took a quiz for zeke (first image) and gort (second image) and. hm.

The Relativity and Connections between Jamaasian Lore and Mirabai

WARNING! ⚠️ Very religious themes. I apologise if I have any incorrect or outdated information, it's very risky writing about something surrounding a certain religion when in fact.. I'm an atheist.

The lore of Jamaa has always been a really tricky and fairly eerie topic to cover. It has themes from all sorts of different cultures and despite the main tale being retold, changed and edited one thousand times, the information we receive is clear about who the certain deities and characters are and what their roles to play give.

Today, we're looking more on the more eerie side of Animal Jam- The relationship between Mira and Zios. Surprisingly, we know more about our enemies the phantoms than we do the entities we're serving. Alot has been told about Mira, but on the other hand, not much information has been provided about Zios and his identity making him more or less a very suspicious character to take heed of. That's why there are so many theories regarding him specifically; the most we know is that...

●He is the spiritual highest point of the Jamaa heiarchy, having created Mira and setting the stars and planets in motion

●He is often depicted as a bodyless golden mask surrounded by intricate patterns and grooves

●He was the lover of Mira

●He dissappeared at some point in time and never came back.

To jog your memory, I'm going to be basing this theory more on the Old Jamaasian Lore. Interestingly, the lore was changed to make it appealing to a younger audience, but in the old lore we get a stronger sense of emotion and alot more information about the guardian spirits of Jamaa.

Zios is practically a God. He sets several plants, stars and seas in motion. Eventually he gets lonely and gives life to a deity said to be the perfect incarnation of humble beauty; a graceful grey heron named Mira. Mira and Zios get on well together and she often tells him how talented and artistic he is.

Eventually, Zios falls for her, and creates a beautiful land for he and Mira to share; Jamaa- as a sign of his love.

Mira is ecstatic and suggests and creates the idea of giving live to mortal inhabitants to the land- us, the animals. However, Zios gets a little snappy at Mira for that. He meant for this place to share just between the two and for nobody else to interfere.

He then snaps at Mira for creating the Animals and the two fall into a fearsome and emotional argument. Mira's tears then, without her knowing, come into accidental contact with the mortal world. Since she is an omniscient deity, mixing such power with normal life would end in ruin- Thus creating the phantoms.

Here's the catch. Mira and Zios are too wrapped up in their argument to notice the phantoms attacking Jamaa. Since the phantoms were created by Mira, they would only obey her. That is why they are after Zios, to avenge Mira. Also a case why we never see the phantoms target Mira specifically.

Then, they notice the peril Jamaa is in and, still angry at eachother, select the powerful and strong remaining animals in their selective tribes as Alphas to defend.

Shortly after, Zios goes missing. We're told the phantoms took him through the phantom portal never to be seen again. However, there is alot of evidence to suggest he fell victim to the phantoms and gave in to their side, furthermore taking control of the Phantom Empire. That may be why, despite their goal being reached, they continue to harass and attack the alphas, Jamaa, and by extent, Mira.

From then, the Alphas succeed, and all is well. Zios, however, is never heard of again.

Despite their argument, Mira is eternally upset. That is why phantoms keep producing, due to her tears. Since Zios left angry at Mira, it may be an extra that she thinks Zios left hating her.

And... That is what is inferred from the old lore. The new lore consists of less knowledge about Mira and Zios, but more information about the Alphas and of course the animal heartstones.

Now, here is the thing. The tale of Jamaa is very familiar sounding to some people. Zios is often seen as omnipotent and very powerful. He's often seen as similar to several different gods in mythology..

●Zeus, the Greek god of sky and thunder (This one is self explanatory, even their names are similar: however I've seen this one cause a bit of controversy as this is comparing Zios to a technically VERY problematic god.. Also, Mira sounds alot like Hera!)

●Viracocha, the great creator deity in the pre-Inca and Inca mythology in the Andes region of South America. He's mainly mentioned in incan and mesopotamian mythology as the high creator god (and this one shares more similarities than you may think!) They both had lovers, both dissappeared after creating the world, both had similar powers (examples of heliokenesis) and they actually look REALLY similar, most likely Zios' design being based off of Viracocha's golden armor. Viracocha pictured below!

●And the last one... Krishna. An important religious figure in Hinduism and the final reincarnation/eighth avatar of Vishnu.

And that last one is what I'm planning to talk about today!

The perhaps most important part of this theory is Mirabai. Mirabai, often called Meera or Mira, was a 16th-century Hindu mystic poet and devotee of Krishna. She was known for her elegant beauty and poetry, as well as her eternal devotation to Krishna.

Meera pictured below as well as a figure of Krishna in the distance.

Surprsingly, we have our own Mira too. And if we're comparing Zios to Krishna, this relationship makes alot of sense. Meera was in love with Krishna, and Mira was in love with Zios. "In her last years, Meera lived in Dwarka or Vrindavan, where legends state she miraculously disappeared by merging into an idol of Krishna in 1547. While miracles are contested by scholars for the lack of historical evidence, it is widely acknowledged that Meera dedicated her life to Lord Krishna, composing songs of devotion and was one of the most important poet-saint of the Bhakti movement period." That paragraph was taken from Meera's Wikipedia entry, and relates alot to the story of Mira and Zios. Its said that Meera one day miraculously dissappeared just like Zios did and they only things she left behind were her poems, music, and of course, her devotion and husband-like considered relationship between her and Krishna.

Krishna pictured below.

Most of Meera's poems are dedicated to God in the form of Krishna, calling him the Dark One or the Mountain Lifter. "Some Meera songs include Radha, the lover of Krishna, and her jealousy and hatred for them. All her poems have philosophical connotations, mainly centered around Krishna."

