The Moon indicates our emotional style. But equally important, it indicates how
we experienced our mother and our early environment and how that affected us psychologically.
Our early environment and the type and degree of nurturing we received are critical in shaping our
psychology and establishing a sense of security and trust. In this culture and in most others, the
father teaches the ways of the world and how to function in it. The mother’s role, on the other hand,
is to build the foundation of security, trust, and love necessary for healthy feelings about others and
ourselves. If this foundation is cracked or insufficient, we will not have the emotional resources to
face our task as an adult of providing for our own survival and that of others.
Our family and our early environment are selected by the soul before life and can, therefore, be
read in the chart. The Moon and its aspects, the ruler of the fourth house and its aspects, and the
planets in the fourth house and their aspects describe our early environment. They also describe the
mother and her attention to us. More accurately, they describe our experience of her and our early
environment. Although these aspects describe both the early environment and the mother, the
planets within the fourth house seem to describe the environment more than they do the mother.
And the houses of the fourth house ruler and the Moon describe the mother’s interests and where she
puts her energy. If we have been more influenced in our early years by our father or another
caretaker, the Moon and the fourth house will describe that individual.
Moon in Aries
The early environment of this Moon sign is likely to be colored by competition and conflict. The
conflict may be between the parents, the siblings, or any combination of family members. This
Moon sign also may signify animosity or anger on the part of the mother toward her family or spouse or in general. In any case, the home environment is often tense and competitive, and the
individual who grows up in it may be tense and angry as well. On a more positive note, the mother
may be strong, independent, assertive, and possibly athletic and encourages these traits in her child.
Some with this Moon sign have families who are involved in the military or athletics. In general, the
environment is more masculine and encourages the development of masculine traits even in its
Moon in Taurus
Unless the Moon is afflicted, the Taurus Moon’s early environment is likely to be peaceful and
stable and meet the child’s physical needs. The home is likely to be comfortable. The family may
even be well-off financially. The mother is often affectionate, dependable, and a good cook.
However, little attention may be given to emotional and intellectual needs. With this Moon sign,
security and material comforts often supersede emotional needs. Consequently, many with this
Moon sign repress or are unaware of their feelings. Children in such families often follow the model
presented them by finding comfort and satisfaction in material things rather than in people. Love
becomes equated with food and gifts. As a result, their relationships may be with toys, food, or
Moon in Gemini
Gemini Moons are likely to be bright and intellectually inclined, and the mother fosters this. The
mother usually plays an educative role and happily meets the child’s intellectual needs. This is a
home where education is valued and reading and schoolwork are emphasized. However, the child’s
emotional and physical needs may not be attended to as enthusiastically. Although the mother may
be an intellectual role model, she may be less helpful in modeling other skills, such as intimacy and
managing in the world. She may not be very affectionate or emotionally demonstrative. In some
cases, the mother feels more like a friend, a peer, or an aunt.
Moon in Cancer
This Moon sign is ideal for establishing a solid foundation for adulthood. Unless the Moon is
afflicted, the mother probably enjoyed being mother and homemaker. She is likely to have met the
child’s physical and emotional needs. When our physical needs are met, we feel valued and
recognized; when our emotional needs are met, we learn to value and trust our feelings. Feelings are
important because they point to our needs, and only by having our needs met can we grow
physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. So, recognition of our feelings is crucial in our early years. It is how self-worth is built and tantamount to being validated as an individual. The
Cancer Moon’s mother is someone who attends to her child’s feelings and makes herself available
physically and emotionally, which supports the development of self-esteem. On the other hand, the
ties with the mother can be too close. The mother is identified with her children and may be
possessive, smothering, and overly protective. This may make it difficult for the child to grow up
and establish an independent identity.
Moon in Leo
When it is not afflicted, the gift of this Moon sign is a firm sense of self and self-worth. Confidence
can go a long way in life. This gift of confidence instilled by the mother establishes a foundation for
the Leo Moon’s future successes. The mother’s warm, expressive nurturing style lends confidence to
her child. She is likely to have showered her Leo Moon child with attention and affection, so the
child comes to expect this from others. This may, in part, be a self-promoting act in that she views
her child as an extension of her own ego and love flows from this place of pride. Her child can do
no wrong because it is her child. She is likely to encourage her child’s creativity and self-expression
and may be creative herself. She is dramatic, forceful, and a show-stealer. The child learns to get her
attention by doing the same.
