#we basically all do not like messianics | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

qqueenofhades · 7 months

Note

Do you think we romanticize the concept of revolution (especially violent revolution) out of some weird offshoot of our tendency to romanticize and propagandize war/the military?

Like, we treat war/the military as a good thing, so when we turn against it, we basically just apply the REVOLUTION coat of paint over the "military is great and just" framework? or something?

There are a few reasons. First, America itself is totally beholden to the idea of the Glorious Populist Revolution that overthrows the tyrants and brings Freedom (TM), thanks to the American revolution. That is why the right wing has spent endless time cosplaying "1776" and "Founding Fathers" and all the other cosmetic trappings that they put on their fascism project, and keep threatening to have a "new revolution" or a "new civil war" if Trump isn't immediately reinstated to the presidency for life. Because they are steeped in the paradigm of "messianic militarism," which has a long and inglorious history in the West and is based in Christian imperialism and colonialism, they just think that The Right Kind of Violence will overthrow the Evil Oppressors and everything will then be glorious! Of course, this has been a recurrent theme in human history and it has never, ever worked.

Because the so-called progressive left often takes deeply theocratic and fascist/conservative concepts and then just changes the wording/rationale/costume dressing, they have therefore become attached to the idea of "guillotining" all the oppressors (like the French revolution, which famously worked out fine and was definitely not followed by the Terror and did not at all end with the country lapsing back into absolute imperialism under Napoleon barely a decade later!), like we can just kill all the right people and then the world will be fine! Which uh. Yeah, that's a hard no from me. I dream as fondly of Elon Musk getting into a Tesla and suddenly blowing up as anyone, but I don't subscribe to the repurposed genocidal fantasy that "killing everyone is right when My People do it!," and I don't think that this would remotely result in a better world the end, because again: Historian talking here. It literally never, ever has. There are no magic shortcuts to making things better. It only happens by doing the work and not fantasizing about how much easier it would be if all the bad things abruptly disappeared in a splendid shower of blood and gore. Because a) that's not gonna happen and b) we don't fucking want it to! What is wrong with you?! Do you think only the Deserving Sinners will die in your Progressive Rapture and everyone else will be fine??? Because! Yeah! NO!!!

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts #it is just thinly repurposed protestant evangelical apocalyptic eschatology #about the End of Days when All Sinners Are Destroyed #which is a punishment fantasy for the christian fascists and also the leftists #the only thing that changes is who is getting punished and how #but Destroying the Infidels And The World Is Now Perfect #is the common theme #and yeah uh. hard pass.

131 notes · View notes

artist-issues · 1 month

Note

Been a while since we've heard, how did your readthrough of the Harry Potter books go?

Hey! Ho! I forgot to update on that didn't I? My bad!

I haven't worked out all my feelings about it! The last book was so...odd. I felt frustrated through the whole thing. Most of the books felt like you were waiting to figure stuff out—the main characters would try to get information and solve problems and fail or cause more problems in the process, but there was usually some secondary goal they consistently had hope in. Like, maybe Harry Potter can't figure out who's trying to kill him, and has constant setbacks in that. BUT, their secondary goal, winning the Tri-Wizard Cup, is usually...hopeful. They're usually doing well with one of their two main goals, and then the climax happens, and they lose something important, but ultimately ene on a hopeful note. You know, Harry wins the Tri-Wizard Cup, but Voldemort's back and Cedric is dead, that sort of thing.

But. In the conclusion of the series, it felt like the main characters were getting nowhere, in their primary goals AND their secondary goals, for so long. Then the ending, the pacing of it all, felt rushed. And I didn't love the plot device of the Elder Wand, or how in the climax of the book, when Harry is fighting Voldemort, they stop to have like a twenty-minute conversation about all the exposition the reader needs to know to understand how Harry is about to beat him—and Harry was basically insufferable for the whole book.

that was my initial impression. It might age better if I go back and re-read. I definitely like some of the Messianic notes of Harry dying for everybody—then picking his life back up again to defeat the bad guy once and for all.

and they killed Lupin. Which. He's my favorite I thought he had the most interesting "character arc" of any of the adult characters. It seemed like his biggest fear was inadequacy as a father, heightened by the fact that he's a werewolf, so he thought he'd make his son's life harder and more shameful by even being alive...so as part of that interesting character flaw, Lupin tries to kamikaze by going on the run with Harry. Then he goes back and resolves to live with his wife (who he wrestles with the safety of loving) and child (same wrestling match) because being present as a father and husband is the right thing to do, regardless of how difficult it is for you.

And then he dies anyway.

So it's like. What the heck was the point of that? Makes the lesson he, as a character, was teaching, hollow. Like "Living as a good father is harder than dying a martyr—but I'm dead, so I don't have to worry about that, I guess the thought was what counted."

And people will say to me "nooo he was willing to take risks and sacrifice! He sacrificed his life! To make a better world for his son!"

Yeah okay but we already had self-sacrificial love impacting an orphan's life through the death of parents in the main character. Lily and James Potter did that. Already got that lesson. Now tell a story about how just going on and living your life for someone, say to day, especially when it's hard and they might not thank you for it, is also self-sacrificial. I thought that was the mini-story Lupin's character was telling, on the side of the main plot. But then no, Rowling just repeats herself. She just starts an interesting thing and then finishes it in the least-interesting way.

I feel like one of the basics of storytelling is "create a character that needs to learn something. Then put them through the hardest circumstances so that they're forced to change into what they need to learn." Dying in battle was not Lupin's hardest circumstance. You know what would've been? Killing Tonks, his wife, so that he's forced to raise their son alone and still stay—or keeping them both alive, but Lupin's curse is worse than ever after the battle. Or just simply keeping them both alive, and putting a little nod in the epilogue to how Harry's kids defend Lupin's son from bullies, and it's hinted at that society still doesn't accept werewolves and their lives aren't perfect, but they're all sticking around for each other.

I mean you don't even get to have Tonks react to Lupin's death. And the only Weasley that was killed was one of the twins—don't get me wrong, that's still horrible. But if you're trying to make a point about the losses of war, kill a character who is one-of-a-kind to the audience...not one-of-two.

Also, the thing with Snape and Lily didn't hit. Haven't analyzed why, yet. There's something to be learned about showing and telling there. I mean, what the author showed me for seven books was a mean and nasty man who loved nothing. I experienced it with Harry. I tasted the sting of the insults and the cruel remarks and the unfairness. For seven books. You know what's less powerful? A handful of pages quickly info-dumping the idea that no, he was in love and acting out of unrequited love all along. Like anti-heroic Snape is a compelling idea to be told about, but it's not nearly as strong as the experience of being shown villainous Snape, moment by moment, book by book.

Same thing with Dumbledore's emotional reveal of his own history. Like. Okay. But you only just now told me I should care about Dumbledore's family, in the last half of the last book. I don't feel as badly about him and his family as I would've if you'd slowly shown me who they were, even in memory, for the last seven books—like she did super well with Lily and James and Sirius.

anyway. Those are my half-baked thoughts. I was also...running a super high fever and reading the last few chapters at 1 in the morning, at the time. So they're super underdone thoughts. Thanks for asking!

#Harry Potter #Remus Lupin #J.K. Rowling #writing #asked #answered

25 notes · View notes

penguicorns-are-cool · 7 months

Text

I posted this in a reblog earlier but I think I should make it it's own post

Believe it or not, there are actually many different types of zionism as it is a complex political movement that existed for over 1000 years as a loosely connected set of ideas and saying it proposes that Jewish people are more entitled to Palestine than Palestinians is a huge oversimplification and for most types of zionism is just completely false.