The "Dark One" and "Mountain Lifter" terms are certaintly strange. Why would somebody refer to a "Dark One" in such a loving term?

Lets not forget the example of Zios not only representing the light in most cases, but spiritually, representing the dark. There's alot of evidence to actually suggest instead of the common thought that Zios represents the Sun and Mira the Moon, it may actually be the vice versa in a yin yang sort of way. Light and Dark cannot coexist without eachother and Zios and Mira are a great example of that.

I may explain the Zios is the moon thing a different time but you're going to have to roll with me here on this one... Zios is a perfect representation of the dark. Dark gives space and life to the light, but of course light always gives life to the dark.

Also, "Mountain-Bearer"... Not much to say here. Quite literally what Zios did to create Jamaa. "In her poems, Krishna is a yogi and lover, and she herself is a yogini ready to take her place by his side into a spiritual marital bliss. Meera's style combines impassioned mood, defiance, longing, anticipation, joy and ecstasy of union, always centred on Krishna."

Let's take a look at perhaps the most well known poem by Meera... And perhaps the one that relates the most to Jamaasian Lore. I am aware Julian2 has covered this in a video before, but here im going to take a proper analysis.

My Dark One has gone to an alien land. He has left me behind, he's never returned, he's never sent me a single word. So I've stripped off my ornaments, jewels and adornments, cut my hair from my head. And put on holy garments, all on his account, seeking him in all four directions. Mira: unless she meets the Dark One, her Lord, she doesn't even want to live.

— Mira Bai, Translated by John Stratton Hawley

Alot to process here. Let's see what we can compare.

●"My Dark One has gone to an Alien Land"-  Zios= Krishna: has gone to the realm of the phantoms/alien land

●"He's left me behind, he's never returned, he's never sent me a single word"- Exactly what Zios did. Never responded to Mira and didn't speak to her again after his dissappearance.

●"So I've stripped off my ornaments, jewels and adornments, cut my hair from my head"- Julian2 suggested this may be about Peck running away but this has been outdated. This could possibly refer to the "jewels and adornments" being the Alpha stones as Mira gives them away.

●"And put on holy garments, all on his account, seeking him in all four directions."- This refers to Mira yet again giving the alphas their Alpha Stones and after that she prepares to go out and find Zios.

●"Meera: unless she meets the Dark One, her Lord, she doesn't even want to live."- Unless Mira doesn't meet her Dark One- in this case, Zios-she doesn't feel the will to live, referencing her sorrow and despair without him.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm very convinced AJHQ may have based their lore on this poem specifically.

There is another poem that can relate to the legend of Jamaa, but there's not much to infer. I'm not going to do a thorough line by line analysis, but hopefully looking back on the analysis I just did you can atleast gather some stuff.

After making me fall for you so hard, where are you going? Until the day I see you, no repose: my life, like a fish washed on shore, flails in agony. For your sake I'll make myself a yogini, I'll hurl myself to death on the saw of Kashi. Mira's Lord is the clever Mountain Lifter, and I am his, a slave to his lotus feet.

"Meera speaks of a personal relationship with Krishna as her lover, lord and mountain lifter. (Sanson Ki Mala Pe Simru Main Pi Ka Naam) is written by Meera Bai Shows her dedication towards Lord Krishna. The characteristic of her poetry is complete surrender." -Quote from Wikipedia

The song of Sanson Ki Mala Pe Simru Main Pi Ka Naam is an interesting one-referring to her "beading the name of her beloved on the garland of my breaths". Interestingly, this song refers to Krishna as a Cuckoo Bird- A little bit of a crack theory, but this may suggest Zios could actually be the same behind that mask of his?

Examples of this bird-referring lyric are this quote from that same song:

"He is a melodious bird

He is a magnificent man

This foolish girl has taken

The beloved’s heart as the Lord"

I will link the full song plus English translation below!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ekta25.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sanson-ki-mala-pe-simroon-main-pi-ka-naam-on-the-garland-of-my-breaths-i-have-bejewelled-my-beloveds-name/amp/

Intresting... Perhaps Zios IS some sort of bird!

In conclusion, Mirabai's poetry, devotion and songs have alot of connections to Jamaasian Lore! I find this interesting, but this did help us gather quite a bit of information!