Moon in Virgo
The early nurturing that Virgo Moons receive may be dedicated but dry. The mother is likely to be
efficient, orderly, hardworking, and responsible but emotionally inexpressive. She is educated and
thorough in her approach to motherhood, studying all the latest manuals about raising children. This
care and attention is noticed by the child and makes up in many ways for the mother’s lack of
warmth and playfulness. Nevertheless, Virgo Moons may struggle with expressing their emotions,
having not had a model for this. Although they may not learn to be emotionally expressive, the
dedicated care given to them is often sufficient to build their self-esteem. They, in turn, make
dedicated and efficient mothers. On the other hand, the child’s self-esteem might be undermined if
the mother is hypercritical and fussy, as is often the case with this Moon sign. In that case, the
individual is likely to become self-critical or critical of others too.
Moon in Libra
When not afflicted, this Moon sign represents a beneficial home environment. The early home life
is likely to be harmonious and peaceful, and the mother takes pride in providing a home that is both
aesthetically pleasing and emotionally supportive. The absence of conflict and argument in the home is often apparent with Libra Moons, for they mirror this non-confrontational style in their
relationships. They are likely to have learned how to negotiate and compromise in this early
atmosphere, which can later serve them well in their own family relationships and work. The
mother might be artistically inclined, refined, and well-versed in social etiquette. Culture and the
arts might be emphasized in the home.
Moon in Scorpio
The early environment of Scorpio Moons is often difficult and intensely emotional. Abuse or
misuse of power and authority are a possibility, leaving the individual angry or repressed. The
mother or another family member may be domineering, manipulative, possessive, or controlling.
There is often an undercurrent of hostility and resentment in the home and a sense of deep, dark
secrets that no one is allowed to speak about. The secrets could include such things as violence,
sexual abuse, addiction, criminality, psychological problems, or illegitimate children. On the other
hand, the mother may have been highly attentive to the child’s emotional needs and bonded deeply
with him or her. This is fine for the infant, who needs this bonding, but as the child matures, this can
feel overbearing and possessive. Since identification by both parent and child is so strong, Scorpio
Moons often have difficulty breaking the tie with their mothers as adults. The emotional intensity of
this relationship often continues over the years. This deep psychic connection between the mother
and child may, in fact, originate in a former lifetime.
Moon in Sagittarius
This Moon sign often represents a less traditional nurturing experience. The mother’s nurturing style
is easygoing and liberal. Freedom is important to her and this attitude is conveyed to the child by
allowing him or her freedom to explore, ask questions, and investigate life. However, there may be
too little responsibility expected from the child and too few rules to allow the child to develop the
inner discipline necessary for adulthood. Or, the mother may be off having her own adventure. So,
although the mother may be a model of independent action and adventure, she may not be available
to provide the security and stability that a child needs. She might lack responsibility and behave
more like a friend than a parent. It is common for those with this Moon sign to live in a foreign
country or be influenced by foreigners when they are growing up, perhaps by traveling a lot. The
military family is an example of this. The family values freedom more than they do stability. They
often move or travel a lot.
Moon in Capricorn
With this Moon sign, something may be lacking in the early environment. The mother may be ill
and unable to care for the child, absent from the child’s life, depressed, repressed emotionally, over-
worked, or unable to cope with the duties of motherhood. Sometimes the mother dies. Harshness is
another possibility. The mother may be unloving, overbearing, strict, rigid, and restrictive, allowing
little leeway for the child to act like a child or express his or her emotions. In any case, the child
receives insufficient mothering. On the other hand, the early home life may be stable, secure,
orderly, and attentive to responsibilities, supplying the child with the structure and discipline needed
to function effectively in the world as an adult.
Moon in Aquarius
The Aquarius Moon’s early home life and mother are likely to be unique or unusual in some way.
The individual may grow up in a household with progressive ideas about child rearing and
considerably more freedom than most children. This free and tolerant atmosphere exposes the child
to ideas that other children might not encounter. However, although this is an advantage
intellectually, the child may have difficulty getting his or her need for closeness met. Aquarius,
although tolerant and altruistic, is not known for its emotional warmth. Young children, however,
do need close emotional interactions with adults to form a solid foundation of trust and a sturdy
sense of self. As a result, Aquarius Moons may learn at an early age not to expect others to meet
their emotional needs. Consequently, as adults, they may have trouble addressing the emotional
needs of others. When afflicted, this Moon sign may indicate a chaotic home, inconsistent nurturing,
divorce, or a disrupted home life, which can leave emotional scars and affect the individual’s ability
to form intimate relationships later on. Several moves or changes in the early years are common.
These can either cause insecurity or teach the individual to make the best of change.
Moon in Pisces
Pisces Moons may undergo some loss or hardship in relation to the mother. She may be
psychologically incapable of caring for her child, mentally ill, addicted to drugs or alcohol, or
neglectful. On the other hand, she may be artistic or musical. She is often religious, kind, and
selfless. Religious or spiritual activities may be carried out in the home. In either case, Pisces Moons
learn compassion, either through their own suffering or their mother’s compassionate care. When
they are cared for lovingly, they learn to care lovingly for others. If they have been neglected,
however, they may grow up with the same psychological damage as their mother and be prone to
drug abuse and mental illness.