Here's a little crash course on different types of zionism

Political Zionism: this is how zionism started and it is basically everything Theodore Herzl said in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). basically the idea that the establishment of a Jewish state (preferably in Palestine but anywhere will do) is necessary to prevent the genocide of Jews and for Jews to have somewhere to go when their lives are in danger. The belief here is that for Jews to truly have any sort of security Jews need to have sovereignty over their own state. It is a response to antisemitism.

Revisionist Zionism: this is the one that y'all are all familiar with. This one also formed as a response to antisemitism but with a bit less patience. It was most popular in central and east europe with Jews who were waiting to immigrate because of the astounding amounts of antisemitism in europe at the time. This one calls for mass Jewish settlement in Israel with the goal of making a Jewish majority in Palestine. They became very popular because they would facilitate mass migrations from europe to palestine during Holocaust times. This is the zionism of the Likud party which Netanyahu is a part of.

Religous Zionism: religous zionism advocated for the establishment of a Jewish state for religous reasons. Basically all the, it's a Jewish holy land stuff and how there are some mitzvot that can only be fulfilled in Israel. There was also a prophecy and stuff about Jews returning to Israel it's a whole thing.

Socialist/Labor zionism: This was the most prominent form of zionism for Jews living in Palestine just before Israel was established and many of Israel's founders were socialist zionists. They believed that the rise of capitalism would spark class struggles in other countries that would exacerbate existing antisemitism and working class Jews would be forced to move. The idea was that there had to be a Jewish state where those Jews could escape to to avoid antisemitism. These guys actually did a lot of really cool things under very bad conditions. They spread modern Hebrew, made uninhabitable parts of Israel into fertile land, and set up a lot of schools. Many of them had just recently escaped genocide or had families being genocided in Europe. At this point in time they were also being constantly massacred by Palestinian Arabs (there's a whole thing with Nazis spreading their propoganda in the Middle East at this time in an effort to kill more Jews then later the soviets did something similar it's a whole thing. There were also general tensions and the British did not help at all). Depending on the person or group, whether the socialism or zionism is more emphasized can vary.

Spiritual Zionism: these are the people who don't believe Palestine can hold all the Jews and rather than being a designated safe space for all Jews to go in case of emergency it should be a religous hub that would help the diaspora regain their spirituality

Messianic Zionism: this is an extremist group. This one developed around the six-day-war and is honestly kind of culty from what I'm seeing. They believe Israel belongs to the Jews by divine decree. They would like ban people from even interacting with Arabs and were only tolerated until Israel started trading back land in peace treaties. Then one of them assassinated Yitzchak Rabin (generally loved prime minister cause he signed a bunch of peace treaties). They're controversial at best terrorists at worst. we don't like these ones at all.

Christain Zionism: there's some sort of christain belief that all the Jews returning to Israel is part of the end of times prophecy so they will organize trips for Jews to move to Israel. They're actually pretty antisemitic. Christain zionists generally support the oppression of Palestinians and also a whole lot of other horrible things.

Please just understand that zionism ≠ supports Israel's actions against Palestine. For a lot of people it means Jews should have a safe space to go in case of antisemitism or Israel is a holy land for Jews too and we'd like to also live there and have a bit of sovereignty. There are in fact zionists who would like there to be one Jewish and Palestinian state where Palestinians and Jews have somewhat equal political power, that actually was one of the suggestions back before 1948 and it ended up falling through.

Also, please please please go research some history of Palestine from like early 1900s on. 1948 isn't the start of the conflict there's so much context that you lose if you start there. Just like, if an article or source starts telling the history at 1948, it's probably biased in some way. The wikipedia page is actually pretty good for this just read the British Mandate period and maybe check the sources if you want to.

#zionism #israel #palestine #types of zionism #antisemitism #jewish #jumblr

38 notes · View notes

bri-the-nautilus · 9 months

Text

Elphael: What's In a Name?

Earlier today, my esteemed comrade @the-unkindled-queen made a post wondering about the etymology of Elphael, Brace of the Haligtree. My initial digging turned up a few Reddit comments where the general consensus was that Elphael has its roots (ha) in Hebrew linguistics, with one interpretation being "Family of God" and another being "Work of God":

Now as a linguist and Bible scholar, I think these are awesome. I love seeing all the languages and cultures that these games draw inspiration from, and the Hebrew connection is a neat contrast with the Haligtree itself, which is linguistically Welsh. Additionally, the connection to Abrahamic faith and Hebrew words for people and acts of God is a nice throughline for the way the game portrays Miquella and St Trina as Messianic protectors of the sick and poor. Add in the spiritual atmosphere of Elphael and the Haligtree (prayer rooms, mausoleums, and altar-like statues of Miquella and Malenia abound), and it's a very pleasing little theory.

Soulsborne and especially Elden Ring borrow heavily from Welsh for names and whatnot (like the aforementioned Haligtree), and out of idle curiosity I began to wonder if there was any basis whatsoever for an alternative theory linking Elphael's name to Welsh. My only reasons for going down this path were the vaguely Celtic sound of the name and the fact that the Haligtree proper has a Welsh name. I didn't find anything like this during the search that led me to the Hebrew theories, and plugging various fragmentations of "Elphael" into a Welsh->English translator didn't spit out anything of value. I was about to throw in the towel when I did what I probably should have done before faffing about with the translator and just searched "Elphael Welsh."

And oh golly do we have ourselves an Elphael. Or an Elfael.

Welcome to the infinitely confusing world of medieval Welsh history.

Medieval Wales was divided into several regions, called cantrefi. Each cantref was further divided into several territories called commotes. The cantrefi are pictured below. We're mostly concerned with the central yellow one, Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, but also remember Gwynedd. It's in orange up top.

But that's for later. What we care about right now is the cantref of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, which lies between the rivers Wye and Severn. This cantref is shown in detail below and is home to the commote of Elfael, shown in green. Also take note of Maelienydd and Buellt. They're light blue and yellow respectively, and we're going to need them later.

The history of Elfael is short and confusing, as one can expect from a fiefdom straddling the English-Welsh border during the post-Roman and post-Norman Conquest years. It didn't exist as a political entity for very long (it was only independent from 1155ish to about 1215 before dissolving completely in 1309), and changed hands often during its lifetime.

Our story begins with a man named Elystan Glodrydd, Prince of Buellt. He lived from 950 to 1010 CE, and at some point during his later life he conquered a territory called Ferlix, which was composed of Elfael and Maelienydd. When Elystan died, rulership of Buellt (Ferlix included) passed to his son Cadwgan, and then to Cadwgan's son Idnerth when he died.

Idnerth's reign is remarkable because he's the guy who lost Buellt. An Anglo-Norman noble, Philip De Braose, had conquered basically all the land between the Wye and Severn, which of course included Buellt. For some reason, at the conclusion of his conquest De Braose gave Ferlix back to Idnerth, but kept Buellt for himself. The end result being that Idnerth had gotten kicked out of his grandpa's commote and into what had originally been a conquered vassal territory. Once Idnerth died (presumably in shame), Ferlix went to his son, a man with the astoundingly awesome name of Madog. During this time, the Anarchy was starting.

The Anarchy was a civil war in Britain from 1138 to 1153. King Henry I died in 1135, and his heiress, the Empress Matilda, had many enemies who didn't want her to take the throne. In 1130, a castle had been built in southern Ferlix by one of these enemies, an Anglo-Norman named Pain FitzJohn, Sheriff of Hereford. This is the actual best name in this story. Pain FitzJohn is a fucking badass name. This castle, which was of course called Pain's Castle, was acquired by Madog in 1135 under foggy pretenses. It's likely that Pain wanted Madog's protection from Matilda, but we're not sure.

