ordinary people will behave badly. When elites describe “panic” and “looting” in the streets, these are usually misnomers for ordinary people doing what they need to do to survive or care for others. Sometimes it’s wise to move rapidly from danger; sometimes it’s altruistic to gather supplies to share.

Such elites often prioritise profit and property over human life and community. In the days after a huge earthquake struck San Francisco on 18 April 1906, the US military swarmed over the city, convinced that ordinary people were a threat and a source of disorder. The mayor issued a “shoot to kill” proclamation against looters, and the soldiers believed they were restoring order. What they were actually doing was setting inexpert firebreaks that helped fire spread through the city, and shooting or beating citizens who disobeyed orders (sometimes those orders were to let the fires burn down their own homes and neighbourhoods). Ninety-nine years later, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans’s police and white vigilantes did the same thing: shooting black people in the name of defending property and their own authority. The local, state and federal government insisted on treating a stranded, mostly poor, mostly black population as dangerous enemies to be contained and controlled, rather than victims of a catastrophe to be aided.

The mainstream media colluded in obsessing about looting in the aftermath of Katrina. The stock of mass-manufactured goods in large corporate chain stores seemed to matter more than people needing food and clean water, or grandmothers left clinging to roofs. Nearly 1,500 people died of a disaster that had more to do with bad government than with bad weather. The US Army Corps of Engineers’ levees had failed; the city had no evacuation plans for the poor, and President George W Bush’s administration failed to deliver prompt and effective relief. The same calculus is happening now. A member of the Brazilian opposition said of Brazil’s rightwing president Jair Bolsonaro: “He represents the most perverse economic interests that couldn’t care less about people’s lives. They’re worried about maintaining their profitability.” (Bolsonaro claims he is trying to protect workers and the economy.)

The billionaire evangelist who owns the arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby claimed divine guidance in keeping his workers at their jobs when businesses were ordered to close. (The company has now closed all its stores.) At Uline Corporation, owned by billionaire Trump backers Richard and Liz Uihlein, a memo sent to Wisconsin workers said: “please do NOT tell your peers about the symptoms & your assumptions. By doing so, you are causing unnecessary panic in the office.” The billionaire founder and chairman of payroll processing corporation Paychex, Tom Golisano, said: “The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people.” (Golisano has since said his comments were misrepresented, and has apologised.)

Historically, there have always been titans of industry who prized the lifeless thing that is profit over living beings, who paid bribes in order to operate unhindered, worked children to death or put labourers in mortal danger in sweatshops and coal mines. There were also those who pressed on with fossil fuel extraction and burning despite what they knew, or refused to know, about climate change. One of the primary uses of wealth has always been to buy your way out of the common fate, or, at least, it has come with a belief that you can disassociate from society at large. And while the rich are often conservative, conservatives more often align with the rich, whatever their economic status.

The idea that everything is connected is an affront to conservatives who cherish a macho every-man-for-himself frontier fantasy. Climate change has been a huge insult to them – this science that says what comes out of our cars and chimneys shapes the fate of the world in the long run and affects crops, sea level, forest fires and so much more. If everything is connected, then the consequences of every choice and act and word have to be examined, which we see as love in action and they see as impingement upon absolute freedom, freedom being another word for absolutely no limits on the pursuit of self-interest. Ultimately, a significant portion of conservatives and corporate leaders regard science as an annoyance that they can refuse to recognise. Some insist they can choose whatever rules and facts they want, as though these too are just free-market commodities to pick and choose from or remake according to one’s whims. “This denial of science and critical thinking among religious ultraconservatives now haunts the American response to the coronavirus crisis,” wrote the journalist Katherine Stewart in the New York Times.

Our rulers showed little willingness to recognise the ominous possibilities of the pandemic in the US, the UK, Brazil and many other countries. They failed in their most important job, and denying that failure will be a major focus for them. And while it may be inevitable that the pandemic will result in an economic crash, it is also turning into an opportunity for authoritarian power grabs in the Philippines, Hungary, Israel and the US – a reminder that the largest problems are still political, and so are their solutions.

