true poverty

why zuko had to screw up at ba sing se

[ or: all hail cognitive-dissonance-lord zuko ]

When I watched Avatar for the first time, I did it totally out of order. The first episode I saw was Cave of Two Lovers, I watched the finale before Western Air Temple, and the first episode was one of the last I saw. I was mostly at the mercy of the whims of Nickelodeon’s Saturday morning marathons.

So I knew from almost the beginning that Zuko (spoiler alert) was going to grow his hair out and switch sides, and I knew it happened mid book 3. Watching Crossroads of Destiny, then, was a totally different experience. When Azula gave him the ultimatum, I knew which side he’d choose, and I was so frustrated and angry. I wanted Zuko to be good already, dammit. After all of the development and the “metamorphosis” he’d gone through only a few episodes ago, I was convinced that his mistake in CoD was in there purely for shock value (and for me, knowing how it ended, I didn’t even get to experience that) and to draw out the angst. I was bitter because I felt cheated out of a half season’s worth of Redeemed!Zuko hanging out with the gaang. (It’s also worth mentioning that I was like 12.)

But now I know I was completely wrong. Whenever I try to think about what would have happened with the rest of the series if Zuko had sided with Aang instead of Azula, it just doesn’t work. Zuko needed to make that mistake in the crystal catacombs, and I can’t imagine his story without it.

Zuko developed a lot as a character through his travels in the Earth Kingdom up until his moment of truth under Ba Sing Se. He was rejected by his father, who sent Azula to imprison him and put out wanted posters that permitted anyone to kill him on site. He experienced true poverty and saw first-hand the horrible effects of the Fire Nation’s war. He’s been on his own. And, at last, he even gave up his search for the Avatar for a little while– not because realized it was wrong, but because realized it was hopeless.

But let’s think for a minute about what it would have meant for Zuko to side with the Avatar and fight Azula in Ba Sing Se. It would have made him a traitor. To side with Aang would be not only to acknowledge that the war was unjust and the fire nation the oppressor, but it would also be to actively fight against his own nation. And, implicitly, it would mean acknowledging the truth that his father did not and would never want him back. Zuko, at the end of Book 2, has had many experiences that point directly to these truths and in light of them, Zuko siding with the Avatar doesn’t seem that far-fetched. In fact, it was what a lot of people watching for the first time expected.

Here’s the catch: even though Zuko had had all of these experiences, he hadn’t yet processed them and fit them all together to form their logical conclusions. Sure, he knew the horrors the Fire Nation had committed in its war for prosperity, but he still wouldn’t have denounced his nation ; he knew that his father had declared him a traitor and sent Azula to lock him up, but he wouldn’t have admitted at that point that his father would never love or accept him and preferred him dead. Zuko pre-redemption is the king of cognitive dissonance. He has a lot at stake with the processing of all of these experiences—basically, his entire world-view. Somewhere in his mind, he knew that trying to reconcile what he saw in the Earth Kingdom with his current world-view could easily bring everything he knew and considered sacred crashing down around him. And there was one thing in particular that Zuko would protect at all costs; one truth that has been at the center of his world and forefront of his mind ever since his banishment — that he had a home to return to and there was a place for him within it, that if he just didn’t screw up for once everything would be okay again. This is the one thing Zuko clings to throughout his entire banishment, despite all the evidence and logic to the contrary, because if this one truth falls away what does he have left?