Reflection #1: An Atheist’s Point of View

Hey, Everyone! So, for my first post I decided to share with you my work on our Values Education subject... We were supposed to reflect about our faith in God but since I told my teacher that I am an atheist, he required me to describe how its like being an atheist, write my reasons why and how I am an atheist and explain them, and also asked me what or who do I believe if not God... So, here goes nothing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God. The word that always makes me question everything in existence. The name that I keep trying to figure out. God is someone I’ve been very curious about since I was a child when I finally got enough brain cells to ask about things that are complicated to answer for children and adults alike. Even now, when my faith and belief had already changed and possibly may never change back. I was already an atheist before I even knew the word ‘atheist’, or that there are also people as curious as me about God’s existence, and that believing Him was a choice. Ironically enough, for some time, I used to be a devoted religious kid just like my family. I attended church every Sunday. I get to pray before meals and even before snacks. I hold hands with my family as we pray before we sleep and when we wake up. I liked singing church music. I even competed for Religion Quiz Bees. I did all of those things without questioning why they were necessary because I already knew what people would answer: “God would be sad if we didn’t do this or that”; “We owe it to Him for saving us by sacrificing His only son to pay for our sins”; “Its the right thing to do. Don’t you want to go to heaven?” And, for a while, those were enough for me. So, I went on doing those things. The older I got though, more questions pop in my head, like: “If God was the real father of Jesus Christ, and created everything, where did God came from? And HOW can something or someone exist from an endless void of blankness?”; “What would happen to people with different religions if they don’t worship God? Aren’t we all supposed to have one god only if He created all of mankind? Does this mean there are many other gods or goddesses? Are all religions just the same?”; “If God is truly an all-loving and an all-powerful being, why didn't He stopped wars and crimes? Why is it that the good and the innocent often suffer or die first? Why is still there misery?”; “If we owe our abilities and intelligence to God, why did he lie to Adam and Eve in the first place that the Tree of Knowledge would kill them? Why do we owe Him anything and have to do all of this and that if He loves us unconditionally?”; “I thought it was in the commandments that killing is a sin, then why did God kill all of those children in the Plague of the First Borns when they’re just innocent kids? Will He kill me too if I don’t believe in Him? Why did He had to flood the entire world? I’m sure there were other good people besides Noah and his family. Does His godhood give Him that right?”; “Why are we still paying for our ‘sins’ when we weren't even alive during those centuries and if He already saved us from them?”; “ If God is perfect why is He jealous of other gods? And again, why would He if He is the only god?”; “Is He a human or an alien or something else?”; “Does He even exist? What if the entire Bible is just a compilation of stories and God was created out of sheer imagination and used to make people do or obey certain things by also creating the concept of heaven and hell?”; “I have been a good person all my life, how come I never felt Him all these years like others do?” And, as soon as I asked myself that last question, all I ever prayed for a long time was for Him to give me a sign. A sensation that would let me know if He’s there... really there. That I’m not just talking to air and nothingness. I am still waiting for that sign...Soon, I would start speaking the whys and hows that are occupying my head. The answers are all the same as usual: “God is the one true God.”; “God will always have mercy.”; “God is always here and He’s in the hearts of every single one of us.” They didn’t exactly answered my questions and just confused me more. So, I kept asking... One time though, I got scolded and punished for asking such questions. “STOP THINKING LIKE AN ATHEIST OR YOU'LL GO CRAZY!”; “ It is a ‘sin’ to even question our Lord Savior’s existence and greatness”, they told me. I didn't understand it and I still don’t. What’s so wrong for asking questions? I never got answers that satisfied even half of my skeptical mind. So, I just chose to drop the subject and proceed on what I was doing before. But, it really was harder than people thought, especially seeing as how our world and society functions today... I have met many people throughout the years who are the opposite of the stereotypes I was taught. People I always see in church always act so mean outside of it. People I never see or seldom see in church are often the ones who are nice. Politicians in T.V. always claim to be serving God’s wishes only to end up in jail and then released free to repeat their crimes without even paying for the previous one. We even hear about priests who are proven guilty of crimes like rape, murder, and theft---things they preach as sins to people. And money is almost as valuable as life, freedom, and justice nowadays. For a long time, I fought not to give in. I wasn’t willing to admit to anyone---even to myself that I’m an atheist. I prayed and prayed and prayed but still, there’s this big question mark at the back of my head that I tried so hard to ignore ever since I was a kid. I was afraid of what people would do to me, or say of me, or think of me if they find out. I tried to reason myself that maybe I’m this way because of my bad experiences a child. Maybe, its because I was bullied for a long time. Maybe, I’m just lonely. At some point, I asked my parents, “Why is God letting me get hurt in school when I pray for his help every night?” They just replied, “Everything happens for a reason. This is all according to His plan for you”... And that made me mad. What reason? What plan? So I could be traumatized and have social anxiety for years? Why does it have to be this way? So He could always be the one I’ll run to when I’m troubled? So I’ll always need Him when He’s the one causing my pain all along? Well, on human relationships that would’ve been unhealthy and is even a form of emotional and psychological abuse! I blamed Him for a while for that. But in the end, I realized that my experiences got nothing to do with God’s existence. At all. People are either nice or just plain-down-right mean. And, I was just unfortunate to meet them. I also don’t think I could ever let myself sleep knowing that someone is to blame up above for causing pain and misery to the people on Earth and just watches them and doing nothing because He has a “plan”. I am an atheist because of how my mind functions. Plain and simple, and nothing else. I don’t know how some people always find a way to make their own explanation of me being an atheist that is usually connected to my terrible past rather than just accepting my own reason. It wasn’t until I was in  my mid-teens that I’ve finally learned to accept and make peace for who I truly am. Its hard being the only atheist in a big family of Christians. Its hard to hide a part of your identity to most of your loved ones because for them, it doesn’t matter what your religion is, but anything besides religious is wrong. Its hard to be stereotyped every single time and see your fellow atheists or atheists in general be inaccurately represented by people, in books, films and media. Its hard to be forced to do things by others and by yourself even if its against your entire belief system because you don’t want to disappoint anyone or be disowned. Its hard to lose people you’ve known for a long time because they immediately changed their impression of you from ‘friend’ to ‘evil’ right after they heard the word ‘atheist’ following the phrase ‘I am’. Its hard to be always afraid of losing someone you love just because of who you are. Its hard to be judged by people you don’t even know and have not a single idea what its like to be in your place without even hearing you out first. Its hard to be always fighting for your validation just because you believe in something different. I cant count how many times people have told me, “All you need is to believe and have faith in Him and you'll feel His presence.” They don’t get it! We wouldn’t still be asking question if it were that easy! People like me need hard and tangible evidence for things. Something that is permanent and proven. We cannot just rely on beliefs that varies for different people in different religions and nations that also change over the course of some time. And yet somehow its our fault because we aren’t convinced? Like, its a bad thing if we don’t get convinced? In the end all I can say are three things: FIRST, as long as we exist in this world today we are indeed obligated to always do and choose the right and just decisions no matter what we believe in. Not because we owe to some divinity up above, but because we owe it to the next generations who will carry all of our mistakes and wrong doings in the future. Whether God and heaven exist or not, choose love and always incorporate compassion through your every action. Its better to do the right thing because ITS good, rather than doing them just TO BE good. At the end of the day, a person’s morality is seen through their actions towards the world and others and is not based on beliefs nor who they serve. SECOND, we are who we are and we choose our own paths alone because we are all capable beings. I refuse to believe that everything we are today and every achievement we ever reached through hard work would still not be possible if it weren't for someone in the heavens. Because for me, that is basically saying we are still nothing and even worthless after all the hardships we’ve been through and conquered without a faith or Him. The choice is ours whether it be good or bad, we have no one to blame for our mistakes and no one to thank for our victories but ourselves. And THIRD, I believe that people should not be forced to do or believe in anything they don’t want or disagree with under any circumstances. All of us are different and unique in our own ways and it is that uniqueness that gives us our identity and help us thrive in life. People should stop judging each other for not seeing eye-to-eye. Every opinion and belief should be respected and be seen as equal to one’s own for they have a history and reason behind them that a person is not expected nor obligated to explain nor defend to anyone. Even if you don’t agree with everyone, the important thing is that you are not hurting anybody with your opinions and beliefs. Love, Respect, and Critical Thinking must always be present and avoid all means of biasedness if one wish to understand a person’s point of view or when deciding what to do that will benefit everyone equally. We must accept that there are many sides of truth for many people, and that the informations that are passed down to us by our ancestors for centuries are not always as they seem. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey! So, What d’ya guys think?