Old Madog knew that getting a castle called Pain's Castle was an achievement that couldn't be topped, and proceeded to die at age 65 in 1140, secure in the knowledge that he was better than Idnerth. He left five sons, who bucked the trend of going to war for their dead dad's land by dividing Ferlix amongst themselves. Unfortunately for them, this is when the Anarchy caught up with them. Another Norman lord, Hugh De Mortimer, invaded Ferlix in 1142. Two of Madog's sons (Hywel and another Cadwgan) were killed, and in 1146 De Mortimer killed a third son, Maredudd, in the process of capturing Pain's Castle. In 1155, Matilda's son Henry II took the throne of England, and when Hugh De Mortimer protested, Henry kicked him out of Ferlix. This left Madog's two surviving sons, Einion Clud and Cadwallon, to pick up the pieces. These guys hated each other, and neither brother could stomach ruling in consort with the other. But for some reason, they didn't kill each other, instead dividing Ferlix again in two. Cadwallon got the northern part, which came to be called Maelienydd, and Einion Clud got the southern part, which was called Elfael.

Einion Clud and Cadwallon still hated each other, and their realms were openly hostile, each brother still believing he was entitled to sole rule of all that had once been Ferlix. (Again, why didn't they just fight to the death like every other medieval family?) Things came to a head in 1160, when Cadwallon kidnapped Einion Clud and sent him in chains to Owain Gwynedd, the aptly-named King of Gwynedd, who in turn pawned him off on King Henry II. Eventually, Einion Clud either escaped or was released. It's not certain which of these occurred, but what is certain is that by 1165, Einion Clud was once again ruling Elfael, and at the Battle of Corwen the two brothers fought together against King Henry under the leadership of Owain Gwynedd. Politics are fucking weird.

There would be no happy ending, however. Hugh De Mortimer's son Roger was swearing revenge on his father's enemies. You might take this to mean King Henry, who kicked Hugh De Mortimer out of Ferlix in 1155, but no, Roger was actually a big fan of Henry II and had fought for the King during the Revolt of 1173. No, Roger wanted revenge on the guys who ruled Ferlix after his dad got yanked. The timeline here is a bit weird, but what's certain is that Roger De Mortimer killed Cadwallon in 1179. He also killed Einion Clud, but I wasn't able to find out when. I found a source saying that Roger killed Einion Clud after his father died, but Hugh De Mortimer died in 1181 and my reading on Cadwallon says that he was the prince of both Maelienydd and Elfael at the time of his death, which would only be possible if Einion Clud died before 1179. In fact, Cadwallon is said to have been ambushed by Roger's men in Elfael.

Anyway, that's all the history we care about for our purposes. Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but the fact that medieval Wales has the Lord of Elfael getting kidnapped by his brother seems a bit on the nose.

In Welsh history, the Anarchy leaves three of Madog's sons dead and the survivors are on opposing feudal factions. The Lord of Elfael is kidnapped by his brother.

In Elden Ring, the death of Marika's son sparks the Shattering, turning every remaining demigod against each other. The Lord of Elphael is kidnapped by his brother.

Either Miyazaki and Germ are fucking Super Saiyan level Welsh history scholars, or this is just an absurd coincidence. Either way, it's cool.

(tiny sidenote: this part is DEFINITELY conspiracy, but isn't it funny that our kidnapped lord has a sibling who rules Maelienydd??? Doesn't that sound a bit like... Malenia??? Obviously Malenia doesn't do the kidnapping in ER, but the names line up a bit too well...)

Sorry Niko, this is way more than you bargained for.

#elden ring #wales #welsh history #medieval history #elden ring lore #miquella the unalloyed #mohg the omen #malenia blade of miquella #the shattering #queen marika the eternal

61 notes · View notes

tritoch · 3 months

Text

the damsel and the hero: some thoughts on minfilia and elidibus

I get why many people have (understandable, justified, legitimate) gripes to this day about how Minfilia was handled, but I think you don't have to change anything about how she's presented in game to arrive at a reading that lets her feel like more than a sacrificial victim. Within the game as it exists, Minfilia is already a rich and layered heroic character. She is not a damsel or a tragic hero but a victorious figure whose very exit from the narrative affirmed her own ideals, and she controlled her own destiny to the end. All you have to do to see this more clearly is read her against one of her underexamined foils: Elidibus.

Spoilers through the end of Pandemonium (6.4) below.

After 5.3 dropped, the devs mentioned that because they basically had to develop and pay off Elidibus in the space of a patch or two, they drew conscious parallels between him and other characters. The game highlights the G'raha parallels in the scene just before Seat of Sacrifice. There's also the parallels to Alphinaud that people have noticed in both the broad strokes of their characterization (idealistic short kings who believe in the power of rhetoric and diplomacy to achieve true and lasting understanding between people, whose mission to save the world is forever held in balance with their duty to save those they love) and in specific lines of dialogue.

But a far more direct narrative parallel than either character is Minfilia. Like Elidibus and Zodiark, Minfilia offered herself to Hydaelyn, serving as the Word of the Mother, only to be called forth once more when an intractable conflict between her allies threatened the stability of the world. Both were messianic young figures who nonetheless lead their older allies by both example and command. Both, seeing an opportunity to save not just their close friends but everyone, offered themselves up to a higher power in an act not of desperation but of deliberate will. You can even poetically gloss both Antecedent and Emissary as "The One That Goes Before."

The difference between the two of them is that at every turn, where Elidibus failed, Minfilia succeeded.

Elidibus returned to broker peace between the Hydaelyn faction and the Convocation. He failed, and the result was the Sundering. Minfilia, entreated by Urianger, came back to resolve the conflict between the Warriors of Darkness (Hydaelyn's champions and Warriors of Light themselves) and the Scions, and succeeded in saving two worlds by her actions.

But more than that, Elidibus provided us a picture of what it actually looks like to lose your identity to a primal like Zodiark. He'd lived a thousand thousand lifetimes as himself and he was so broken he could scarcely remember anything more than his name and his duty. He is one of the most explicitly tragic figures in all of FFXIV, and his final sendoff in 5.3 was an image of him plagued by unanswerable grief, which for him was a consequence of his failure: "The rains have ceased, and we have been graced with another beautiful day. But you are not here to see it."

Meanwhile, in the preceding expansion, you actually had the chance to spend multiple scenes with Minfilia and they're all extremely clear: unlike Ardbert or Elidibus, after 100 years this was still Minfilia, she remained resolute in her mission to see the First saved, but she had not forgotten the woman she was or the people she loved. In both 3.4 and 5.0, she went out as herself, head held high.

Speaking to the Warrior of Light before she departs for the First: "So many times have I watched you depart, my heart filled with worry, and ever did you return to me in triumph. Someday, when I have found a way to free this star from Her sorrow, I promise you I shall repay the favor."

Her final words to Ryne: "No one, however powerful, is immune to the whisperings of doubt and despair. Do not give in to them, but do not deny them either. Look instead to the light within, that you may continue to serve as a beacon to others."

In both instances, we were given a Minfilia who had not merely accepted her fate, but who had chosen it of her own volition and rose confidently to meet it, even imparting to her successor some final hard-won words of wisdom. And unlike Elidibus, she met her friends again at duty's end; they live, and they are happy, and she is content. She's already heroic, but the contrast to Elidibus (and Ardbert, and Emet) underlines the extent to which we should see her as extraordinarily driven, self-possessed and ultimately victorious on her own terms.