Keep reading

Buddhism: The Hard Questions

  • So, if Buddhism teaches us that the key to enlightenment is the cessation of desire and full acceptance of inevitable change including the fact that everything we hold dear will be taken from us then is this not the same as saying the key is not to want anything and not to care what happens?
  • Is the Buddhist path a path to happiness or just numbness? 
  • Is the Buddhist path something that can be achieved by regular people or is it just another one of those impossible religious standards that nobody can possibly meet except the rare saint?
  • How can the realization that all will be lost possibly make anybody happy much less enlightened?
  • Is enlightenment any more real than heaven or hell?
  • Why would anybody want to live without desires? Isn’t love a desire?
  • Does acceptance that we are going to lose everything make these losses less painful? How would this lessen my pain if my beloved dog was run over?
  • We all know we are going to die. Everybody dies. We have no choice but to accept this fact but does this acceptance in any way make death less frightening? According to Buddhism, it should but it doesn’t does it?
  • Where is the comfort in Buddhism? At least the Abrahamic religions hold out the remote possibility of immortality. Isn’t this far more comforting?
  • If Buddhism is a peaceful religion then why were the Buddhist nations of  China, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, and others so militant historically?
  • Why do Buddhists put little kids into monasteries before they even have a basic understanding of the world much less Buddhism?
  • Aren’t Buddhist monks living useless and selfish lives by living on charity so they can reach enlightenment?
  • If Buddhism is non-materialistic then why are people in Buddhist countries like China, Japan, and South Korea so materialistic?
  • Isn’t reincarnation just a way of keeping the poor people in their place by making them focus on the next world just like Christianity does?
  • Didn’t the Buddha abandon his family including his newborn son and leave his elderly father alone to eventually lose his kingdom?
  • Didn’t the Buddha refuse to ordain women at first? Aren’t women still second class citizens in most Buddhist traditions?
  • If the Buddha was just a teacher then why are there so many miracle stories associated with him? Why do people pray to his idols?
  • How is just sitting quietly going to accomplish anything? In fact isn’t it true that most of the world’s Buddhists don’t meditate?
  • Isn’t possible that the Buddha only wanted people to be compassionate and kind and the rest of the stuff is just window dressing?
  • Isn’t it true that the discourses attributed to the Buddha are often vague and even contradictory? Example: the Buddha instructs us not to believe something just because he or another teacher says it but in another discourse identifies doubt as a hindrance to the attainment of enlightenment. Is this correct?
  • Isn’t it true that Buddhism romanticizes poverty? How is this a good thing?
When we are shown scenes of starving children in Africa, with a call for us to do something to help them, the underlying ideological message is something like: “Don’t think, don’t politicize, forget about the true causes of their poverty, just act, contribute money, so that you will not have to think
—  Slavoj Žižek

The 13th, a new documentary by Selma director Ava DuVernay, is now streaming on Netflix. It’s about the loophole in the 13th amendment, which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude, "except as a punishment for crime.” In the film we hear from activist Angela Davis, Sen. Cory Booker, The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander and Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson, on the subject of mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex. 

Bryan Stevenson  spoke to Fresh Air in 2014 about justice in the 21st century: 

“The new statistic from the Justice [Department] is really disheartening: The Justice Department is now reporting that 1 in 3 black male babies born in the 21st century is expected to go to jail or prison. The statistic for Latino boys is 1 in 6. That statistic was not true in the 20th century. It was not true in the 19th century. It didn’t become true until the 21st century. That means we have enormous work to do to improve our commitment to [a] society that is not haunted and undermined and corrupted by our legacy of racial inequality.

The same is true for poverty. We’ve got a bigger population of poor people in this country than we’ve had in a generation, and we’ve got to take on the challenges of poverty. … For me, that means taking it on in a different way. I’m not persuaded that the opposite of poverty is wealth — I’ve come to believe … that the opposite of poverty is justice.” 

RANT: Rumplestiltskin and all Anti-heroes

It’s a bit late (6 seasons late) but I recently became a fan of “Once Upon A Time” and marathoned essentially the entire thing. Unfortunately, as I’m sure loyal fans already know, the majority of the cast, with the exception of 3, are not to come back for the 7th season. As a new fan, this feels jarring for me too because I just got to understand the characters and dynamics of the series, only to learn that the structure will completely change for it’s season return.

A part of me feels miffed but there’s another part that has thought this through and thinks that perhaps this is a much warrented change needed for the series. That’s the part I want to discuss; again, I binged through 6 seasons and watched a ton of clips on Youtube but it wasn’t long before I caught on to a pattern that I suddenly realized is in a lot more shows/movies than I realized.