So...I was reading an article the other day in which a critic noted that American film adaptations of British classic literature often seem to downplay the element of classism that is typically so pervasive in... well, British literature in general, but definitely anything written before the mid 20th Century. That made me think about GOT as an adaptation of ASOIAF, and the way that class is depicted as an element of the world building in the books vs the show. 

In the books, of course, most of the POV characters are of the nobility and pretty much all of them would be considered “classist” to a modern audience, at least to some extent, because they do not mix with the “common people” and subscribe to the social hierarchy of their society. A notable exception is Arya Stark, who is “class blind”, so to speak. Especially at the beginning of the series, Arya seems both largely ignorant of the realities of class distinction and also seems not to care about class as social construct at all. This, of course, is largely because Arya is a child and has not yet been made aware of the ugly reality of the social order which places her very near the top of the pyramid (as a Lord’s daughter) and her friend Mycah pretty near the bottom (as a butcher’s boy) and therefore makes their friendship extremely difficult to sustain, even impossible to sustain, once the idyllic bubble of her Winterfell childhood is popped. And Mycah’s death essentially was the result of the social order, the status quo, punishing him for daring to play with another child so far above his station. This is something Arya still doesn’t quite grasp after the fact, but it is quite clear to reader. There is to be no justice for Mycah. No one is going to fight for his parents in court, and proclaim the injustice of an innocent child’s murder. No one. 

You see, because Mycah is lowborn no one will seek justice for him, “no one had raised a voice or drawn a blade or anything, not Harwin who always talked so bold, or Alyn who was going to be a knight, or Jory who was captain of the guard. Not even her father” thinks Arya in despair. All these men are “good” men by Westerosi standards, but all of them understand the social order, subscribe to the social order, and will not fight the Crown on the issue of a murdered peasant child. Basically, it isn’t a deal breaker for them that their king allowed it to happen and it would be for most people today who hope to be worthy of the  description of “good person”. This is because all of these men that Arya wants to step up and fight for Mycah’s right to live as a human being are classist. Now, they are “good” Westerosi men, and would never kill an innocent child themselves, but they are classist nonetheless because they uphold the classist social order. The fact that Arya, as an innocent unbiased child, cannot understand this at all makes it quite clear to the reader that the social hierarchy is both inherently stupid, unjust and morally bankrupt. Yet, at the same time, it highlights that being without class based prejudice is not on the Westeros checklist of what constitutes a “good guy”. 

You see the same sort of thing in stuff like Jane Austen novels. Was Darcy a good gentleman landowner who looked after the people who worked for him and were tenants on his land? Yes, he’s a good dude. But is he “classist” and only hangs out with people of his own social status or higher, also pretty much yes. By modern standards that is. Darcy is still pretty progressive by Regency standards (which Austen was making a point of) for being friends with the Bingleys and marrying Elizabeth. Yet a modern reader can’t help but note that Bingley is still rich dude and is planning to become a gentleman landowner himself, and Elizabeth... well her mother may be middle-class, but her father’s status puts her and Darcy on equal ground, if only in name. So is Darcy classist? Yes! Even Elizabeth is by modern standards (Lydia is probably the most open minded of all in that regard!) and this is almost always downplayed in modern adaptations, particularly American adaptations, which brings me back to the point of this whole post...

Ahem. So the article I was reading that made me think of all this, quoted Robert Irvine, a British critic, whose opinion was (in my own words) that American film adaptations of Jane Austen’s work did their best to downplay the classism in them because of the fact that American culture plays up the egalitarian nature of their society, where anyone can do anything if they just believe and have the grit and determination to pursue their dreams. Essentially, he was saying that it was believed that the American audience could never truly accept or like classist heroes or settings, where respect and authority is blatantly passed down through ancient family names, wealth and land ownership. Clearly, this take on things can easily be related to ASOIAF and GOT because the setting, Westeros, is based on medieval Britain, and the social situation is very medieval indeed, feudalism, kings, queens, lords, ladies and knights, oh my! And of course, peasants...the great unwashed masses...