The seductive nature of a happy ending can’t be disputed, and the two older Brontës provide it in spades. In Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff and Cathy are never united, but their children fall in love: Heathcliff’s behaviour is almost justified, as it has brought Linton and Cathy mark II together. Likewise in Jane Eyre, Mr Rochester falls in love with Plain Jane, attempts to commit bigamy, is thwarted, his wife luckily burns to death and they live happily ever after. Charlotte and Emily offered their fictional Branwells a form of redemption that in reality he failed to achieve.
Anne, the sister who spent the most time nursing Branwell, either refused or was unable to romanticise what happened to her brother. In The Tenant of Wildfell Hall an abused wife, Helen Graham, runs away from her alcoholic husband, Arthur Huntingdon. She meets Gilbert Markham and falls in love with him but is unable to marry him. Anne’s depiction of Arthur Huntingdon’s decline drew heavily on Branwell’s death and still stands out today as an unflinching depiction of alcoholism.
By romanticising their alcoholic, violent brother, Charlotte and Emily Brontë were presenting an optimistic view of the byronic hero. Anne Brontë, however, refused to wear rose-tinted glasses. As a novelist she is more honest than Emily and more unflinching than Charlotte, but that doesn’t make for great romance or cosy TV adaptations. It’s easy to say that because Anne refused to give us a brooding hero, her books are less widely read. But I would suggest that she was in fact just too honest about the nature of violence and addiction.
Can we please stop making everything political? Ugh
The disappointment isn’t because a “straight white cis man” died, people are frustrated because a smart, generous, intriguing character that had a lot going on in his life and was in one of the few healthy romantic relationships on TV was killed off. Not to mention the great co-parenting dynamic he had with Jane and Rafael. How often do you get to see that? A happy, healthy, loyal, supportive, communicative couple who are extremely open and honest with each other, always make decisions together, work their problems out quickly and calmly without letting it become a time bomb, and, that, no matter what, are still completely in love with one another?
I think the only other time I had the privilege of seeing this kind of relationship happening was on F.R.I.E.N.D.S. I’ve personally only seen this kind of couple twice and one of them was thrown away with all of its potential like it was nothing. This is hurtful, no matter if it were warned or not, because they didn’t write Michael to be a character the public would like to see dying. They wrote him to be a character that would raise people’s interest to see him as an individual, professional, husband, stepfather, son-in-law.
Yes, if he were a person of color, or if it had been one of Jane’s relatives, it would’ve been worse because of representation and the importance of the Villanueva family. However, even if Michael weren’t her biological family, he was her family, the one she chose to be her family. I won’t try to compare or hierarchize Jane’s relationships, but Mateo, the Villanuevas, Rogelio and Michael are the most important people to her. It will still be heartbreaking to see her grieve the one and only person she wished to spend the rest of her life with and lose part of her innocence and hope because of it. And I am not even sure if they will respectfully cover her grief because currently the show has skipped three years, but on that little clip you could see she simply wasn’t the same anymore.
And if people want to quit the show because of that, they have the right to. Stop telling them not to do this, because they’re allowed to react and decide. It is not because a “straight white cis man” died, it is because a good character with a lot of potential was wasted and taken away from us in the most disgusting aspects. If it had been characters like Anezka, Scott, Magda or Rose, people may would’ve felt sad and that their potential was wasted, but they are still minor characters and some of them have killed/abused people, so it wouldn’t have been as hurtful as seeing someone who was just doing the best for himself and his family to be simply killed off. I’ve seen the same happen to great people of color and/or women before and I felt the same way, maybe worse and I also dropped those shows. And I’m pretty sure most of the fandom feels the same way, because most of us are women of color who got interested in it because of its creativity, representation and positivity. Probably people who’d been let down by other tv shows and were happy to finally see an apparently intriguing and light-hearted comedy. However, it ended up repeating one of the cheapest and most unnecessary tv tropes (along with annoying repetitions and total negligence of women and queer women like Petra and Luisa and underdevelopment of important issues such as post-partum depression, PTSD, alcoholism and psychological treatment, not to mention more). Michael’s death may not even be the only reason to drop the show, just the decisive one since they will never be able to repair this.
And please, stop comparing this to villadero fans criticizing jafael shippers for saying they’d stop watching if the couple didn’t get back together. A ship not happening and a character DYING are two different things. People kept watching the show despite their hopes on season 1 and season 2 because Michael was still there, he was still used as a detective and friend and people were willing to still support it because as much as they loved villadero, they loved him as an individual first. These are two completely separate things.