When a storm subsides, the air is washed clean of whatever particulate matter has been obscuring the view, and you can often see farther and more sharply than at any other time. When this storm clears, we may, as do people who have survived a serious illness or accident, see where we were and where we should go in a new light. We may feel free to pursue change in ways that seemed impossible while the ice of the status quo was locked up. We may have a profoundly different sense of ourselves, our communities, our systems of production and our future.

For many of us in the developed world, what has changed most immediately is spatial. We have stayed home, those of us who have homes, and away from contact with others. We have withdrawn from schools, workplaces, conferences, vacations, gyms, errands, parties, bars, clubs, churches, mosques, synagogues, from the busyness and bustle of everyday life. The philosopher-mystic Simone Weil once wrote to a faraway friend: “Let us love this distance, which is thoroughly woven with friendship, since those who do not love each other are not separated.” We have withdrawn from each other to protect each other. And people have found ways to help the vulnerable, despite the need to remain physically distant.

My friend Renato Redentor Constantino, a climate campaigner, wrote to me from the Philippines, and said: “We are witness today to daily displays of love that remind us of the many reasons why humans have survived this long. We encounter epic acts of courage and citizenship each day in our neighbourhoods and in other cities and countries, instances that whisper to us that the depredations of a few will eventually be overcome by legions of stubborn people who refuse the counsel of despair, violence, indifference and arrogance that so-called leaders appear so eager nowadays to trigger.”

When we are no longer trying to unlink ourselves from the chain of a spreading disease, I wonder if we will rethink how we were linked, how we moved about and how the goods we rely on moved about. Perhaps we will appreciate the value of direct face-to-face contact more. Perhaps the Europeans who have sung together from their balconies or applauded together for their medical workers, and the Americans who came out to sing or dance on their suburban blocks, will have a different sense of belonging. Perhaps we will find a new respect for the workers who produce our food and those who bring it to our tables.

Although staying put is hard, maybe we will be reluctant to resume our rushing about, and something of the stillness now upon us will stay with us. We may rethink the wisdom of having much of our most vital stuff – medicine, medical equipment – made on other continents. We may also rethink the precarious just-in-time supply chains. I have often thought that the wave of privatisation that has characterised our neoliberal age began with the privatisation of the human heart, the withdrawal from a sense of a shared fate and social bonds. It is to be hoped that this shared experience of catastrophe will reverse the process. A new awareness of how each of us belongs to the whole and depends on it may strengthen the case for meaningful climate action, as we learn that sudden and profound change is possible after all.

“Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers,” Wordsworth wrote, a little more than 200 years ago. Perhaps this will be the moment that we recognise that there is enough food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education for all – and that access to these things should not depend on what job you do and whether you earn enough money. Perhaps the pandemic is also making the case, for those who were not already convinced, for universal healthcare and basic income. In the aftermath of disaster, a change of consciousness and priorities are powerful forces.

A dozen years ago I interviewed the Nicaraguan poet and Sandinista revolutionary Gioconda Belli for my book on disaster, A Paradise Built in Hell. What she told me about the aftermath of the 1972 earthquake in Managua – that, despite the dictatorship’s crackdown, it helped bring on the revolution – was unforgettable. She said: “You had a sense of what was important. And people realised that what was important was freedom and being able to decide your life and agency. Two days later you had this tyrant imposing a curfew, imposing martial law. The sense of oppression on top of the catastrophe was really unbearable. And once you had realised that your life can be decided by one night of the Earth deciding to shake, [you thought]: ‘So what? I want to live a good life and I want to risk my life, because I can also lose my life in one night.’ You realise that life has to be lived well or is not worth living. It’s a very profound transformation that takes place during catastrophes.”

I have found over and over that the proximity of death in shared calamity makes many people more urgently alive, less attached to the small things in life and more committed to the big ones, often including civil society or the common good.

I have mostly written about 20th-century disasters, but one analogy a bit further back comes to mind: the Black Death, which wiped out a third of Europe’s population, and, in England, later led to peasant revolts against war taxes and wage caps that were officially quashed, but nevertheless led to more rights and freedoms for peasants and labourers. In the emergency legislation passed in the US in March, many workers gained new sick-leave rights. Lots of things we were assured were impossible – housing the homeless, for example – have come to pass in some places.