First, I want to point out that without a doubt, my favorite character is Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold. Particularly in the earlier seasons (1-3) he’s fantastic! By fairytale standards, Rumple is certainly a villian and even in “The Land without Magic,” he’s seen to be pretty messed up. But as the series goes on, we see that this “monster” was once a human man with fears and dreams as real as the neighbors. Not only that, but we also learn that Rumple was meant to be/do great things (*cough* if it wasn’t for the Black Fairy *cough*). Based off of that information, instead of villian, I think it’s fair to say that Rumple is an Anti-hero.

BUT! There in lies the problem! Ever notice how ridiculous anti-heroes are treated? In the series, Rumplesiltskin, known for making deals, is constantly approached by numerous main characters for help. They make a deal, KNOWING the kind of man Rumple is, and then when things get serious/tough, they either back out of the deal or backstab Rumple for their own gain. Prime example is Cinderella! For those that don’t know *SPOILER!* she, on her own, makes a deal w/Rumple, promising whatever he asks for, in return for getting her out of poverty. True to his word, she ends up rich and marries a prince. He asks for her 1st born child as the price, so she rats him out, “tricks” him, and gets him arrested. The entire time, Cinderella is praised for…something(?) but Rumple is called a scumbag for deceiving the poor girl (NOT deception though, she signed a CONTRACT!!). What’s worse is that the same people (Prince Charming!) that call him names, later come back asking to MAKE. A. DEAL. for help.

Okay, but all that could be done on purpose though to invoke drama in the show, right? Well here’s the thing, I’d go along with that, if the “good guys” were written in a way that showcased they understand the consequences of their actions–that they are aware of what they’re dong and they respect the villian that’s helping them, even if the reason for the help is selfish. Take for example how Belle, from the get-go, declares that she loves Rumple so much that she’ll never abandon him. She confesses this several times through the span of several seasons. Except whenever Rumple does something selfish or angers one of the good guys, she backtracks and grows distant, even going as far as dumping him (they broke up like 3-4 times -_-). The problem isn’t just that she’s playing an emotional tug-of-war with Rumple, it’s that at some point, she never takes a moment to understand him and why he does what he does/is what he is.
It’s sad because she ends up learning everything about his past, yet still villianizes him.

This is what Rumple’s life is like through the series (in case anyone’s confused):
1. Abandoned by mother because she didn’t want to give up her powers
2. Abandoned by father when he was a child because he wanted eternal youth
3. Grew up as the “son of a coward” and was called one himself by community
4. Married Milah, who later left him for another man and who confesssed she never even loved him (also she abused him frequently during their marriage)
5. Lost his son due to PTSD and a moment of fear of the unknown
6. After becoming the Dark One, had a lover named Cora, who abandoned him for power, but also because “he was her weakness,” as she puts it -_-
7. Meets Belle and has the ups and downs with her (through seasons 2-6).
8. Learns that his son is alive and well but is hated by him
9. Learns that ex-lover did love him but she’s too power hungry and later tries to kill him.
10. Discovers his father is Peter Pan and ends up killing him (killing himself in the process)
11. Is brought back to life only to become a slave to Zelena (who later kills Neal!)
12. Has to deal with Hades who wants Rumple’s 2nd (unborn) child
13. Discovers his mother is the Black Fairy and ends up killing her too!

Belle knows most–if not all–of this and yet she still blames Rumple for him being, well, himself. Just looking at what he’s been through, how can she expect Rumple to be a good guy when nothing he’s previously experienced gave him indication that he should even try. And instead of helping him or sticking with him when shit got real tough, she abandoned him too; acting no different than anyone else!

This all brings me back to my original point; characters made as the anti-heroes get the short end of the stick. I’ve seen this in shows like House, M.D., Sherlock Holmes, 24 (Jack Bauer). Don’t get me wrong, I get it; the whole point of an anit-hero is that deep down, they are good, they just don’t go about it in the morale or conventional way. But again, my problem isn’t with the anti-hereos themselves being assholes or that they are hated within their own shows, it’s that DESPITE being hated by other characters, they are still used or demanded for assistance, even guilt tripped on many occasions. And when these anti-hereos do just that, they either don’t get any credit or thanks or those deeds are forgotten the moment they do something for themselves. What continues to bother me is that a lot of the times, the anti-heroes end up buying/believing what the good guys are saying. Like in OUAT, everyone tells Rumple that he’s selfish even though he’s murdered members of his own family to SAVE THEM!