Anyway, I’m currently willing to give one chance to the next episode because I love the cast with all my heart and want to support them, but I’m not enthusiastic and am likely to drop it right afterwards. So I’m looking for new stuff to watch instead of it, hopefully with as good/better representation than Jane The Virgin. I still haven’t made a decision, but if you’re looking for names to try out, there are The Fosters, Superstore and Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
I’m not caught up with The Fosters, but besides one annoying relationship, the episodes I’ve seen were amazing and explored countless important issues in one season: homophobia, racism, sexism, work ethic, domestic violence, immigration, addiction and many more. It has an interracial lesbian couple starring the show, alongside a gay and two Hispanic teenagers. Two of its recurring roles are some of the few transgender people on television.
Superstore has a great cast with a Honduran American woman, a
African American man, a gay Filipino man and a Japanese American woman. It mentions some important problems, although it does have some problematic lines. Due to the tone of them, I am not entirely sure if they are satirical or not (the show itself is extremely satirical, by the way), so you may watch it and make your own opinion.
I have only watched two Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes, but it’s filled with Hispanic, African American (including a gay African American man) men and women in positions of power and is a light-hearted sitcom according to what I’ve read.
Anyway, just be sensitive to the people’s feelings even if you don’t share them. And if anyone would like to add something and/or exchange recommendations, feel free to do so. :)
Title: When Worlds Collide
Tags/Warnings: MCD, endverse!cas, dean smith, sam wesson, canon typical violence, substance abuse, drug addiction, mentions of eating disorders, bottom!cas, top!dean, bottom!dean, top!cas, bedsharing, dream sex, dry humping, double penetration, threesome, recreational drug use, season 12 (mentioned), canon divergence, angst with a happy ending http://archiveofourown.org/works/10536114/chapters/23263176
Summary: When Zachariah dies, the illusions he’s created die with him. But before they collapse completely, sometimes they collide. That’s how Castiel goes from cradling Dean Winchester’s broken body one moment, to finding himself face to face with Dean Smith in the next.
This story starts in the moments after 2009 Dean is pulled from the Endverse back into his own timeline. We follow Endverse Castiel as he’s sucked into the Terrible Life Verse. Confronted with Dean Smith, Castiel begrudgingly tries to deal with the fact that he’s still alive and that he’s stuck with some strange Dean. (Worse yet, he might be developing feelings for this other man.)
But is Castiel the only one who slipped between the cracks between one world and another? And how and why did Castiel end up in Dean Smith’s apartment?
SNIPER. so, i kinda feel i need to clarify this a little because lately i’ve been focusing my headcanons on sam’s trauma a lot and i think we can all agree sam is a good soul with a kind heart.
however this does not mean he’s a saint. because really, he isn’t. at all.
first of all, my boy has a temper. got that from his father. when in an argument, he will easily snap and lash out at someone. while he will never, ever put a hand on someone he cares about, he does have a habit of getting into bar fights or just general fights with strangers. he also has a tendency to throw stuff around when he’s angry, so vases, plates or framed pictures often end up broken in his anger. or holes end up in walls or doors.
second, because of his addictive personality, he oftens gets a little too much in romantic relationships. he becomes 100% dedicated to his partner, often verging in obsessive and it can cross lines if not properly managed. he doesn’t mean to hurt anyone or make them uncomfortable. he just doesn’t know how to do anything less than with his entire mind, body and soul. plus, social boundaries are often difficult for him, which doesn’t help him in situations like these.
third, he is a killer. while he regrets the things he did while with his father and considers himself a monster for the skills he has and the work he does, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t enjoy actually doing it. sam, because of his father’s upbringing but also his genes, has a love for violence and bloodshed. he thrives on conflict, he is at his best in a fight. and he is unapologetic about it too. he knows what he is and doesn’t fight it, not anymore.
fourth, while he is quite morally grey, sam has a very strict interpretation of right and wrong. once you do something he considers to be wrong, he will gladly be your judge, jury and executioner. he is unforgiving when it comes to the things he considers to be truly evil. there is no excuse, to redemption and he will make sure you know you are a detestable human being.
on the other hand, he is the perfect victim to emotional and psychological abuse, as he will forgive someone he cares about a thousand times, for anything and everything and let people walk all over him time after time, no matter how much he suffers because of it. he is easily manipulated if you manage to make him care about you. he is a little naive and wants to see the best in everyone, despite being proven wrong time and time again.
and these are just a few examples of how my baby is flawed af. so while i encourage you all to love on him and give him the comfort and happiness he deserves because he is pure and adorable and needy, do keep in mind he is also human and has issues.
Originally published on social media on January 26, 2013, in apropos of David Mamet’s essay “Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm” in that week’s issue of Newsweek.
Republished whenever there is another gun massacre.
My death is not only inevitable, it is also imminent.
No, I have neither been diagnosed with a lethal ailment and given minutes to live, nor am I contemplating suicide once I am done putting this down. I merely mean that my life is a mere flash in the two million or so years in which humanity has walked the earth.