Ireland nationalised its hospitals, something “we were told would never happen and could never happen,” an Irish journalist commented. Canada came up with four months of basic income for those who lost their jobs. Germany did more than that. Portugal decided to treat immigrants and asylum seekers as full citizens during the pandemic. In the US, we have seen powerful labour agitation, and results. Workers at Whole Foods, Instacart and Amazon have protested at being forced to work in unsafe conditions during the pandemic. (Whole Foods has since offered workers who test positive two weeks off on full pay; Instacart says it has made changes to safeguard workers and shoppers, while Amazon said it is “following guidelines” on safety.) Some workers have gained new rights and raises, including almost half a million Kroger grocery store workers, while 15 state attorneys-general told Amazon to expand its paid sick leave. These specifics make clear how possible it is to change the financial arrangements of all our societies.

But often the most significant consequences of disasters are not immediate or direct. The 2008 financial collapse led to 2011’s Occupy Wall Street uprising, which prompted a new reckoning with economic inequality and a new scrutiny of the human impact of exploitative mortgages, student loans, for profit-colleges, health-insurance systems and more, and that in turn amplified the profiles of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, whose ideas have helped pull the Democratic party to the left, towards policies that will make the US fairer and more equal. The conversations stirred by Occupy and its sister movements across the globe incited more critical scrutiny of ruling powers, and more demands for economic justice. Changes in the public sphere originate within the individual, but also, changes in the world at large affect our sense of self, our priorities and our sense of the possible.

We are only in the early stages of this disaster, and we are also in a strange stillness. It is like the Christmas truce of 1914, when German and English soldiers stopped fighting for a day, the guns fell silent and soldiers mingled freely. War itself paused. There’s a way that our getting and spending has been a kind of war against the Earth. Since the outbreak of Covid-19, carbon emissions have plummeted. Reports say the air above Los Angeles, Beijing and New Delhi is miraculously clean. Parks all over the US are shut to visitors, which may have a beneficial effect on wildlife. In the last government shutdown of 2018-2019, elephant seals at Point Reyes National Seashore just north of San Francisco took over a new beach, and now own it for the duration of their season of mating and birthing on land.

There’s another analogy that comes to mind. When a caterpillar enters its chrysalis, it dissolves itself, quite literally, into liquid. In this state, what was a caterpillar and will be a butterfly is neither one nor the other, it’s a sort of living soup. Within this living soup are the imaginal cells that will catalyse its transformation into winged maturity. May the best among us, the most visionary, the most inclusive, be the imaginal cells – for now we are in the soup. The outcome of disasters is not foreordained. It’s a conflict, one that takes place while things that were frozen, solid and locked up have become open and fluid – full of both the best and worst possibilities. We are both becalmed and in a state of profound change.

But this is also a time of depth for those spending more time at home and more time alone, looking outward at this unanticipated world. We often divide emotions into good and bad, happy and sad, but I think they can equally be divided into shallow and deep, and the pursuit of what is supposed to be happiness is often a flight from depth, from one’s own interior life and the suffering around us – and not being happy is often framed as a failure. But there is meaning as well as pain in sadness, mourning and grief, the emotions born of empathy and solidarity. If you are sad and frightened, it is a sign that you care, that you are connected in spirit. If you are overwhelmed – well, it is overwhelming, and it will take decades of study, analysis, discussion and contemplation to understand how and why 2020 suddenly took us all into marshy new territory.

Seven years ago, Patrisse Cullors wrote a sort of mission statement for Black Lives Matter: “Provide hope and inspiration for collective action to build collective power to achieve collective transformation. Rooted in grief and rage but pointed towards vision and dreams.” It is beautiful not only because it is hopeful, not only because then Black Lives Matter set out and did transformative work, but because it acknowledges that hope can coexist with difficulty and suffering. The sadness in the depths and the fury that burns above are not incompatible with hope, because we are complex creatures, because hope is not optimism that everything will be fine regardless.