It’s never acknowledged by the shows how messed up that is. So far in the 6 seasons I have yet to see Belle or Emma <–ESPECIALLY HER, or Snow or any other good guy admit that Rumple is a jerk but that they’ve messed up too and that they respect him. That they’ve needed him more than he’s needed them. That if they still believe he’s a monster, then they need to stop using him when its convienent for them.
This trope is just getting dumber the more it appears and it’s ruining how writers WRITE their characters; there’s no love or respect if you just have all of your “good guys” hate the one guy that’s labeled selfish.

I don’t know if this is just me or if I’m even wording any of this correctly. I keep re-reading it and feel as if my point isn’t being made. To quickly end this before it’s another 23 pages long, I love the anti-heroes and think they deserve a lot more love/respect than what they are getting. I think more in-depth writing is needed for these characters so it doesn’t just look like lazy cliches thrown together.
Trust me, it’s possible to have someone as pure-hearted as Belle love someone as dark as Rumple but feel conflicted in doing so, without it looking or sounding so hypocritical. One major break up was all that was needed between those two to heighten the drama but also highlight the pros and cons of their relationship; that way it doesn’t compromise who each character is and it properly showcases WHY Belle loves Rumple so much but feels conflicted for doing so.

Originally posted by colorfullyblackthings

sea-and-thestars  asked:

Im pretty sure most of rich only donate to charity so they don't have to pay taxes. It's essentially the "Gospel of Wealth" doctrine that rich fucks like Andrew Carnegie followed back in the machine while exploiting their own workers into poverty.

yeah true. god i hate it

Once Again
Near Istiklal Street, Istanbul
I caught sight of him once more as I was walking back towards safe territory after having spent the afternoon in Tarlabasi. Tarlabasi is my first experience with true, abject poverty. There are pockets of this neighborhood in central Istanbul that defy description, and it was ironic that on this day I found out more about this boy. I was visiting with a hotel owner, buried deep in Tarlabasi….I felt as though I should have laid a trail of popcorn or left brightly colored balloons anchored to one of the many heaps of trash to find my way out again through the labyrinthine streets. The hotel was a small, narrow building, family owned, and operated by a Kurdish man and his wife and brother. They had three children, and I had met them the week before as I walked through the area. On this visit, I was asked to sit down and drink some tea….sitting is not something I do very much of, and ingesting caffeine is impossible for me. Visitors are welcomed with tea, or Turkish coffee, and expected to stay for hours. Unhappily, and awkwardly, I tried to sit. I have a general inability to sit still for long unless I’m doing something critical, like processing pictures or forced by necessity to drive a car or travel by plane. Otherwise, I’m moving. Turkish hospitality in combination with my personal style became a hindrance, and I found myself many times agonizing over how best to extricate myself. I tried mightily, but the language barrier was wearing me out, and I found myself desperate to leave the confinement of the tiny combination office/kitchenette. I wanted more than anything to explore this endlessly interesting area, but on my own it was just not possible to do so safely, and any farther into the neighborhood than I already was would be a foolish risk.
In desperation, I pulled out my iPhone and looked at the time. In trying to make my way out the door, I showed a few pictures and, to my amazement, one of the photos I had of this boy was met with recognition. As it turns out, he’s a Syrian refugee, and living in complete poverty in Tarlabasi. I was surprised to learn that he had parents, and that the hotel owner knew of them, and saw the boy frequently. The boy is non verbal, and is turned loose each day to beg. His job is to walk endlessly and procure as much spare change as he can, and bring it back to his mother. He is always unaccompanied, and is always seen covered in grime. It was explained to me that there are many just like him, and that it is a very big problem. At four years old, approaching five, I found it impossible to understand how his mother could bear to let him out of her sight in a city like Istanbul. I couldn’t imagine what circumstances would lead to such indifference, or desperation. It was out of my range of experience.