What I find interesting, is that GRRM in writing ASOIAF generally tried to stay fairly true to what medieval nobles might actually think about class, and indeed, the sort of sentiment that might exist among peasants towards the nobility. The show on the other hand... All of this is out the window! What exactly does class mean in the GOT universe? They seem to have reduced it to, “if you care about class then you’re a baddy” (I’m assuming this based on the fact that the few times it’s ever brought up as an issue it’s by someone we’re not meant to like). Otherwise, they have low born people being besties with nobles and sassing them like equals and nary an eyelid was e’er bat. This kind of thing might work to make your noble born protagonists more likable to the modern audience, but it really messes up the worldbuilding when it comes to the presentation of the smallfolk. This is especially evident with the way the whole Sparrow movement was dealt with in the show. The writers apparently decided to use that aspect of the plot to reinforce everyone’s hatred of religious extremism and the Sparrows basically became Christian fundamentalists. The problem is, the Sparrows are actually more of a “by the people for the people” kind of deal and in the pseudo-medieval setting, they represent how religion could actually empower the medieval  lower classes through the messaging of the destructive powers of wealth and greed on the nobility and the equality of all men under God. The Sparrow movement emerged out of the downtrodden masses and just because they organise under the banner of their faith, it doesn’t mean that they can just be dismissed as evil extremists! They have every right to “fight the power!” They’d been suffering under these shortsighted nobles for yonks! 

Except... this is made obvious to book readers... not to show watchers. You see, as far as any casual viewer of the show is concerned, being a peasant in Westeros ain’t so bad. Nobles will be friends with you! You can sass them all you want. Look, they’ll teach you to read and say you can be their family and come live with them in Winterhell! I’m specifically pointing out the characters of Bronn, Davos, Gendry and Hot Pie here because these are pretty much the only members of the small folk we see represented as developed characters in the show. All the other small folk are basically just extras, the “fickle mob” who are so incredibly stupid they don’t even know to hate the people who blew up their holiest site and murdered the leader that was fighting for their rights... but I digress. With these specific characters, we get just one shade of the noble/small folk dynamic. Arya is “class-blind” and doesn’t care about her friend’s low social status, ditto Stannis for the most part, and ditto Tyrion (and how hilarious that is if you know anything about book!Tyrion). Without any other evidence to the contrary, it is possible for a casual viewer to assume such relationships are not unusual in Westeros and that, indeed, it may even be a fairly egalitarian society where with enough grit and determination, YOU TOO CAN BE A LORD! A similar thing happens with the show’s portrayal of institutionalized sexism and  misogyny... but that’s another issue... 

What I’m really getting at here is that it is quite interesting to see how class is handled in the books as opposed to the show. GRRM, though he is an American author, is pretty content with writing classist “heroes”, but D&D are most certainly not. Likewise, GRRM, though an atheist, is apparently ok with depicting a religious movement with roots in the lower class fighting for their rights, but D&D are not about showing the poor rising up when they can just beat us over the head with the evils of organised religion. So what is this about? GRRM is an american author so I thought, “It can’t just be something in American culture that prevents them from being able to understand or sympathise with classist character...”. But then I thought, “Oh, but GRRM is deliberately making his heroes complex and problematic, he wants the reader to squirm over their faves”. However, the show blatantly avoids class based issues, definitely erases classism from those character’s we’re meant to sympathise with and demonises it in those characters we’re meant to dislike. So it seems as if they, at least, believe that classism is just too off putting in a supposedly “good” character. So I put this to any American followers I have. Is this the case? Is Robert Irvine right? Is a classist mindset something you simply can’t get down with? 

Speaking as someone who grew up with full awareness of class and its impact on everyone, it really isn’t a deal breaker for me on whether or not I like a character. This is despite the fact that I strongly believe in equality and don’t hold with any “good breeding” nonsense. It still seems natural to me for a character to have class based biases because I grew up in a society where that is pretty much expected of everyone to a certain degree, though it is, of course, frowned upon to actually express these biases in polite society. Especially if I’m reading historical fiction or fantasy! Gosh, nothing annoys me more than when writers try to force me to like a character by making them so much more “modern and progressive” than anyone in their society has any right to be!

But let me know how you feel! I’m truly interested from a cultural studies kind of standpoint as, I admit, it’s something I’ve actually noticed a lot in American cinema and television. 

8/21/19 the accompanying story 2

So: The Fountainhead. 

I think Howard Roark is an unbelievable and unlikable character. An absolute Mary Sue. He seems to understand every human fundamentally. It’s really annoying. I also don’t agree with Rand’s philosophy, and that philosophy is injected in every possible opportunity in this book, to the point where I have trouble remembering it’s a story. 

The one thing I like about Ayn Rand is that she was an outspoken atheist. 

Anyway, the funny thing about this story is that the ‘misunderstanding’ is completely autobiographical. I just thought it’d be funny to write about in a story format. 

In full honesty, I think this story is not good, so don’t worry about feeling the need to read it. I was trying, for the first time, to grind out a story that I didn’t feel a need to write. AKA, my heart wasn’t in it, but I wanted it done. I’m glad I finished it, though.

So, without further ado, story: 

******************************************************************************

He was having marital problems.

Or, rather, they were. He shook his head, upset with himself for still thinking of them as separate entities. That’s not what the counselor had told hi--them to do. 

It had started with small, retractable things: a passive aggressive comment about who earns more money; a quarrel over who should pick up the kid from school; whose fault it was for the flat always being an absolute pigsty. 

It had escalated into large, injurious things: a refusal to speak to one another for days; a manipulation of the kid into siding with one over the other; his exodus to the guest bedroom, where he laid down his new sleeping arrangements.