And in making the connection between Elidibus and Minfilia, we can begin to let Elidibus's characterization inform hers in retrospect.

Elidibus as we see him in 5.3 and earlier more specifically paralleled Minfilia as the Word of the Mother. Prior to that point in her arc, Minfilia's parallel was Themis, the pre-Zodiark Elidibus we glimpse briefly in the 5.3 Echo flashbacks and would only meet properly an expansion later in Pandemonium. The important thing about Themis for our purposes is that he was not some naive or too-young figurehead tricked into serving as Zodiark's Emissary. This was not a Crystal Braves situation for him. In Pandemonium, you can see how the kind of man Themis was very clearly lead to him choosing to be offered up to Zodiark. He took seriously the principles and duties of the Convocation. He valued dearly the lives of all people generally and his friends and comrades in particular, but held those truths in balance rather than prizing one. He was rational, clear-sighted, and decisive.

All of these, obviously, were true of Minfilia. And unlike Elidibus, whose ascension into Zodiark was forever somewhat obscured by the narrative, we were quite close to Minfilia before she became the Word of the Mother. We were quite familiar with her grief and guilt over surviving where Louisoix did not, her fear that she could neither fill his shoes as a leader nor serve in action as others did. She confided in us about the difficulty of her task in serving as the pillar of strength and guiding light for the rest of the Scions. She despaired alongside the player character at both the death of Moenbryda and the disastrous events of the Banquet. We know what she believed, what she valued, what she feared, what frustrated her. When she chose to depart for the First, it paid off very directly everything else the game has said about her through 3.4. Her arc was one of trepidation and doubt, and it ended in her ultimate victory and an astonishingly clean win that compromises none of her values.

Both Urianger and some fans raised the question of whether it was wrong for Urianger to ever offer her the choice of sacrificing herself for the First at all. Minfilia, for her part, got a chance to speak to this directly: "Have we not walked together in the light of the Crystal, and at Her bidding borne witness to the joys and sorrows of this land? Each and every one of you knows my heart. If this be the price I must pay, I pay it gladly." It did not matter whether she was given this particular decision or not. You could have offered her this dilemma in a thousand different permutations in a thousand thousand different scenarios. This was the choice she made. This was her choice, forever and always: to save everyone she can, in honor of those she loves.

Candidly, I understand critiques of Minfilia's writing far better than any praise it could ever receive. Nothing I've written above answers the clear and obvious truths that she is underwritten, that she does not get much to do or much screentime for a putatively important character, that it is very easy and common to read her death as a fridging, that she is unfairly dismissed by many due to her role in the narrative and the way she leaves it. Her sacrifice plays into specific gendered tropes that are disappointingly common to see. Those things all remain true.

But I think as we remember those things we should also keep in mind that she does still get a complete arc that is interesting and thematically rich in itself, and which puts her in some senses on the same level in the narrative as characters like Elidibus, Emet-Selch, and Ardbert.

Her sacrifice continues to inform the game. Her literal ghost returns to affirm the truth and value of her beliefs and the choices she made. Her guiding words ("For those we have lost, for those we can yet save") remain a mantra not just for the Scions but specifically for the player character. They are not an empty slogan. The phrase succinctly conveys an ideal of all-encompassing humanism and compassion arising from grief. The ideal those words represent is one of many organizing principles and responses to grief that the game examines (because a lot of FFXIV is about grief and how we respond to tragedy and change), it is Minfilia who develops and articulates it, and it is the one the heroes continue to align themselves with. It is the same principle that leads her to the First, and G'raha, and us too. It is Minfilia's ideals--Minfilia's heroism--which continue to serve as the model to which the Warrior of Light aspires, in the game's text.

Truthfully, my gripe is this. I think it is very easy to imagine a male Minfilia--same lines, same screentime, same blocking, same ass cut-out--appearing in place of the Minfilia we have. And I feel quite sincerely, and quite frustratedly, that if we had Malefilia, both the fans and detractors of that character would ascribe to him more thoughtfulness and more thematic depth than the Minfilia we already have, even though their lines would be exactly the same. We are so ready to see the damsel we expect in Minfilia that we are unwilling to see her as the hero she is in the text, and my hope is that by holding her up to her mirror, Elidibus, we may see her as a rich character in her own right all the more clearly.

#minfilia #ffxiv #elidibus #and notice that i didn't have to mention the gunbreaker once!#it's kind of interesting actually; she's absolutely crucial to his arc and he's not at all critical to hers #I don't think that means she got fridged for him necessarily i just think they draw on different archetypes and have different arcs #louisoix is ultimately more important to minfilia's growth and feelings of guilt than thancred ever is #in some ways i feel how i do about minfilia how i do about ardbert #would i have liked more time and fan attention on them? sure #they both could be emet or g'raha levels of popular the bones are all there for that kind of popularity #but instead they both have really thematically resonant arcs that the game won't fuck around with anymore. that's worth a lot!

19 notes · View notes

atopvisenyashill · 23 days

Note

Re your Bran ask. The amount of Key Five stans that think GRRM's intention is to make those five the Heroes of the Series and it's gonna be some found family-esque MCU dramedy where they all come together to defeat the others and then go on to plan Jon and Dany's wedding before having some double coronation among the cheering masses and everyone in Westeros falls at the feet of the Targ Regime is honestly fucking hilarious and baffling. This goes hand in hand with the Dany-Jon-Tyrion three heads of the dragon nonsense lmao.

They constantly praise GRRM for subverting tropes, but think he's going to play the Azor Ahai prophecy straight and think Dany and Jon will be unironic messianic figures/heroes. But for the other bitches and houses (especially Sansa or Aegon or Jaime, etc. who they hate) it's gonna be grimdark doom and gloom. Uhhh, yeah sure. Honestly these people should be happy these books never getting published because the meltdowns would be insane.

Imagine thinking GRRM isn't going to make these characters come into conflict with one another. It's not even about being an anti of any of these characters, it's about knowing basic storytelling narratives and what we've seen in the past five books, if you think there won't be angst, conflict, betrayals, etc. I genuinely don't know what to say.

the way this ask just got LOST in my inbox oh my god. anon if you're still around i'm so sorry lmao i do not know what happened.

but YES, i think i've used the word "naive" before as in, I think people are really banking on the sweet and not the bitter part of "bittersweet ending." I've seen people say that the later books are likely to be more "typical" or "straightforward" fantasy and it's like...why on earth would you think that? Everything he has said is pointing to continuing to do his shocking but well foreshadowed twists and turns and continuing to subvert tropes and expectations.

And yes, there's definitely like certain characters that the Key Five/Targ restoration/DJT Three Heads people will put all the "bitter" onand it's always so baffling and a lil telling that they just don't have the imagination to see a happier ending for Sansa, Bran, Brienne, Arianne, or Theon. I certainly have a tendency to dwell on the more "sweet" side of things for characters like Sansa, Arya, Brienne but a lot of that is because I'm just unsure of what the "bitter" aspect will be whereas I'm much more confident about the "bitter" aspect of characters like Dany, Bran, or Jon but I am fully confident that even with Sansa, Arya, and Brienne having some sort of power at the end, there will be a twinge of bitterness - I tend to go with "separated from their brothers" because that hits me right in heart but I'm sure George is gonna pull off something to make me insane and I will like it!! They will all have aspects of this one way or the other, not just a few characters! Sansa is not getting her head chopped off (WHY would this even happen. "Oh she committed treason" shut the hell your mouth she's not getting executed for Joffrey's death and she's not getting executed for *checks notes* giving a vague answer after she's pulled out of bed hungover and stressed out and asked to contradict the fucking crown prince can we be serious) because that's just objectively all bitter. Or that Aegon's death will be like, fine, no consequences, good even because he's just a pretender and nevermind that like, if the Blackfyre thing is true the kid's just been gaslit his entire life so how is any of this his fault?? It's why I waffle a lot on Dany's ending - I do think there will be something sweet for her there, if only for a moment, before her crown is taken from her but because that's so tied to politics, I'm a bit shaky on what it's going to be simply because the magical aspects make more sense to me.