But bi-cultural twins, like

  • having different names for stars and constellations (Leia’s stars have descriptive names, like crown and ship and rose, while Luke’s stars have legendary names, like the Trickster, the Queen, the Wanderer)

  • their definitions of family are different (Leia’s family is small and defined: her parents, her sister Winter, her brother Luke, her husband Han. Luke’s family is big and loose, with of course his aunt and uncle and Leia, but also the never truly known biological parents, the Rogues, Ben and Biggs and Lando.)

  • but meeting in the middle in the sense that family is, for both of them, one of the most important parts of their life, and sharing a devotion to their family

  • defining hard work differently: For Leia it’s intellectual work, planning and organizing, outlining a speech and finishing a draft for a law she wants to propose at 3 AM. For Luke it’s physical work, carrying provisions, repairing droids, checking the converters on his farm.

  • The have different expectations of the government (Leia, who grew up on Alderaan with a funtioning government and people who actually enforced and followed the law, believes in a government that can be positive, that should be positive. Luke, from Tatooine, where there was no real government, where the Hutts ruled and crime was always present and the law didn’t truly exist, just wants there to be something that is not the Hutts or the Empire)

  • related to that: respect, or the lack of it, for authority. Leia grew up on a planet where the authority was benevolent and trusted, she has no problem following an idea. Luke grew up on a planet where the authority was either a crime lord or someone he knew personally, he needs to get a feeling of the person he’s following to trust him/her completely.

  • religion!!! Luke comes from deeply spiritual Tatooine, with a strong belief in the Mother Godess and her children, he grew up on stories about heroes and tricksters and villains, but was never part of an institutionalized religion, as all the worship happend in the slave quarters with a wise woman as the closest thing to a priest. Leia, who comes from Alderaan, where many people like to pride themselve in having ‘outgrown such silly superstitions’, who only knows the church of her planet and for whom religion tends to be something outwardly, something she has to be seen performing, not something that is part of her identity like it is for Luke.

  • Different reactions to medical things. Leia, from rich, clean and advaned Alderaan, for whom pneunomia is easily treatable and an abortion is, not exactly something to advertise, but part of life, meets Luke, to whom pneunomia may well be a death sentence and abortion almost certainly is, because it’s done only in dirty side alleys and even the wise woman usually can’t do anything to save them.

  • Both being naive, but in different ways: Luke is socially awkward, he’s a kid who’s never left his home planet and doesn’t know how the big bad galaxy works. But Leia is a core worlder, who grew up comfortably, who never saw true poverty until she joined the rebellion (Alderaan has programs to help the poor, nobody is left to starve), who was genuily not aware that slavery exists and to whom the ugliest parts of the galaxy are still strange and unknown.

  • Reactions to water: to Leia it’s familiar, it’s positive, it’s home, to Luke it’s nothing short of a miracle.

  • Just. Bi-cultural twins.

One Perspective of a Filipino American

For the first half of my life, I was raised in the United States. I had little knowledge of my parent’s culture and worse yet, was completely unable to understand their first language. Sure, my parents spoke of the Philippines, met up with other Filipino immigrants, took vacations to the Philippines, and talked often in Tagalog, but I always found myself detached. Listening to their stories was like listening to, well, just that. Stories.

Going to the country itself was like visiting any other. My parents never taught me Tagalog, crippled by the fear that I would have a hard time learning English and settling in the United States like they had. Being a kid, I was comfortable getting by with just that. Although my mother cooked Filipino food, I did not, as most people would assume, fall in love with every dish. In fact, most of the time, I would have rather ate burgers and fries than sit with Adobo or Sinigang. I was content with identifying myself as an American with a Filipino heritage.

That all changed when I was thirteen. My parents were feeling increasingly homesick and eventually, they decided it would be best to move the family to the Philippines. Not wanting to leave what I considered my home country for a foreign one, I was against their decision the whole way. I’d stayed in houses and schools in more states than I can remember and suddenly, they wanted me to start a whole new life on the other side of the world?