Their relationship had gotten unhealthy, and during a day of peace, they decided to seek out counseling. They did not want to hurt the kid any longer. They were sick of being happy individuals and an unhappy couple.

******************************************************************************

And today, weeks later, the sun was up, the birds were chirping, and the racket forced him awake.

He mumbled a few curse words, yawned, and stretched, swinging his legs out of bed while doing so. The book he was reading was placed precariously on the nightstand beside him, and he accidentally knocked it over as he got up. 

Groaning, he picked it up off the floor and read the title: The Fountainhead. He admired the cover. The book was nice reading and held a nicer message, he thought. Just be yourself. 

He had owned the book for years, since he graduated college. It was recommended to him by a friend of a friend who recognized and sympathized with his struggle for individuality. He had been moping at a bar with his friends, grappling with what it all meant, and they had swung by her place afterward to shoot the breeze. He continued to brood about not having a sense of self, and she had smiled and pressed the book into his palms, claiming that he could find himself simply through reading it. Just be yourself, she had told him.

He had only remembered it, for one reason or another, after the first counseling session.

******************************************************************************

The session had been a disaster. They spent the entire appointment arguing about who contributed more to the family and who was to blame for the kid having to take anti-depressants lately and why the hell couldn’t he do more to help around the house?  

They didn’t talk the entire drive home, against the counselor’s advice. They both greeted the kid, who had been starving on its own. He walked into his new bedroom and closed the door shut. He collapsed into the old mattress that the room boasted and let his eyes droop shut, suddenly fervently thankful for having his own space.  

He spent some time contemplating himself and what he was to make of life. It’s not really the question you should ask yourself at age 52, but he asked it nonetheless. 

His job made him money; it did not make him happy. 

His kid lost him money; it made him happy. 

His marriage…

...made him realize that he was using his possessions to determine his sense of self.

His eyes snapped open as the girl from thirty years ago once again handed him the book earnestly, her expression mysterious and self-assured. The Fountainhead, he dimly recalled. 

It was lucky that their ‘library,’ if you could call it that, was also kept in the guest bedroom. He leapt out of bed and began pawing through the various texts on the bookshelf, looking for that short, bold, unapologetic name.

Ayn Rand.

With a smile, he had slid the book out carefully from all the others, hopped back into bed, and started reading. 

******************************************************************************

And now, today, with the birds singing and the sun ever so pleasant on his back, he decided to draw the curtains and turn on his lamp. 

 He didn’t have to work today--his boss told him not to bother, as the team was going to waste the day training a bunch of interns. He was grateful for not having to take them under his wing. He had enough trouble with one kid. 

 So he cracked open the book and soon became deeply immersed.

…

…

Soon, he came across a quote, boldly uttered by a character named Kent Lansing, which read: If I were asked to choose a symbol for humanity as we know it, I wouldn't choose a cross nor an eagle nor a lion and unicorn. I'd choose three gilded balls.

He stopped reading, stuck a ruler as a makeshift bookmark into the book, and looked up at nothing in particular. 

He came out of his room and cooked dinner for the kid and his wife, which was a task that they had agreed he would work on during a session. 

He sat with them and asked them both about their day.

He joked and tried to laugh with them about current events and silly stories.

And the entire time, his mind was trying to understand what exactly that line had meant. What exactly were the three gilded balls? 

He wished his family goodnight and went into his own room, falling into an uneasy sleep.

...

At 2:33 a.m., he jolted upright, and opened his laptop. He opened the web browser and typed in Newton’s Cradle. 

It looked like the invention traditionally came with five chrome balls, but he was sure this was what Rand had meant. 

He smiled and thought it over. The symbol of humanity. 

From what he understood about the book thus far, Rand was arguing that there were two kinds of people. Those who create, and those who copy. Howard Roark, the protagonist, was a creator. Peter Keating, a deuteragonist, resigned himself to copying others and never choosing to think for himself. The struggle between the two in society was the main issue that the book tackled.

And the symbol of humanity, as Newton’s Cradle...it was brilliant. Howard Roark: the initiator of movement, of force, of kineticism.  The Peter Keating’s of the world: absorbing the shock, the impact, the catalyst of change that Roark represented, but refusing to move with him; condemned to propagating the impact without ever truly moving because of it. And on the other end: the backlash, the ones who seek the status quo, the ones who are an action against the action. The action and the re-action argue back and forth, their messages silently passed along by the ones in the middle, until the argument fizzles away and progress is never made.

It was true, he thought to himself, as he closed the laptop shut and snuggled back readily into his warm bed. In this world, you are doomed to either lead or follow. And leaders are the only ones capable of arguing with one another. 

He swore to never allow the argument to fizzle away. He would always engender change. He had found a sense of self. 

His last thought before falling into a deep, peaceful slumber was an absolute, heart-wrenching disgust for the millions of people in the middle of the Newton’s Cradle--the ones who saw and felt change and refused to move along with it. 

******************************************************************************

He divorced his wife. 

After finishing the book, he realized what it meant to be one’s own person. He wanted to live freely. Not in the eyes of the people in his life. 

His wife did not see him as a winner, and as such, she prevented him from seeing himself as one. He knew she was toxic to his success. He stopped coming to the counselor sessions, as they only served to make him feel and look bad. He gave up on trying to save their marriage.

He internalized the Newton’s Cradle as his own philosophy. Like a mantra, he found himself recalling it throughout his life. He was the force that would allow his family to have a happier life. The divorce could only help them. His wife was the opposition, the force seeking to deny them all happiness by insisting they could build happiness from what they were already. 

The kid, God damn it, was the middle. It served no purpose save to convey his message to his wife, and his wife’s message to him. 