Seen in the perspective of that time frame, the end of my life is, in fact, coming very soon – whenever in my life it may choose to arrive. I might as well accept it.
I think about that whenever the topic of gun control comes up… especially when a Czar of American Letters™ like David Mamet picks up the quill to write a barn-burning opinion piece (like that on the cover of this week’s Newsweek) in which he insists that the right to bear arms is an essential component to society; both in that it insures protection against the corrupt depredations of an increasingly intrusive government, as well as in that it is an essential prophylactic against incivility. In Mamet’s philosophy, no one dares to be an aggressor in a society in which every man, woman, and child is given the inalienable right to carry guns.
In short: mutually assured destruction is the best insurance of our right to life. In the macro: should the government overstep, an armed populace will rise to pull it down. In the micro: if you kill, you will be killed.
Mamet’s argument is lucid, consistent, and takes its cues from his – and many other intelligent people’s – interpretation of the frame of reference and aims of the Founding Fathers. It does not surprise me that many whom I consider to be level-headed intellects feel as Mamet does: that an individual is the best and only person to decide how to defend themselves, and that, in this world, an individual can only properly accomplish that goal in possession of a firearm.
Still…reading Mamet’s piece, I could not help but be struck by the preening, hypermasculine worship of conflict implicit in his every sentence. The bedrock conviction that the natural state of humanity is ideological crisis which will erupt into violence at any moment is implicit in his thesis, as well as his beliefs about the role of government, and the individual, in society.
I suppose this should not come as a surprise from Mamet. His work, from the sacred, Glengarry Glen Ross, to the profane – his martial arts film Redbelt and his television series The Unit – range from what is essentially a Valentine to the poetry of emotional abuse to sustained explorations of the ability to enforce one’s mark in combat against aggressors in a world that is viciously opposed to mutual understanding.
To live in the world expressed by Mamet – and, to some degree, to live in the world of most who believe in the socially sanctioned ability to take a life when necessary – is to live in (to borrow and recontextualize a phrase from Carl Sagan) a “demon-haunted world.” It is a prison: a maze in which predators lurk behind every corner and meanness of the soul is either prime motivator or inevitable outcome.
The Founding Fathers must have believed in this world, being as they flagged the right to bear arms in a language as carefully considered as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… and, again, it makes situational sense: they had been oppressed by a totalitarian monarchy and were surrounded by natives who were – understandably – hostile to their genocidal designs on their ancestral homeland.
All of which raises the more important question: when does humanity evolve from the right to bear arms to the right not to?
The study of violence in television – a topic concomitant with issues relating to guns – has yielded a phrase which has bounced in my head since I first encountered it: “mean world syndrome.” The concept is simple: the depiction of violence in popular culture may or may not incite actual violence, but it almost certainly creates the indelible – and vastly exaggerated – impression in viewers that the world is a nasty, brutish place in which violence is not only an acceptable means by which to resolve conflict, but also a complete inevitability.
The belief in a mean world may be profitable for gun manufacturers, but I believe it is a cancer of the soul and an impediment to evolution.
Evolution is a difficult proposition, just as “Thou shalt not kill” is a difficult admonition to follow – especially when others want what you have and have no moral barriers to its acquisition. It is harder to reason than to kill, it is harder to compromise than to kill, it is harder to exercise empathy than to kill, it is harder to persuade, to forgive, to make a fearless moral inventory of our own wrongs, and to leave others to do the same and see the error of their own ways, than to kill.
It is – admittedly – harder to accomplish pretty much anything without the threat of a reckoning than it is to swing a big stick; and yet, over and over, since the evolution of consciousness, the prohibition of murder continues to be the central tenet of human spiritual and ethical growth. I believe this to be an evolutionary adaptation – a call across the eons telling us that the next step in our development as a species is collaboration and nonviolence.
In spiritual terms, the hard simplicity of the statement “Thou shalt not kill” makes its challenge frighteningly clear. It does not say, “Thou shalt not kill save for cases of home invasion” or “Thou shalt not kill except for when your way of life is being threatened by a formerly democratic government that has really gotten way too autocratic for its britches” and it sure as shekels doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not kill save for in the case of an organized state militia.”
For all the embellishments that human beings put in their spiritual traditions – usually designed to tell others how to live their lives in stultifying, homogeneous obedience and keep out undesirables – it is surprising how often the prohibition of murder shows up. The seeds of virtue are programmed to survive the death of the individual: “Thou shalt not kill” – in all of its forms, across secular and spiritual thought – keeps outliving people, democracies and dictatorships.
That is evolution at work.