Hope offers us clarity that, amid the uncertainty ahead, there will be conflicts worth joining and the possibility of winning some of them. And one of the things most dangerous to this hope is the lapse into believing that everything was fine before disaster struck, and that all we need to do is return to things as they were. Ordinary life before the pandemic was already a catastrophe of desperation and exclusion for too many human beings, an environmental and climate catastrophe, an obscenity of inequality. It is too soon to know what will emerge from this emergency, but not too soon to start looking for chances to help decide it. It is, I believe, what many of us are preparing to do.

*

Fuente: https://www.theguardian.com/about-hope-rebecca-solnit

[Publicado 7/abril/2020]

[boycenburgfc]

Ideology of Cure

Ideology is always a can of worms... In its most general sense, I reckon it is a deeply held (if at times misguided) understanding about something that is so culturally ingrained that the supposed understanding becomes the superstructure around which belief is built. As ideology weaves its way through history, culture, and civilization it takes on a life of its own. Ideology lives and breathes in our civilization because most of us simply take what it has to say as truth... I mean, how could something endure for so long if it weren’t true? Think about Ptolemy and the geocentric model of the universe. Ptolemy’s 2nd Century model placed the earth at the center of the universe, and all other celestial bodies moved around it. Despite resistance to this theory from many other mathematicians, astronomers, and thinkers (especially in the Muslim world) throughout history it was viewed as correct until the 16th Century. Around 1200 years, we believed (at times violently) that we were located in the center of the universe; and this belief served as an ideological pathway to some very dark events throughout history. Ideology can become part of our every day lives until we choose to question it.

“Cure” as an ideology surpasses even the geocentric model of the universe in terms of longevity. Throughout history we have seen that people whose bodies and/or minds differ from what “we” consider “normal” have always been a part of this world but due to the difference from the “normal” have been kept at arms length. This ideology of what it means to possess a “normal” body or mind is almost indescribably well packed in to the human psyche that to even entertain the notion that we see it incorrectly is akin to blasphemy. The mere existence of an ideology of cure is to assert that the human body was designed in a specific way, and that bodies or minds which do not conform to this design are damaged or broken and should be “fixed”. We hold so tightly to the belief that humans were designed in a specific way that we feel like we must cure what we perceive as deviance from the design.

Use of the word design in a piece about ideology invariably invokes the specter of an intelligent design, commonly associated with the creation myths our ancestors made up to explain a universe that is likely inherently incomprehensible. From this type of design it is implied (or very explicit, depending on who you ask) that we were created in a specific way by an entity (as opposed to a series of chemical processes over time) which likely would have had an idea of what the final product would be and how it would function. This notion has fermented throughout our civilization in many different forms, and has led our culture at large to believe that we were designed. It may be comforting to believe that we were designed, that we are special, but to take this as fact is detrimental to our advancement in the universe. Because civilization has had design ingrained in its cultural memory, it is easy to see how cure as an ideology has come to manifest itself in contemporary society. 

Because we as a civilization assume (again at large) that we were designed in a certain way, we have built our society in a manner reflecting this. Rather than build a society and a culture which recognizes that there isn’t one way to be human, we instead have one that decided eons ago that the individual is the problem. The idea that we must cure or fix those who were not “designed correctly” exists paradoxically along side the notion of a perfect creator. This paradox (which probably has a name) arrogantly implies that we can know what some divine creator had in mind it they created us. We cling to the idea that we were designed because the idea that we are simply a coincidence or the result of proper conditions that could be replicated depending upon circumstances is scary. Society has an easier time thrusting its insecurities, fear, and doubt on to individuals rather than taking an introspective journey and taking another step towards greatness. 

We have shaped our world in such a way that assumes what is and isn’t correct with respect to the human body. As our understanding of care, medicine, and science have grown with us we have found it easier and easier to justify the results of these (arrogant) assumptions. Is it society’s fault that accessibility is seen as burdensome? Is it not easier to portray the individual (or rather their body) as being at “fault” when what we take for granted prohibits one from experiencing life (as “we” see fit)? When we view this through an individual based lens, it is easier to justify doing as little as possible while simultaneously patting ourselves on the back. We miss the figurative forest for the tree(s), because to see the forest is to have to challenge not only a long-held ideology about bodies, but potentially question something that gives us the greatest comfort knowable - being designed. 