My resentment had gotten to the point where I didn’t want to be apart of my parents’ culture at all. For a while, I actually hated the Philippines for forcibly thrusting me into the unknown. But as the years passed, my resolve began to crumble. The more I learned about the history, the language, the jokes, and the very people that lived here, the more my appreciation for this country grew.

Unfortunately, I was able to see for myself true poverty, corruption, and the effects of colonialism. Even though we are no longer under the rule of other countries, we still rule ourselves through a Western lens.

Like everywhere else, discrimination is truly a problem. Those on the LGBT+ spectrum are only accepted when they’re funny. Anyone who is not Christian is seen as a potential terrorist, particularly if you are Muslim. Black people, potential criminals. Koreans, rude free-loaders. Even different provinces make fun of each other’s local culture, and not lightheartedly. Racist jokes are too commonplace, with snide comments about a person’s skin color easily shrugged off.

From the media to your own family, you are constantly told “white” features are the epitome of beauty. You must have a narrow nose, light skin, and straight hair. (If you’re dark, just try the newest whitening lotion.) You have a so-called “advantage” if you’re bi or multi-racial—unless one of your parents are black—as if it isn’t enough to just be Filipino. (Not to disparage those that are bi or multi-racial. I understand that they have their own troubles. Whatever the case may be, be proud of who you are.) From my own experiences, I’ve been told how lucky I am that I look Korean, without actually having any Korean ancestry, and not looking “like everyone else.”

On the other hand, people have been mocked for not being Filipino enough. My cousin, who previously lived in Canada, was criticized for having an “artificial” accent. Because I didn’t know Tagalog as well as my peers, I was put down by my teachers. Because I was a Filipino born in the United States, I was told I did not have an identity, I was not raised properly, and that I was lost.

These sort of attitudes made me more aware of my status as a person of color and opened my eyes to the microaggressions that still run rampant, another thing I didn’t think much about before.

Despite my utmost love and respect for the Philippines. I can’t lose the strong feeling of detachment and isolation. It isn’t because of the problems above. I just finally realized what my parents had gone through in the United States. Never had I so deeply understood the feeling of wanting to go back home. Although that feeling still hasn’t left, I don’t regret my time here.

Of course, I would like to see more stories that take place in the Philippines or at least, have Filipino characters. (I would buy a historical fiction or fantasy novel with these themes in a heartbeat~!)

Second, although I am currently devoting myself to the promotion of Philippine history and culture, I would also like to see characters who aren’t always so familiar with the country or language of their ancestors. You can have Japanese people who are just as outsiders in Japan as foreigners. You can have Indian people who are just as outsiders in India as foreigners. After seeing the abundance of books like “Ink” by Amanda Sun, I’m starting to think that people believe this experience is exclusive to people who are white or multi-racial.

Lastly, can there be stories where there isn’t a plotline about a people of color struggling with their cultural identity? Like in “Team Human” by Justine Larbalester and Sarah Rees Brennan, for lack of a better example, why can’t we have PoC characters just doing things as white characters? Not saying that we shouldn’t have the plotline at all, or shouldn’t address racism, or anything like that. Just saying that just because we’re people of color, it doesn’t mean that we all have been conflicted about and/or because of our heritage, if that makes sense. We can be happy with whatever identity we have from the start.

Read more POC Profiles here. 

2

8/16

The first Tarot of the Day card is:
Six of Pentacles

Element: Earth
Astrological Associations: Moon in Taurus
Number: 6
Tree of Life Position: Tiphareth, the sphere of beauty and rebirth
Key Meanings: Property, family, inheritance

I’m going to be honest, when I saw that this was the first card I drew for this activity I sighed. Pentacles tends to be everyone’s least favorite because it most directly deals with the material world. In fact, before it was called “Pentacles”, these cards were known as “Gold Coins” and only referred to money. The name change to “Pentacles” opened it up to more possibilities, but the meaning of wealth still holds. So to make this more understandable for people new tarot I will thoroughly break down the card.