Evolution is difficult and inconvenient to expediency. However, as I have been blessed with the luxury of living in what is – arguably – a democracy in which my participation is still allowed, of the opportunity to make a living in my chosen field, of a surfeit of creature comforts and technological expediency, of a preponderance of like-minded individuals who share my faith in God and my reliance on a number of societal systems designed to further my way of life – usually at the expense of others – I believe that I have a duty to make my life difficult in, at the very least, some minuscule but relevant way.
Chris Hedges famously titled one of his books “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.” His argument is that both the perception and reality of never-ending battle instills in human beings a sense of purpose. As long as there is someone or something to oppose, the soul is filled with the comforting tonic of simplicity: don’t worry about empathy, reason, the truth that all humans are genetically identical, or the underlying unity of world religion and ethics, shoot to kill. Indulge your need for violent conquest and all the fuss and muss of worldly life becomes a distant memory. There’s an addictive satisfaction and perverse joy in that clarity.
The bearing of arms, and the perception of it as a right is – to me – a vestige of a primal addiction to violence, and the anodyne ease of a life led in Manichean opposition: an expression of the spirit-destroying contradiction that to be alive and free is to be on constant alert for coming war. To be armed is to never lose sight of the possibility that at any time we may be called upon to reassert our triumphant masculinity through the application of lethal force.
I believe that finding a way of life that does not automatically see in strangers the threat of extinction – that takes kindness, tolerance and collaboration as the first assumption of human coexistence – is both a Christian and Darwinian ideal: a natural continuation of the rise of consciousness. I refuse to be a walking deterrent – just as I refuse to be a talking inciter – of violence.
I believe that there is an evolutionary imperative – expressed across a majority of spiritual and secular traditions – for the prohibition of murder under any circumstance. I aspire to live in a society where fear of the other is not understood as the baseline, and feel duty-bound to that aspiration because the accident of my birth in the wealthiest and freest nation on the planet affords me the privilege to strive for that ideal.
I believe that the responsibility that accompanies the largely unearned rewards of my privilege – and that of almost every other American – is the exploration of a way of life in which that bounty is no longer earned through violence or exploitation.
I have made peace with the inevitability of my own death. Statistically, the greatest likelihood is that the end of my life will come as a result of heart disease brought about by the excessive consumption of processed foods.
Even in our gun-loving, violence-obsessed, perpetually-in-Defcon-1 United States of America, the possibility of my dying as a result of a violent incident involving firearms – even one involving terrorists carrying firearms – is lower than an automobile accident, plane crash, or lightning strike. So I will not carry a gun in expectation of the one-man war that my very way of life has already conspired to prevent.
I will use my freedom to employ words, actions, and ideas to convince others that to strap on a cold reminder of the ability to take life is not a freeing act, but a bondage to a way of life that must be stopped…
And if I’m shot by a terrorist, or a jackbooted foot-soldier of a totalitarian regime – or even a common criminal?
Or don’t. I won’t care. I’ll be dead… and the life of my killers, and whatever they stood for that was so important that it required my extinction, will end just as quickly, cosmically speaking, as mine.
I refuse my right to bear arms because I prefer to advocate for my right not to.
I refuse my right to bear arms because I believe that to be the truest expression of the privilege for which so many have killed and died.
I refuse my right to bear arms because I believe that Gandhi, Einstein, Sagan, Jesus, Buddha – and even Ayn Rand, whose words I’ll quote as a credibility-destroying concession to a young adulthood misspent re-reading Atlas Shrugged – agreed on one thing:
“Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.”
Distress Centre: 416-408-HELP (4357) offers access to emotional support from the safety and security of the closest telephone. Callers can express their thoughts and feelings in confidence. Callers’ issues can include problems related to domestic violence, social isolation, suicide, addictions, mental and physical health concerns. The Distress Centre offers emotional support, crisis intervention, suicide prevention and linkage to emergency help when necessary.
Toronto Rape Crisis Centre: 416-597-8808
Canada Emergency Shelter: Central Intake: 416-338-4766; Toll Free 1-877-338-3398 Streets to Homes Assessment and Referral Centre (129 Peter Street): 416-392-0090 Walk in referral to emergency shelter and street respite.
UNITED KINGDOM HELP:
Samaritans (for any problem): 08457909090 e-mail email@example.com
Childline (for anyone under 18 with any problem): 08001111
Mind infoline (mental health information): 0300 123 3393 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mind legal advice (for people who need mental-health related legal advice): 0300 466 6463 email@example.com
b-eat eating disorder support: 0845 634 14 14 (only open Mon-Fri 10.30am-8.30pm and Saturday 1pm-4.30pm) e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
b-eat youthline (for under 25’s with eating disorders): 08456347650 (open Mon-Fri 4.30pm - 8.30pm, Saturday 1pm-4.30pm)
psychopathy and sociopathy are both severe forms of the antisocial personality disorder also known as ASPD.