Meta commentary: This one got a little (well, more than a little) philosophical/existential (and believe me, I would love to go waaaay deeper down the rabbit hole), but is based in Chapter 1 of Eli Clare’s book “In Brilliant Imperfection: Grappling with Cure” (Ideology of Cure) and Chapter 2 of Sunaura Taylor’s Book “Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation” (What is Disability?)

[mysurveys]

Random Qs

Survey #5 on the Countdown to 2018!

Can you solve quadratic equation?

I have dyscalculia.

Does it annoy you when you have to keep sharpening a pencil because the lead keeps breaking?

I'll stop using the pencil after two or three tries instead of repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. That's one of the definitions of insanity. Stop doing what doesn't work.

Do you like the smell of nail polish?

I don't, but it's not that it bothers me either.

Do you think that downloading music illegally is immoral?

Doing illegal things is immoral unless a Christian must follow God's Word over man's law.

Have you ever had to get stitches?

I've had stitches and staples before, but they weren't too major.

Have you ever broken a bone?

I haven't.

When was the last time you had to study for a test?

Not since I was a teenager.

Are you a part of any societies?

I'm a part of human society, obviously. I'm also a part of a church group in Christian society and I identify as a Constitutional Conservative, but I haven't joined any formal groups that call themselves a society.

Do you like cardigans?

It depends on the cardigan itself.

Do you think there was anything wrong with Miley Cyrus’s Vanity Fair appearance?

I try not to think about shitty celebrities as much as possible.

What's your city or state known for?

Nederland has its Dutch heritage and yet we've got a lot of Cajuns. We tend to have crawfish, boudin and other such dishes.

Texas should be known for some of its richly diverse communities, though. Houston is an epicenter for cultures coming together in one place. It's a great place to visit so long as the traffic and road systems don't drive you nuts.

What's your favorite '80s film?

Maybe 1982's The Last Unicorn which is one of my favorite animated films.

Have you ever been paid to take a survey?

I haven't.

How often do you buy a new item of clothing?

It varies. I don't just buy them as needed. In fact, I found two pairs of PJ pants recently that weren't on my to-buy list.

What do you do with your old clothes; do you donate, sell, give them away, throw them out, etc.?

It depends on why they're old. I'll keep ones that're a little too large in case I gain weight. If they're damaged too badly then I'll just throw them out. I've been thinking of donating a few of my older clothes, though.

Would you ever marry someone you didn’t truly love for a different motive such as money?

I wouldn't. I’m not a gold-digger.

Do you want to get a tattoo right now?

I never want one for religious reasons.

How many times a day do you brush your teeth?

Twice as recommended, of course.

Do you ever question your faith?

I often question aspects of my religion so I can find answers within the Bible concerning moral concepts. That's what you're supposed to do as a Christian because the fool wonders and the wise man asks.

I don't question the existence of God or my belief in Christ all that much now even though I've been asked to ponder the possibility that I'm wrong by others.

Would you change your beliefs because the person you loved told you to?

I wouldn't abandon my entire religion for anyone else, but I can change my beliefs to suit new information.

Do you think anyone has learned a lesson from the Jewish Holocaust?

Some people learn from the past and some don't. That's always how it's been.

Why do you think there are still Holocaust deniers?

Many people deny some truth or another in their lives for varying motives. There are some realities people can't accept, but their reasons on it can differ greatly. You have to really talk with them to understand their viewpoint and motivations.

Do you know who wrote the first dictionary?

The oldest dictionaries we know of were Akkadian Empire cuneiform tablets that contain bilingual Sumerian–Akkadian word lists dated back to roughly 2300 BCE by popular science.

How many days a week do you have to attend school, college or work?

I'm neither in school or college and I'm on disability, but I have a nonprofit group. I can do that whenever I feel like it as the Lady Boss of my small team of helpers. It's a very flexible at-home "job" and I don't always have a case to work on.