Eventually, after enough back and forth, it was he who brought about change. His wife agreed to divorce, and took the kid with her. He was free to be his own man. To just be himself. 

...

He brought this mentality into the workplace. He made sweeping changes across his team, picking and choosing people that served his purposes. He was the change. His former teammates were the opposition. 

And his manager, God damn him, was the middle. 

Ironically, the roles changed when his manager called him into his office to remove him from his position. He was, his manager claimed, taking too many partially-informed risks for no real reason. His manager was the change. He was the opposition. 

And his coworkers, God damn them, were the middle. After enough back and forth, it was he who brought about change. By leaving his position, he allowed both the company and himself to progress with their lives.

****************************************************************************** 

Despite being family-less, jobless, and almost penniless, he could not help but feel optimistic. Just be yourself, he thought. He was the initial action of the Newton’s Cradle. He would never be the middle. 

While in between jobs, he would make a few bucks on the side finding abandoned goods and products and bringing them in to shady stores. It was a process known as pawning, but he did not care for such a distasteful title. He was the king (technically queen) of the chess game, the one dictating the pace of the game. 

His friends, he was reluctant to discover, lived in the middle of the Cradle. They did nothing but propagate what others were telling them; how others were behaving, what others were doing with their lives. He found out quite a lot about his ex-wife from them. 

He was becoming frustrated. He wanted support and comfort during the stressful period of being in-between jobs. He decided to help one of his friends to leave the dreaded middle zone. 

He met with his friend at a cafe, and brought with him The Fountainhead. And then he began to lecture. 

The doers, the listeners, the actions, the re-actions, he mentioned all of these things to his friend. He told his friend how he could find himself through acting, through being an agent of change. He mentioned how finding a sense of self required one to be on the outside of the Cradle, and that it was the easiest way to find purpose in life. He mentioned that one could build their entire structure of happiness upon the philosophy of the Cradle, and how he had learned to use the Cradle to apply to every aspect of his life. 

And finally, he flipped open the book to the page he had bookmarked since he had first read the line: the three gilded balls. 

His friend was appreciative of the lecture, but furrowed his eyebrows upon reading the line from the text. 

  “That’s all well and good, but...aren’t three gilded balls the symbol for a pawn shop?” 

1) “So… you concede the debate and admit that your arguments are contradictory. Great!So why are you even still arguing? Why not just say “sorry I was wrong, thanks for pointing out the correct facts” and move the hell on? Or say nothing and simply stop harassing Christians?”

1-Your taking that out of context, you know i meant what happened in a previous post about correlation and causation. At what point did i start harassing Christians i was tagged in this thread by @dropslikerain and i didn’t even respond to you, you started responding to me that’s not harassment that’s called a debate. And why do you want me to move on so badly?

2)”yes i am the “animeblog” i mistakenly made my response under the wrong blog that’s my fault i reposted it on this blog Stop that. It’s annoying.”

2-Didn’t this really needed a response but cool.

4)”Once again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Lets actually go through this entire thread, post by post, and see what actually happened.Original Post; A conservative blog posts an image of Muslims holding up violent signs. First response; Another conservative blog agrees. Second response; An SJW immediately attempts to change the subject to attack Christians, before “Atheists” were even mentioned. Third response; @sophisticatesophia​ defends Christianity and explains the reason why Islam is different. Fourth response; A blog with the URL “atheist ideas” and the Title “Forgetting Fairytales” launches into an attack on Sophia telling her that all the “Abrahamic Faiths” are equally bad and do “putrid things” which justify why people hate them. ”

4-Now look at atheists ideas response( The sheer oblivious nature of your argument is wild. I despise all the wrong done over history in the name of both religions, however you’re giving christian history a complete pass for when it was doing exactly like islam by murdering & destroying other cultures the world over. Abrahamic religions & those who adhere to them have done & will continue to do putrid things in the name of their god & religion…. It’s a disgrace that people can find any “holy scripture” to subjugate or inflict violence on others but it’s happened the world over for millennia. Maybe one-day we’ll pull our collective heads out of our asses & be loving & seek to look out for one another instead of want to kill each other. ) Now where in that entire response do they mention atheists or saying in anyway shape or form that atheists are better or that all religions should be destroyed seriously where. it’s still a red herring you can’t prove it at all that atheism was ever brought up your just attacking the person based on there name derailing the conversation from one thing to  another everyone can see it. and in the “sjws” argument what part of this is “Sjw”? ( This is a photo of a handful of extremist assholes. Would you judge all Christians based on, say, the crap people at a white pride rally are spewing? This is an appeal to emotion not based in reason. ) the entire point of there argument is you shouldn’t judge a entire group of people based the actions of a few.

5)”all i have is a cellphone and minimal time to respond Then just drop it. If you already conceded that you were wrong and you have “minimal time” to respond, why are you still trying to drag this out?”

5-and here you are misquoting me and being intellectually here is what i actually said.( I apologize that when all i have is a cellphone and minimal time to respond that I did not revise my my post at the time. but to attack someone based on there grammar and spelling is childish at best. ) If you actually understood the context you’d know that at the time of some of my responses that all i had was a phone and minimal time to revise at the time.

6)”the KKK ya know one of if not the most well know christian terrorist group Debunked HERE. A blog on another website (run by an an atheist no less) also rejects the claim that the KKK is Christian. And my “Christian Terrorism” Master Post also debunks this. And the key point is that the FBI statistics inherently disprove any “Christian terrorism” claims. ”

6-https://thelightnc.com/9460202/kkk-leader-members-are-christians-who-are-not-about-hate/ And here is a link that directly refutes that with a quote from the klans leader Ancona contends, ”We don’t hate people because of their race. We are a Christian organization. Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen, all are supposed to be murderers and wanting to lynch Black people and we’re supposed to be terrorists. That’s a complete falsehood.” And here are multiple links to newspaper articles of there actual terrorist acts threw the years to  debunk what he said in the second part of his quote.