Description: this card reflects the appearance of Justice (XI) in a way, due to the man in the middle holding the scale. This man is clothed in red, a color of energy and practicality, with a purple mantle, the color of intuition and spirituality, and a blue striped tunic, indicating a virtue of generosity (look to Nine of Pentacles). This points to him being a noble and judicious man, which is then proven by him giving coins with his left hand and holding a scale with his left.
The next part of this image is two beggars kneeling before him. One of them appears to be wounded with a bandage on his head, the other appears very young and by wearing a blue cloak with a patch, we can tell that he experiencing true poverty and deserves help. They appear in a barren place beyond the city walls and its greenery, further marking that they exist outside of any kind of wealth.

The Number:
Six is a number of harmony and passivity, in those case it is giving the beggars the ability to surrender and accept which brings them temporary serenity or peace. Six also tends to mean that the past creates the present and future, so by saving or earning money now you will be able to share it in the future.

The Tree of Life and Astrology:
Tiphareth is the sphere of beauty and rebirth, in this case it is referring to the beauty of generosity.
The Moon of Taurus indicates stability with sensitivity. Meaning, that you should learn to be generous without patronizing the recipient and also know how to receive help graciously.

Putting it together:
This card most directly may indicate that money or another kind of wealth is coming to you, either as an award for hard work or by donation by an individual. It reminds you to use your money wisely and invest in the future so that you may offer support to others later on, as sharing with the ones you love brings natural joy. If you have been struggling financially then this card is a sign that your situation can improve if you surrender and accept the help you need.
In this card you may also be the benefactor, indicating that you need to help someone else and be generous to the poor, in doing this you must carefully consider another persons needs and what you can offer to make a difference in their life. Be wealthy does not make you less of a good person, while the saying is that “money is the root of all evil” in actuality it is that “the obsession with money is the root of all evil”, by sharing your wealth you letting go and accepting better things like friendship into your life.
This card, overall, means that you will give and receive what is right and what you need.

Childhood, after all, is the first precious coin that poverty steals from a child.
—  Anthony Horowitz
I agree with this quote, because I find that poverty steals childhood away from children as they have less opportunities than average income households. Childhood is where you develop, but with less life experiences this means that they won’t view the life as other kids do. Diseases should also not be introduced to younger aged children as this will effect their entire lifetime.

It is a mark of American ignorance, and in some cases arrogance, that we go out of our way to belittle and degrade the Europeans for allowing themselves to be overrun by a violent group of invaders that are raping their women, murdering their citizens, and leeching off of the native tax payers through welfare.

Many Americans don’t realize that what Europe is dealing with now, is a phenomenon that America has dealt with for decades stemming from Black Americans.

Do right-wing Americans think that the crime rate of the black community in America is less than that of the NA/ME migrants in Europe? No, it’s not. It’s at best equal to it, and at worst it is higher. The same is true of their poverty rate, their welfare usage, and more.

My fellow Americans have no right to mock the Europeans who are allowing the invasion of their countries. America has had a hostile, criminal, leeching force numbering in the millions residing within its borders for generations. We have the crime, we have the no-go zones, we have the welfare leeches. The only thing we don’t have is the near-daily terror attacks, but we simply substitute it with daily gang shootings.

Unless you are advocating for the removal of that hostile force from America, you have no room to mock any European. You can not call them “cucks” when they are simply following the example set by America.

LIVING WELL IS THE BEST REVENGE

I posted this a few years ago but I think, after that last Anon, its high time to repost it. Even if life sucks and people are shitty to you now, if you keep being an awesome person then it all comes around in the end. 

Submitted for the approval of the Midafternoon Society…

The Tale of Mike Canter and How Living Well Is The Best Fucking Revenge

Keep reading

“When we are shown scenes of starving children in Africa, with a call for us to do something to help them, the underlying ideological message is something like: “Don’t think, don’t politicize, forget about the true causes of their poverty, just act, contribute money, so that you will not have to think!”
—  Slavoj Žižek