Are you under the age of 18?

I'm turning 31 this year on May 27th.

Do you floss your teeth?

I mainly use inter-dental brushes due to the braces behind my lower front row of teeth.

How many cups of coffee do you drink on a daily basis?

It greatly varies. Sometimes I stop drinking it altogether.

Have you ever sworn at a police officer?

I'm not an idiot.

Would you ever consider prostitution?

Never. I respect myself.

What if it was in a state where prostitution is legal and you were in a safe and clean brothel?

Whether the law of man calls it legal or not has no bearing on my choice. God doesn't want me to sell myself out or sell myself short. He doesn't want anyone to give themselves away before marriage. I made that mistake and I'm not repeating it.

Do you see your future as more maternal or paternal or as a professional parent?

I'm only maternal with my cats. I don't want children and I don't even have a uterus anymore.

How far do you agree that the mother is more important in a child’s life than the father?

Both a male father figure and a female mother figure are required for a child's healthy development. Lacking either has a profound psychological, emotional and social effect. God and nature aren't wrong in having a child be born of one male and one female.

Most people don't know what they're talking about when asked this question, though. You have to study the matter scientifically rather than relying on your own feelings and prejudgments.

Feelings are subjective things which are often incorrect when facts, logic and rationale are required along with scientific studies. If you know nothing about the formal study of the human psyche and what's required for a child's overall growth then you don't know what a child needs.

One man and one woman create a new life with equal purpose. Although they have a different affect on their child depending on whether they have a boy or a girl, two parents of both sexes are vastly important in a child's growth.

You can't navigate life simply by your feelings or by using your personal suppositions as if they constitute facts.

Would you ever let one of your children enter a beauty pageant?

At what age exactly? I think some children are too young for them. If she showed interest in her latter adolescence then we would have a serious discussion on the topic with her father, but that's purely a hypothetical for me. I don't want kids.

What inspires you?

My cats, objects I find beauty in, other people's creative work, symbolism. I also look to ukiyo-e and other Japanese concepts such as komorebi, ikigai, yūgen and shibui for inspiration.

When was the last time you attended a wedding?

I don't remember when it was, but I last went to my aunt's wedding when she remarried.

If they ask, do you keep the hanger when you buy new clothes?

I usually don't want it. I've got several of them as it is.

Do you get a headache from strobe lighting?

That's never happened to me before, but I haven't had much exposure.

Who was the last person to give you a handmade greeting card?

My aforementioned aunt, I think.

What do you like most about winter?

The cold weather, snowflake symbology and Christmas are my top three reasons to love winter.

How often do you go on vacations?

Rarely if you only count getting out of the house, but I've had two staycations. One was early last year and the other was in the latter months of the year before. I'm hoping I can do that again sometime this year.

Who was the last person you laughed with?

I don't remember.

Do you know who Stanley Milgram is and do you know what he did?

I can JFGI to find out… Oh, it turns out that I just forgot his name. That happens to me a lot. I'm not good at committing abstract concepts to memory which extends to my experience with dyscalculia as math is an abstract concept as well.

How far do you agree with the psychoanalytic theories proposed by Sigmund Freud?

This really requires an in-depth answer. I know much on this topic and I have much to say. It’s a point of fascination for me.

After comparing the two at length, I usually side with Jung in their differences. Freud's concepts of the unconscious mind and his focus on sex and sexuality is too limited.

I recognize the concept of synchronicity and Jung's analytical psychology formed by his vast wealth of knowledge that utilizes symbology is much more impressive and truthful.

Jung's concepts of introverted and extroverted personalities ring true to me, but I firmly believe that narrowing it down to only those extremes is limited. 

Ambiversion is a very real option to me both intellectually and personally. It describes those in the middle who want and need interaction and solitude to both relax and revitalize themselves.

How do I personally differ? I believe the unconscious mind holds inaccessible information while the subconscious stores that which can be recalled despite sometimes being forgotten.

I believe our unconscious and subconscious minds have both personal and impersonal facets. The ego of a person is influenced by both in my belief.