I read fantasy not political thrillers or even a lot of historical fiction and I know I've bitched about all the "bran is annoying i hate magic" takes but at the same time that I find it annoying when the political fans will undersell the magic aspect or refuse to factor it into their theories, it's just as annoying when people insist that "the real enemy is the Others, politics is a distraction" it's not though! The political and the magical are intertwined and both of these aspects of the story will be subverted and played with in the end, it's not going to be a straightforward ending where Jon and Dany are both Azor Ahai and the Prince That Was Promised and this is indisputably a good thing and then they rule the seven kingdoms and it's all perfect. That is just not happening! We have it repeated over and over that magic and prophecy is tricky at best and untrustworthy at worst and Dany is spending all her time neck deep in prophecies and blood magic and yet this is somehow not going to have any affect on her psyche whatsoever and never mind that prophecy is what drove half her relatives crazy AND is actively driving Cersei, Stannis, and Melisandre insane. Arya has spent two full books in BRAAVOS of all places and yeah I DO in fact think that Arya living in the Free City known for rebelling against the Valyrians, serving the assassins guild that is heavily implied to have helped kick off the Doom of Valyria because of their hatred for slavery is in fact going to be relevant when she comes face to face with a Valyrian claimant who used blood magic and killed a slave in order to hatch her dragons.

Also cannot reiterate enough that George himself was deeply annoyed about the original outline getting leaked because his story has diverged massively from there and this "key five" thing is NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS STORY. It's no longer the story he's writing folks!!!

#anyways i agree it's dumb #i'm sticking to answering like two (2) serious asks every week so we'll get one more aldskjflkajds #and then that's IT #asks #anons #anti asoiaf fandom #anti key five #anti targ restoration

8 notes · View notes

silicacid · 5 months

Text

The Righteous Fury of the Israeli Left – Ilan Pappé

It is hard to write on anything that is not aimed at informing people of the genocide taking place and adding our voice to those who are doing all they can to stop it.

This notion is reinforced by such tragic estimations as, for example, a recent statement by the World Health Organization, that every ten minutes, a child is killed by the Israeli military in Gaza.

However, one can only draw some hope, in these dark times, from the huge and growing solidarity movement all over the world. This movement doesn’t cave in to scare tactics employed by governments and politicians, and is advocating for an immediate ceasefire.

As horrific as this chapter in the history of modern Palestine is, it is unfortunately not a game changer.

The basic constellation of powers – locally, regionally and globally – will remain the same.

This might be more transformative if the fight spreads to include an uprising in the West Bank and inside Israel, and the opening of fronts in the east and north of Israel. As this piece is being written, this has not yet unfolded.

The political elites of the Global North and some of the Global South will continue to provide international immunity for Israel’s criminal policies on the ground. Yet their civil societies will continue by and large to stand behind the Palestinian liberation movement.

On the ground, the military imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians – despite the surprise attack – will remain the same, and quite a few Arab states will eventually continue the normalization process.

Also, the struggle in Israel between the messianic settlers and the secular Jews fighting over their own versions of apartheid will continue.

And it is in this context, that I would like to focus on the way that liberal Zionists, mainly through the newspaper Haaretz – but also with the support of liberal Zionists around the world – loyally stand behind Israel’s actions. This incomprehensible logic is also reflected in the way western powers justify their immunity to any accountability regarding the genocide in Gaza.

One after the other, main spokespersons for the Zionist Left publish daily op-eds in Haaretz, where they give vent to their righteous fury against what they call the Global Left.

Their anger is worth analyzing, if only just for the purpose of reminding us once more why there is very little hope for change from within Israel.

Zionist Left in a Limbo

The Zionist Left in Israel is in a limbo.

On the one hand, it is ostracized by Jewish society as, at best, being naïve and, at worst, as being accused of betrayal. This is in reaction to their support for the two-state solution and the call to end the occupation. This alienation, of course, is now more acute after the events of October 7.

On the other hand, they are not considered, and rightly so, genuine allies of the Palestinian liberation struggle.

The Israeli Left’s biggest hope was that the Global Left, as they call it, would share the same language and attitude regarding the October 7 operation by Hamas; namely to be unconditionally behind Israel.

The Israeli Left was outraged that, in the eyes of the Global Left, the Hamas operation did not absolve Israel from its past criminal policies nor did it provide Israel with a green light for its genocidal policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

To their great surprise, the Global Left in its entirety was galvanized behind the call to “Stop the War” and “Free Palestine”, rather than echoing their government’s repeated response of “We support Israel’s right to defend itself”.

Israel and Colonialism

What is most illuminating – in the dialogue the liberal Zionists have with themselves on the pages of Haaretz – is their vicious attack on any one associating colonialism with Israel.

For some reason, they chose Judith Butler as the main culprit, which would leave many of us disappointed, as we devoted our careers to frame Zionism as settler colonialism, probably going back to the 1960s.

In fact, today, the framing of Zionism and Israel as a settler-colonial project is a consensual issue among all the leading scholars on the Middle East, and it is rejected as an accurate paradigm only among mainstream Israeli academia.

The Global Left is guilty of two ‘sins’, in the eyes of the liberal Zionists: one, it refers to Israel as a settler-colonial state and two, it provides a context for the Hamas attack on October 7.

No Middle Ground

This self-righteousness and fury is not just typical to the Zionist Left. You will hear it from actors in Hollywood, journalists and mainstream academics in the Global North, who suddenly have to take a stand: Are they with the liberation movement or against it?

There is no middle ground anymore. There is no way of supporting the liberal occupier, the progressive ethnic cleanser and the leftist genocider.

The attempt to frame the stance I am calling for as racist or antisemitic will not hold water. It is a matter of where you would see yourself at this critical juncture in history, and how you value your own sense of self respect.

At least, a small ray of hope appeared on my horizon last week. A high school history teacher in Israel was arrested on November 10 for mentioning the context of the Hamas attacks on social media.

Unlike the lost souls on the liberal Israeli Left, this brave teacher reminded his students of the atrocities Israel perpetrated over the years, the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves, and the need for Israel to respect international law.

Such a view is a crime in Israel and, now, the British Home Office wishes to make it a crime in Britain as well.

This is indeed the time for people with moral courage, as the struggle for freedom and liberation will be a long one and needs such allies to support it.

#palestine #free palestine

13 notes · View notes

creature-wizard · 1 year

Text

K so basically, one reason why "Christians stole everything from pagans" is hyperreductive is, early Christianity developed in a world with a lot going on.

First you gotta understand, for a lot of people the world functionally revolved around the Mediterranean. And you had a lot of fuckers in this region making empires. And since ancient Palestine bordered the east side of the Mediterranean, you had a number of empires looking at it and going, "It's free real estate~" Here's a place you can put port cities or whatever. Sometimes their imperial rulers let them do whatever. Sometimes you have people like Antiochus IV, who tried to forcibly assimilate Jews into Greek culture.