A)http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justice-story/klansman-kill-african-american-soldier-desolate-ga-road-article-1.1615929

B)http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_tulsa.html

C)http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/4815

As you can see just from these few links it wasn’t just  a few bad eggs it was the whole KKK.

7)A-I have already admitted i was wrong about Hitler but he wasn’t a atheist I never said he was an atheist. You want to whine about “strawman” arguments then accuse me of something like this? Once again you have made an ironic argument that disproves your own point.

Once again you prove your misunderstanding of fallacies and how they work what i said was not a fallacy nor ironic, i said i was wrong and also mentioned he wasn't atheist i never claimed you said he was, him being atheist was brought up earlier in the debate with Sophia so i added that,re reading it now it was unnecessary to add in hind sight.

B-Really your gonna argue that Catholics are not christian last time i checked to be a christian you needed to A) believe in god and that Jesus died for your sins B)Use the bible for teachings of the lord

Great job once again demonstrating that you don’t understand Christianity.One of the key beliefs which makes up the foundation of the Biblical Christian Worldview is that there is no interposition between man and God. Catholics inherently violate this through their dogmas which insist that the Pope is infallible and that you cannot receive salvation unless you have received communion administered by a Catholic priest. These beliefs represent a form of Ecclesiastical Absolutism that creates an unnecessary interposition between man and God, which means that Catholicism cannot be considered a version of Christianity. This is (one of the many) reasons that Protestant Christians rejected the Catholic church and came to America. Source: Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500

And here once again your arguing semantics we can be here all day arguing this alone but the fact of the matter is Catholics are a form of Christianity http://www.ncregister.com/blog/longenecker/are-you-christian-or-catholic And here is a article of a person who has been protestant and Catholic.And a added not your link sends me to amazon to buy a book, you do realize theirs not much i can do with that i can’t afford nor do i have the time to  read this book having my busy schedule and knowing how impatient you are if i don’t respond immediately in a more former debate i could but this is not that.

3,8-11)”All minor points, most of which are wrong, and mostly complaining about sources. Essentially, since you already conceded that your original argument was wrong and that you also have been proven wrong on many of your other claims (such as “mixed fibers”and “Hitler” claims), it is pretty obvious that the only reason you continue to respond to this thread is to utilize a nitpick strategy of whining about as many minor points as you can think of. This is a great example;you didn’t even check your source it’s one of the most buzzfeed-esk pages with pseudo science websites possible It’s an academic study published by the University of Oxford and authored by two PhD holders. And it can be cited from plenty of other websites as well. If this source isn’t good enough for you, then nothing which is publicly available on the internet ever will be.And meanwhile you are citing sources like Wikipedia and Quora, even though these sites are known to have a strong anti-Christian bias. This is again an incredibly ironic and hypocritical stance for you to take.Lastly, you still failed to respond to where I called you out on the “mixed fibers” fallacy. You claimed that you “understand” the Bible “completely” but as that screw up (plus the numerous other screw ups in this thread) prove, your knowledge of the Bible is extremely poor to say the least. ”

3,8-11-So what your saying is you refuse to go through each of my points, and you continue to misrepresent my argument saying i conceded to the whole thing, no i conceded to one point and that was about Hitler as previously stated if you understood context at all. and the problem with your source to the study is, the study doesn't exist i looked for it so i could read it and understand what was being said in the whole source but you refuse to acknowledge that either because your a liar or your lazy. and i haven’t been nit picking i have done my best to respond to each point you make as one does in any style of debate whether that be formal or informal like this which you have failed to do here grouping everything together and toss it to the side like you don’t care also your a Hypocrite you have nit picked me for minor grammar and spelling errors that i explained that i didn’t have the time to fix because of time constraints and that at the time i was on my cellphone not my computer. Wikipedia and quora aren’t “anti christian” Wikipedia is a encyclopedia on line i used purely for a list of christian denominations and quora allows people of any faith to make articles on it’s not anti christian. and your mixed fibers argument is i wasn't specific enough that its wool and linen mix and that it doesn't exist anymore, well you lied here’s a link of where to buy some https://modesens.com/product/ISABEL-MARANT-Cashlin-wool-and-linen-blend-skirt-684364/?refinfo=gShopping&gclid=CjwKCAjwranNBRBhEiwASu908AqIeq1VjRRcVSlyCMz0U6ITLu-sC9gxTmHIZdo5xc8gi9mqwSd2ghoCLBUQAvD_BwE&utm_expid=92191193-7.DbaAdSZ_Q2yEW3wTXxQWMw.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Closing statement- Again the entire point of my argument for this thread is you shouldn’t blame the majority for the faults of the few which you continue to ignore. This will be my last response to you i have admitted to my faults and wrongs in my arguments and you sit there and lie and refuse to listen i went through and read your links and your evidence but you failed to do so and you didn’t even check to see if the study was there and read it you just checked the article and linked me more where i still can’t get the study. your a intellectually dishonest and that’s the truth you brush off me showing you blatant fallacies in your arguments even when i show you the definitions and half of your links are to tumblr blogs that most of the time don’t site sources either. so yes this is the last response i have a life that i can’t continue to spend 3-4 hours researching and responding to you. so good luck have a good  life and if we talk again hopefully it’s under better circumstances where we can talk like normal people and about something like sports or video games. I do apologize that this post was 30 minutes late.and also sorry for re blogging it to the wrong blog. -sincerely anti-fembaby