the symptoms of both of these disorders are complex and it’s very easy to confuse them with each other. personally, i hadn’t been able to tell them apart until i wrote an essay on psychopathy and spent hours of my time on research. so, whenever i see someone use the word ’psychopath’ for someone that actually shows the characteristics and symptoms of a sociopath, i can’t help but cringe. which is why i decided to write down what i found out.
what a psychopath and a sociopath have in common:
- no respect for laws and social norms - disregarding of the rights and emotions of the people around them - an exaggerated sense of self, overconfidence, narcissism - a tendency for manipulative and violent behavior - a lack of sympathy and empathy ( some may say they lack emotions in general, although it has been reported that both psychopaths and sociopaths were seen showing anger, signs of loneliness and, in their very own form, love )
what the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is:
- psychopaths are able to UNDERSTAND the emotions of the people around them, analyze them and are able to imitate them ( often to get what they want ) - sociopaths do NOT understand the emotions of those around them, have trouble understanding the consequences that follow and usually can’t imitate them in a very believable manner - psychopaths are often established in society, they can often be found in high positions such as CEO, etc. most people around them will probably not know that they are in fact a psychopath - sociopaths have trouble fitting in, finding friends ( they often do not even feel the need to do so ) and are often outsiders
now, another important thing:
not every psychopath/sociopath is going to run around and kill people. there has been a study implying that out of 100 children, one could potentially be a psychopath( the study was referring to the UK, not worldwide ). if that was the case, and EVERY psychopath/sociopath was to commit at least one murder - well, there’d be a lot more dead people.
what’s important to understand is that yes, they are more likely to commit crimes due to their disregard of law and order, narcissism and lack of empathy but notallwill.
what turns someone into a psychopath/sociopath?
to this day experts still don’t quite know what turns someone into a psychopath/sociopath, although there are a few factors which could potentially lead to psychopathy/sociopathy.
environmental factors ( as a child ):
- abandonment - lack of affection - violence - addictive behavior ( of those around them ) - abuse - impulsive behavior ( of those around them )
these kind of experiences have a direct impact on the functionality of a child’s brain.
- changes in the cerebral cortex, the amygdala and the hippocampus ( = affecting the learning capability, the understanding of social norms, fear conditioning and affect regulations ) - a higher dopamine and serotonin level ( = associated with severe aggressive impulses )
this has been a guide by me and if you have any questions left feel free to message me anytime.
Muladhara or root chakra is symbolized by a lotus with four petals and the color red. This center is located at the base of the spine. Muladhara is related to instinct, security, survival and also to basic human potentiality. Physically, Muladhara governs sexuality, mentally it governs stability, emotionally it governs sensuality, and spiritually it governs a sense of security. Muladhara has a relation to the sense of smell.
Svadhishthana or sacral chakra is symbolized by a white lotus within which is a crescent moon, with six vermilion, or orange petals. It’s located in the middle of the pelvis. The key issues involving Svadhishthana are relationships, violence, addictions, basic emotional needs, and pleasure. Physically, Svadhishthana governs reproduction, mentally it governs creativity, emotionally it governs joy, and spiritually it governs enthusiasm.
Manipura or solar plexus/navel chakra is symbolised by a downward pointing triangle with ten petals, along with the color yellow. Manipura is related to the metabolic and digestive systems. Key issues governed by Manipura are issues of personal power, fear, anxiety, opinion-formation, introversion, and transition from simple or base emotions to complex. Physically, Manipura governs digestion, mentally it governs personal power, emotionally it governs expansiveness, and spiritually, all matters of growth.
Anahata or heart chakra is symbolised by a circular flower with twelve green petals called the heartmind. Within it is a hexagram, symbolizing a union of the male and female. Key issues involving Anahata involve complex emotions, compassion, tenderness, unconditional love, equilibrium, rejection and well-being. Physically Anahata governs circulation, emotionally it governs unconditional love for the self and others, mentally it governs passion, and spiritually it governs devotion.
Vishuddha, or Vishuddhi, the throat chakra is depicted as a silver crescent within a white circle, with 16 light or pale blue, or turquoise petals. This chakra is paralleled to the thyroid, a gland that is also in the throat and which produces thyroid hormone, responsible for growth and maturation. Physically, Vishuddha governs communication, emotionally it governs independence, mentally it governs fluent thought, and spiritually, it governs a sense of security.
Ajna or third-eye chakra is symbolised by a lotus with two petals, and corresponds to the colours violet, indigo or deep blue, though it is traditionally described as white. It’s linked to the pineal gland which may inform a model of its envisioning. The pineal gland is a light sensitive gland that produces the hormone melatonin which regulates sleep and waking up, and is also postulated to be the production site of the psychedelic dimethyltryptamine, the only known hallucinogen endogenous to the human body. Ajna’s key issues involve balancing the higher and lower selves and trusting inner guidance. Ajna’s inner aspect relates to the access of intuition. Mentally, Ajna deals with visual consciousness. Emotionally, Ajna deals with clarity on an intuitive level.