Meanwhile a few towns over from Jerusalem you have Alexandria, a bustling metropolis where locals are making a point of collecting all the knowledge. Everybody from all over goes to Alexandria to learn and share knowledge. Jews also make up a sizeable portion of the city's population. Initiatory mystery religions are also in vogue. You have Greeks and Romans making mystery religions out of deities like Isis, Mithras, and Cybele. You also have this developing notion that the world as we know it is a kind of prison to be escaped. (This relates to beliefs we would now classify as 'gnostic.') And then of course you have messianic beliefs emerging and developing within Judaism. This is a world in which people are being formally and casually exposed to all kinds of ideas and internalizing them. Even people who aren't really all that well-educated or well-traveled are going to be coming across some of this. And then many of these people are going to become part of all kinds of fascinating spiritual movements. Some of them look very much like Christianity as we know it; others less so. And even early Christianity was highly diverse, with people fitting Jesus into a number of different frameworks and worldviews they already accepted as true, and interpreting his life and mission in ways that made sense to them.

Think of it as being a little like trying to write a story. No matter what you write, your work is going to resemble the work of your contemporaries if only because you all live in a world where where you've picked up many similar ideas. You will share many fundamental assumptions about the way the world works. You'll be aware of many of the same pop culture tropes, the same recent scientific discoveries, the same recent political conflicts, etc. etc. And if you say to yourself, "Well, what if I subvert all that?" I promise you, there is someone out there also subverting it the exact same way you are, because contrarians also think alike.

If you're interested in a very grounded, non-religious, non-conspiratorial look at how early Christianity developed, I recommend Bart D. Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.

#history #christianity #early christianity

139 notes · View notes

givemearmstopraywith · 4 months

Note

hey tthank you so much for being vocal about palestine! it's been so offputting seeing other theologians and the vague jesus side of tumblr be so quiet about this. i know Everyone should be talking about this but i feel it especially disappointing in their cases

hey!! this is really kind of you- i honestly feel like i haven't been saying enough (there isn't actually an "enough" as long as palestine is not free). i can't speak to the experiences and feelings of other bloggers in whatever jesus community we've created on this website but at least in my own experience up until i was in my late teens i had been in christian communities where you weren't given a choice on how to feel about palestine. i don't think there's an excuse for silence, or for passive compliance, but i do empathize with the difficulty of undoing your thinking on a topic that you've been essentially brainwashed into believing, especially when that is tied up with your religious beliefs and convictions (i have a very militantly zionist mother, unfortunately, so i think about this a lot). when i was growing up, and i'm sure it's worse now, it was just a given that as a christian, or someone in a christian space you would be pro-israel. this was the early to mid 2000s, so that came automatically with certain implications about islam, palestine, and the arab world in general that was anchored in fearmongering and very islamophobic. it's basically brainwashing. western christianity and zionism are deeply and inherently bound up- they historically always have been, with christian zionism directly precluding the emergence of fundamentalist evangelical movements in the 19th century. it's as equally bound up in antisemitism, and now with islamophobia, because christianity lends itself to the propagation of political goals and therefore with genocide (there's a reason why part of nazism's platform was the concept that hitler was "finishing" martin luther's reformation). erich fromm writes about this in his paper "the dogma of christ" which i highly recommend- how the messianic movement of jesus became warped by hellenistic greeks and romans so that rather than empowering the working class, it disempowered them to become compliant in their own domination by bonding earthly and heavenly authorities as singular. christianity as a religious ideology could never be used to justify being pro-israel or being quiet about genocide, but as a political ideology it's actually really malleable to support both of those things, and to staying quiet about them.

i think people have a hard time a) wrapping their minds around the idea that christianity is compliant in something that in theory it should be against, like genocide, and b) that a genocide is happening at all. but ultimately, having a hard time with intellectualizing something is a privilege that only the privileged can have: intellectualizing is a privilege. but ultimately this isn't a commentary on the community on tumblr so much as it is on conversations i've had with christians over the last few months, and the point is that none of this matters, because the experience of westerners doesn't matter in the scheme of palestinian genocide, or any genocide. we love to make conversations about ourselves and how hard it is for us to watch, and it does not fucking matter. being vocal is not even the bare minimum, it's just being a decent person. the bar is on the floor and every time i see footage of parents mourning their children i think about my own family who lost children during the holocaust and i feel so enraged because we already went through this once, in living memory, and people were incredibly passive then too, and it frustrates me because over and over agendas and politics and personal feelings wind up mattering more than the most vulnerable people, the people who are actively suffering. the fact that there are sides to take is baffling to me. anyway thank you for this skdfhgdfg

#replies

12 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 9 months

Text

Jerusalem, right now.

[Eric Alterman]

* * * * *

We're now seeing the final hours of Israeli democracy. Yuval Noah Harari:

To understand events in Israel, there is just one question to ask: what limits the power of the government? Robust democracies rely on a whole system of checks and balances. But Israel lacks a constitution, an upper house in the parliament, a federal structure or any other check on government power except one — the Supreme Court.

This Monday, the Netanyahu government plans to pass the first in a series of laws that will neutralise the Supreme Court. If it succeeds, it will gain unlimited power. Members of the Netanyahu coalition have already disclosed their intention to pass laws and pursue policies that will discriminate against Arab people, women, LGBTQ people and secular people. Once the Supreme Court is out of the way, nothing will remain to stop them. In such a situation, the government could also rig future elections, for example by banning Arab parties from participating — a step previously proposed by coalition members. Israel will still hold elections but these will become an authoritarian ritual rather than a free democratic contest. Government members openly brag about their intentions. They explain that since they won Israel’s last elections, it means they can now do anything they want. Like other authoritarian forces, the Israeli government doesn’t understand what democracy means. It thinks it is a dictatorship of the majority, and that those who win democratic elections are thereby granted unlimited power. In recent months I have talked with many Netanyahu supporters, and they genuinely believe that any restraint on an elected government is undemocratic. “What do you mean we cannot take away people’s basic liberties?” they say. “But we won the elections! That means we can do anything we want!” In fact, democracy means freedom and equality for all. Democracy is a system that guarantees all people certain liberties, which even the majority cannot take away.

The establishment of a dictatorship in Israel would have grave consequences not only for Israeli citizens. The ruling coalition is led by messianic religious zealots who believe in an ideology of Jewish supremacy. This calls to annex the occupied Palestinian territories to Israel without granting citizenship to the Palestinians, and ultimately dreams of destroying the al-Aqsa mosque compound — one of Islam’s holiest sites — and building a new Jewish temple in its stead. Jewish supremacy is not a fringe notion. It is represented in the coalition by the Jewish Power party and the Religious Zionism party. Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich (from the latter) has recently called to wipe out an entire Palestinian town in retaliation for the killing of two Jewish settlers.

Men like Smotrich now command one of the most formidable military machines in the world, armed with nuclear and advanced cyber weapons. For decades the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has waged a campaign to stop Iran from going nuclear, warning the world about the dangers posed by a fundamentalist regime with nuclear capabilities. Now Netanyahu is establishing exactly such a regime in Israel.

This could set fire to the entire Middle East, with consequences that will reverberate far beyond the region. It would be incredibly stupid of Israel to do something like that, but as we learnt from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we should never underestimate human stupidity. It is one of the most powerful forces in history. The good news is that in recent months a powerful resistance movement has emerged to save Israeli democracy. Rejecting the ideology of Jewish supremacy, and connecting to ancient traditions of Jewish tolerance, hundreds of thousands of Israelis are demonstrating, protesting and resisting in every nonviolent way we know. Since Friday, more than 10,000 army reservists — including hundreds of air force pilots, cyber warfare experts, and commanders of elite units — have publicly declared that they will not serve a dictatorship, and that they will therefore suspend their service if the judiciary overhaul continues. By this Tuesday, the famed Israeli air force — which relies to a large extent on reservists — may be partially grounded.