I believe in Jung's view of dreams not being so focused on sex and sexuality and that their meanings aren't always disguised. They can have various symbolic meanings depending on the dreamer's associations.

Dream meanings aren't fixed and they display both the internal and external world through symbolism and metaphors. Any dream dictionary would have to offer up multiple meanings to the same symbol.

I'm less accepting of a fixed collective conscious despite the belief that we can share similarities within our culture. That doesn't mean a person must strictly adhere to their culture's concepts and beliefs.

A person defines their own pathway rather than being inextricably chained to the past of themselves and their ancestors.

Some of Freud's beliefs are simply perverse nonsense such as the Electra and the Oedipus Complexes. They’re such bizarre ideas about the human subconscious that speak more of him than anyone else.

I believe as Jung did that sex and sexuality are only one aspect of a person's soul and their personal energies. I believe that it's an energy in and of itself along with other manifestations.

I know these energies exist without doubt as I can feel and sometimes see them. That's my experience as an HSP who's an intuitive empath and I won't deny it. It’s a gift from God for me.

Freud is just utterly obsessed with sexual content to the point that it must speak of his own hidden desires and perversities that certainly aren't shared by everyone else.

Freud felt that religion was an escape for most people. He struggled with religious concepts and institutions most of his life.

Jung saw religion as a necessary part of the individuation process. Although he didn't practice a specific religion, he was curious and open-minded to the topic as a point of interest from his archetypal viewpoint.

Religion can't be a healthy escape when it isn't used merely as crutch. It's meant to be a firm foundation rather than an offered bench to escape to when life is painful and difficult.

Jung's open-mindedness was a wonderful thing while Freud was closed off to the idea of exploring the concept with the same curiosity and intellectual honesty that Jung held.

I agree with Freud in his great skepticism of parapsychology, but I disagree on closing one's mind to its possibilities. I find that some so-called "psychic" abilities are merely God's spiritual gifts and that they can really be untapped sciences. The study of energy itself as it lies within all things needs to be explored for instance.

I believe in Jung's theory of synchronicity to an extent. I've felt it at work before in my own life. There are definitely ways in which our unconscious and subconscious minds can connect on a level that may seem psychic.

Even one's conscious mind can closely reflect another's. I believe in shared experiences that may be psychic in nature up to a point.

One key point in my preference for Jung is his open-mindedness in general, but especially regarding the entire idea of religion. He wasn’t completely closed off to it intellectually which is how atheists are. Such an extreme is irrational.

Jung’s ideas were less focused on sex and sexuality in such perverse ways and his acceptance toward the universal importance of symbolism and metaphors is another key point in my choice.

Do you see yourself in a long-term relationship in the next year?

It could happen. I neither expect it or deny that it's a possibility.

What was your favorite Pokemon as a child?

I eventually chose Pichu when he became a playable character on SSB. I rocked so hard when I played as that charrie! ♥

Some other top faves are Gengar, Totodile, Fennekin, Umbreon, Zorua, Vulpix, Absol, Lucario, Purrloin, Litten and Mew.

I tend to like canine and feline inspired Pokemon, but Totodile was my fave starter since I had the best gaming experience with him in Crystal. And Gengar is just one of the best overall Pokemon because his design is so simple yet awesome.

Do you seek the unique or settle for the ordinary?

I'm a very strong individualist who prizes freedom, but I can also appreciate some ordinary things.

Do or do your parents allow you to stay out late?

I'm 30 now, but they didn't let me roam the neighborhood after dark. Mom would eventually call me inside from our fenced-in backyard where our very protective dog was.

When was the last time you had a crush?

I've only ever had a childish infatuation of the sort when I was in elementary school. I quickly learned the basic differences between infatuation and love since I’ve always been a quick study even concerning life lessons.

Would you ever donate blood?

I would if I could, but I can't. I’m an organ donor, though!

What was the topic of the last assignment or essay you wrote?

It's been way too long for me to remember that.

Does it annoy you when you can’t find the end on a reel of sticky tape?

It's a slight bother, but I'm not easily perturbed by things.