Sahasrara or crown chakra is generally considered to be the state of pure consciousness, within which there is neither object nor subject. Symbolized by a lotus with one thousand multi-coloured petals, it is located either at the crown of the head, or above the crown of the head. Sahasrara is represented by the colour white and it involves such issues as inner wisdom and the death of the body. Its role may be envisioned somewhat similarly to that of the pituitary gland, which secretes hormones to communicate to the rest of the endocrine system and also connects to the central nervous system via the hypothalamus.
Chapters: 9/9 Fandom: Sherlock (TV) Rating: Explicit Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Sherlock Holmes/John Watson Characters: Sherlock Holmes, John Watson, Mary Morstan, Greg Lestrade, Mycroft Holmes, Mrs Hudson Additional Tags: Angst, Hurt/Comfort, Emotional Hurt/Comfort, Drug Addiction, unhealthy coping methods, Post season three, Post TAB, Demisexual Sherlock, Boxing, Pining, sensory processing issues, Drug Use, First Kiss, First Time, BDSM, no actual child endangerment, I swear, Mary is Not Good, moments of light and tenderness, Parentlock, but not quite the way you’d expect, proposal, Happy Ending, Beekeeping, Violence, References to Addiction, Poetry, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock Summary:
He laid his head over John’s heart, eyes level with his silver-rough scar, and listened to the crimson hymns beating beneath the surface. He imagined flowers blooming in his own chest: veins weaving intricate patterns on petals of thin muscle engorged with blood, sinew for stems and tendons for roots—the flowers would be poppies, maybe (addictive) or foxglove (deadly yet useful)—twining gleaming blood-red around the porcelain bone of his ribs. In his mind’s eye the gruesome bouquet all tied together on the left side of his chest, the stems bound together in heartstrings and the flowers fed by the rhythmic contraction of ventricles. It’s yours, he imagined saying to John—from the vena cava to the mitral valve to the arteries it is yours.
“Cowart has a Kickstarter campaign underway now for the Purpose Hotel, which he hopes to begin in Nashville and then expand globally. It will be a place where absolutely everything inside benefits a worthy cause: The high-speed internet fee will go to an initiative fighting human trafficking; the furniture creation will provide jobs for people in need; the soaps and shampoos will be made by women who’ve survived violence, addiction and other devastating hardships. The list goes on and on. Each room in the Purpose Hotel will also sponsor a child’s education, with a plaque on each door telling that child’s story.
“One hotel will provide jobs locally, domestically and internationally,” Cowart tells Rolling Stone Country. “We are going to sponsor children, fight human trafficking and do all these amazing things. Take this hotel and put it in Miami, New York, L.A., London, Paris and all over the world… It’s been fun to see people online say, ‘Wait a minute, this actually could change the world.’ This is a very practical way to make an impact.”
Visit thepurposehotel.com to purchase the soundtrack, and click here to donate to the Kickstarter campaign, which ends Friday, September 2nd.
The Purpose Hotel, Vol. 1 Artists: Andy Davis, Dave Barnes, Hawk in Paris, Imogen Heap, Jill and Kate, Johnnyswim, Katie Herzig, Lauren Daigle, Leagues, Marc Scibilia, Matt Stanfield, Matt Wertz, NEEDTOBREATHE, Paramore, Phillip LaRue, Remedy, Drive, Secret Nation, Sleeping at Last, The Daylights,Trent Dabbs
Day 2: Favorite Anime You’ve Watched So Far==> Brother, Dear Brother (Oniisama e…)
This show… Oh God, this show…
Oniisama e… tells the story of a girl by the name of Nanako Misonoo, a girl who has just entered the prestigious Seiran Academy. There she meets three popular girls known as the “Magnificent Three”, and is later chosen to form part of the school’s Sorority, without having the looks, talent or social status needed to enter. From then on out, Nanako experiences sorrow, heartbreak, chaos and female rivalry as she becomes involved with the lives of the “Magnificent Three”, and shares some of her experiences with her “Dear Brother”, her old cram school teacher, via letters as the story progresses.
As a fan of Riyoko Ikeda’s Rose of Versailles, I was really happy when I heard that another of her works had been adapted into an anime. This story is a roller coaster of a ride. Drama at it’s best and it’s darkest IMO. The art’s gorgeous and the character’ are amazing and not always what they seem. The dark tones in this series definetley top anything I’ve seen from Key and Jun Maeda (Yeah I said it, deal with it!), as the show deals with suicide, drug addiction, violence, disease, divorce, incest (to some extent if you may), and slight tints of yuri. This anime is really a wild ride and one that I don’t regret watching.