To appreciate the magnitude of this step, it should be recalled that military service is a sacred duty for many Israelis. In a country that emerged from the ashes of the Holocaust, and that has faced existential threats for decades, the army has always been off-limits in political controversies. This is no longer the case. Former chiefs of the Israeli army, air force and security services have publicly called on soldiers to stop serving. Veterans of Israel’s many wars are saying this is the most important struggle of their lives. The Netanyahu government tries to depict this as a military coup, but it is the exact opposite. Israeli soldiers aren’t taking up arms to oppose the government — they are laying them down. They explain that their contract is with the Israeli democracy, and once democracy expires — so does their contract.

The feeling that the social contract has been broken has also led universities, labour unions, high-tech companies and other private businesses to threaten more strikes if the government continues with its antidemocratic power-grab. Israelis understand the potential damage to our country. As the so-called Start-Up Nation is closing down, investors around the world are pulling money out. The internal damage is even greater. Fear and hatred now dominate relations between different sections of society, as the social contract is ripped to shreds. Government members call the demonstrators and army reservists “traitors”, and demand that force be used to crush the opposition. Israelis worry that we might be days away from civil war. But the hundreds of thousands of us protesting in the streets feel we have no choice. It is our duty to ourselves, to Jewish tradition and to humanity to prevent the rise of a Jewish supremacist dictatorship. We are standing in the streets, because we cannot do otherwise if we are to save Israeli democracy.

[Israeli Democracy Is Fighting For Its Life :: Financial Times]

#Middle East #political #Eric Alterman #Jerusalem #Israel #democracy #democratic rule #the social contract

14 notes · View notes

hapalopus · 2 years

Text

Just watched a chat between James Cameron and Denis Villeneuve (the director of Dune) and here are some interesting snippets from JimCam:

As the story evolves, part of Avatar will take place on Earth

The 3rd movie is way too long right now and JimCam is struggling to cut it down

Movies 2 and 3 have basically been produced like a 6 hour miniseries. They were filmed 100% concurrently. A few scenes from the 4th movie were also filmed at the same time

The child actors are "allowed to age 6 years in the middle of the story on page 25 of movie 4." Completely unrelated reminder that it takes a little over 5 years for the ISV to travel from Pandora to Earth :3c

James Cameron mentioned that one of the advantages single movies have over movie franchises is that the audience can't be sure if the characters are all gonna survive. When movies are serialized with no clear end in sight, the audience knows the characters are gonna survive because the characters have to be in the next movies... which I agree with considering I felt absolutely nothing at the death in Spider-man: No Way Home because I was so sure they would just undo it

"I'm not afraid [of the advent of streaming services], I like change. I'm a child of the 60s, I like it when things are chaotic. But, uh, what we can see is an expanded form of cinema. I wanna do a movie that's 6 hours long and 2½ hours long at the same time - the same movie. And you can stream it for 6 hours or you can go and have a more condensed, immersive version of that experience in a movie theater. Same movie - just one is the novel and one is the movie."

They spent 6 years developing simulcam technology for the first Avatar so they could film the actors directly in the CG environment. Part of the reason the sequels were so long underway is just that simulcam technology wasn't good enough for JimCam's vision and all the underwater stuff he wanted

The sequels have a "messianic throughline" that's partially inspired by Dune. There's a scientific explanation for every single thing that happens, but you don't have to accept the events in a secular way. You can choose to believe in spiritual explanations instead/in tandem with the scientific facts.

#avatar #avatar 2009 #james cameron's avatar #avatar 2 #the way of water #avatar 2 spoilers

345 notes · View notes

linkspooky · 10 months

Text

CHOUJIN X, CHAPTER 37 THOUGHTS

Catching up on my Choujin X analysis, this chapter reveals a lot of new information about the villains of the series, as well as reuniting Azuma and Tokio. The reveal at the end of the chapter really solidifies the parallels between the two brothers Sandek and Batista, and the childhood best friends Tokio and Azuma. Let’s continue underneath the cut.

1. The Chosen One and the Unchosen One

Prophecy, larger than life myths, and messianic figures is becoming a big theme in Choujin X as of late. It’s been in the background for awhile, Tokio is deeply disturbed by the doomsday vision he has of the future soon after Azuma obtains his powers for example. However, the revelation of the cult of Zora being led by a choujin who can literally see the future, and Yamato Mori possessing their own prophet who was Zora’s successor / replacement brings this prophecy element to the foreground.

Prophets obviously have mythological and religious connotations, the idea that someone is receiving visions from god to lead people to an ideal future is a common type of character that appears again and again in christian mythology. Which is interesting because Choujin X is a primarily nihilist work in its themes. Nihilism is notably anti-christian, with Nietzsche famously referring to it as the opium of the masses.

Choujin X seems to be playing with the idea of whether or not these doomsday prophecies are even real, there is one prophet who’s fanatically convinced that this doomsday is going to happen and she has to do whatever she can to stop it. The other prophet is saying the first prophet lost her mind, and her visions are no longer accurate.

Prophets and prophecy also play a big role in mythology as well. Everyone knows the story of “the chosen one” the hero preordained by fate to save the day. The title of the series comes from the fact that once in ever generation or so, a choujin of such immense power will appear that they can reshape the world. Basically serving as what would be the chosen one in any traditional story.

Zora is also frantically searching for a chosen one, to pass on her powers too, because she believes that this is the only way to eliminate a future coming threat. Zora’s also the literal leader of a cult, which connects her character to even more religious symbolism. Her mutated transformation is a giant set of hands that are clasped together and prayer, and when she’s in her human form she looks like a classic biblical angel.

There’s a lot of imagery in choujin x surrounding the idea of a “chosen one”, and another big mystery of the series is which one of our main characters is going to be “X”. The two most obvious compettitors are Azuma and Tokio, who both became Choujin together in the first issue of the series (crossing their arms in an x to do so) but also are rivals with one another. Azuma and Tokio are basically fighting over being the chosen one.

Azuma clearly wants to be a chosen one since he’s aspired to be a hero or at least an enforcer of justice like his policeman father since childhood. When Zora appears and makes her suspicious offer of bestowing a mark on one of them, Azuma basically asks for her to choose him. Azuma wants to be the chosen one, but so far he’s denied the role as the story leans Tokio. Tokio is the one favored by Zora who tries to put her mark on him, after saying that it won’t work with Azuma. Tokio gets his powers first, and Azuma only gets his powers much later to the point where it becomes an insecurity for Azuma. Tokio despite being given a set of powers more favored by Zora, is shiftless and irresponsible and does not seem to think of himself as any type of hero.

There’s also a doomsday prophecy specifically viewed by Tokio, probably using his connection to Zora’s powers where Azuma appears in front of him and blames him for the destroyed Yamato he saw in his dream.

All of this connects to the twist reveal we see at the end of the chapter, in regards to Sandek and Batista’s backstories. These two have already been set up as a parallel to Tokio and Azuma. Batista in particular, shows a clear interest in Azuma and even tries to take him from Zora. Batista appears to watch Azuma as he’s crying over the drowned hyena. Sandek even compares Azuma to his brother at one point. One more parallel between them, soon after their first real fight Azuma asks Tokio if he’d be able to kill him if he were to do something bad or lose control again.

Both the doomsday prophecy and this scene in particular parallel the reveal from Sandek and Batista’s backstory. That after training and working together, at some unspecificied time in the past, the prophet in charge of Yamato Mori told Sandek to kill his own younger brother. We’re not told the reason, but I’m assuming it was to avert some future disaster. Considering how horribly injured Batista’s face is, it’s very likely Sandek went through with it, and attempted to kill his brother only for Batista to survive.

This could be where Ishida is trying to deconstruct the story’s idea of prophecies and seeing the future, after all if Sandek tried to kill his brother to prevent a future disaster then he may have given his brother the motivation to do the very thing he was trying to avert. After all, people get kind of angry when their brother tries to kill them.

In general there’s also a law and order theme in the manga, there’s yamato mori who regulates the order and tries to subdue the choujins. Then there’s the chouin of the cult of Zora, who seem to be using Zora to create a refuge for people who can’t belong in society.

There’s a lot of foreshadowing that indicates that Azuma might just be pushed to join the chaos side of things (which is ironic because he’s the son of a policeman and the biggest supporter of law), after all number one Sandek says his biggest flaw is a lack of self control, number two we’re given exposition on how chaos is the natural state of Choujin while Azuma is entering his natural berserker state.

So the parallel between Batista and Azuma may just indicate that Azuma is eventually going to be pushed to the other side of the conflict, rather than staying within Yamato Mori who represent order.

That Tokio and Azuma may become another pair of friends / brothers who trained together, turning against one another. It doesn’t help that Azuma and Tokio’s relationship has soured since Tokio left him without a word. With a silent bikeride home indicating their complete lack of communication with one another.

Unfortunately I can’t see the future so these are all just guesses, but as the strained and conflict heavy friendship is my favorite part of the series, I’m really looking forward to where things go between these two.

#azuma higashi #tokio tsunashi #choujin x #choujin x meta #cx meta #choujin x analysis #ishida sui #choujin x 37

18 notes · View notes

germiyahu · 4 months

Note

Hi! Fellow prospective convert here, I’ve been studying for two years but haven’t gathered the courage to even ask to attend shabbat at a local shul. Can I ask what “intro” course you’re taking? It sounds like a good way to be learning while also being in contact with a rabbi and I’m just curious 💜

Hello! I hope you don't mind if I publish this. The course I was looking into was a Zoom course offered by the American Jewish University (almost $400), I presume it's in California. The Rabbi strongly implied that I would be learning at her shul, but I don't know the details yet, we haven't met quite yet. This specific course does not match you with a Rabbi, but does expect you to find one if you want to convert and not just learn about Judaism.

I found another course that costs nearly $4000, and I was like "Em..." however you pay monthly. That one has the explicit requirement of contacting a Rabbi, attending services at their shul, doing bimonthly check ins, the works. You won't graduate the program if you don't do these things. I want to apply that same standard to any and every other course/program I take.

So basically I just looked for synagogues that were within range of me, and by some miracle I found a "new" one that I had missed in all my previous searches. It would be a quick drive to Friday evening services after work and it claims to be "nondenominational," but there were zero Messianic red flags, so it seems pretty perfect for me. I just plucked up the courage and emailed them using the address they provided and one business day later the Rabbi herself emailed me back from her own address.

She told me straight up she expects me to attend services and study with her and her congregation, for about a year. That was good for me, I was hoping she wouldn't go easy on me and have me do things the thorough way. So really, you just have to go for it. But you have to research the logistics first. How much money can you spend, travel, schedule, what kind of minhag it is. I'm trying to go into this without expectations, but I'm sure whatever Rabbi you'll find will appreciate how much you've been studying already.

Good luck!

#jewish convert #jew by choice #gerim

5 notes · View notes

will-o-the-witch · 2 years

Note

messianic "jew" mention got me thinking (im NOT n never will be theyr freaks) im basically wonderin if its like. possible 2 do christianity in a jewish way? like im drawn 2 aspects of judaism (questioning/wrestling with g-d, kosher rituals, the politics usually line up better), but also some aspects of christianity (Jesus himself mainly, the anti-military of early christianity). (im not either right now) in ur opinion, if someones Jesus-ing should they just not touch anything remotely jewish?

Your diet is your choice and your relationship with the Divine is your own, but I feel like what you've described doesn't inherently have to be Jewish. Like you can question Gd as a Christian if that's your vibe and nobody is going to make you eat pork (though I'd ask why keeping kosher specifically was important to you rather than just eating mindfully.)

I'd suggest looking at why these aspects are valuable to you; are you doing things because that's how you naturally approach faith and the general concepts just happen to align with Jewish values, or are you adopting specifically Jew Stuff because you like the way we do it and want to "do Christianity in a Jewish way?" (The first one is normal and fine, the second is fetishizing and offensive.)

A lot of people get closer to the Divine through mindfulness practices, stillness, gratitude, meditation, being in nature, etc. but it doesn't mean they're all doing stuff in a Buddhist way. Those concepts and values are just applicaple across different faiths.

As for specific Jewish rituals and religious items, Jewish prayers, etc. that's a hard no.

67 notes · View notes

gayleviticus · 4 months

Text

I think anytime people want to talk about how [group] isn't really [religion]' its quite difficult bc there are at least four different possible levels this conversation could be happening on: (this can probably apply more broadly but I'm most familiar w Christian ones so I use those examples)

Linguistic - "I believe in Christ so I'm a Christian". basic and to the point, you can argue w it by pointing out Muslims also believe in Jesus (and then counterargue he's not the cornerstone of Islam)

Sociological - "even if it diverges from Christian orthodoxy, LDS self identifies as Christian and emerged from the Christian tradition so it is Christian"

Normative theological: "JWs aren't real Christians because they reject the Trinity and believe in falsehood' (or, for that matter "JWs are the only true Christians because we're the only ones who accept the truth")

Community: I don't think people tend to explicitly verbalise this one as much, but it sortve like "we just don't believe the same thing as that group and don't have anything in common."

And I think where it gets especially tricky is the way that 3 and 4 can become quite difficult to unentangle.

let's say there was some kind of gnostic Christian church that believed the God of the Old Testament is a sadistic monster (this might exist but i dont know of any; i pick this as a pure hypothetical). when they self identify as Christian, I would concede 1 and 2, disagree on 3 but accept everyone thinks they're right in life so what are you gonna do about it, but where I would feel uncomfortable is when we get to 4.

I can accept someone might have an interpretation of Christianity that thinks my God is an evil demiurge - but I'm going to feel like we really don't have a shared faith in common. We may both use the language of Christian, but what we mean by that is very different and doesn't necessarily imply unity. That doesn't need to be a bad thing at all, unless you think being of the same religion is necessarily to truly respect others as human beings; if I can respect Islam and Judaism, I can respect Gnostic Christianity as a different faith from mine. and so a lot of people think 'hmm, well my faith is so different from X that it feels wrong for both of us to call ourselves Christians.'

but 4) is more than just a binary of exclusion/inclusion; it's about what actually marks a community in common, and I think that's more, not less pertinent in a society where we understand other people don't have to be your coreligionist to be someone you can respect and love and be in community and solidarity with in other ways.

and its also difficult because people can feel like they have different parts of their faith that are fundamental from others and not understand why there seems to be this one way gap (which can include the liberal not understanding why the conservative cares so much about biblical inerrancy, but it can also include, say, the evangelical not understanding why Jewish people won't accept Messianics). and so debate over who is a true [believer] often just becomes a proxy for 'is this someone with whom my faith is a unifier or a differentiator'. which is then quite unhelpful when someone tries to argue against someone operating on this level with a sociological argument.

#religion #christian #christianity

4 notes · View notes