My husband and I adopted two kittens on February 5th this year, they’re not little mates and one was 12 weeks and one was 14 weeks old. A Siamese mix that was brought in at a couple days old because the owner of the mama cat wanted to gift a brand new kitten to her friends little boy but they couldn’t take care of the round the clock feedings nor did they want a cat, she’s the older one we call Lainey. The other is a Siamese who was rescued from a breeder at just 4 weeks old along with a bunch of other Siamese kittens, mothers, and a stud male. The kitten that was rescued from the breeder must’ve had a hard time entering the world as her tail, her litter mates tails were all severely broken and looking like corkscrew’s. She’s the younger one we call Sophie.
Three months no issues other than Lainey bullying Sophie occasionally, now Sophie is starting to fight back. Lainey has been pretty mean to her from the start, the adoption/rescue we went through wanted them adopted out together. When I say mean, I mean kicking her out of bed, kicking her off furniture, absolutely tormenting her. Not just kitten play.
The thing is Lainey is going up to Sophie just attacking her for nothing, Sophie tries getting away before fighting back, the wounds Sophie has left on Lainey these last two weeks are what have me feeling like we should re-home one of them. My husband gets really mad about this and scolds me saying no. They’ve been to the vet since this and the vet says they’re both fine, there’s no underlying issues causing the behavior, and we should think of getting rid of one of them. I have a soft spot for Sophie, she’s the sweetest thing. My husband has a soft spot for Lainey.. I’m at a loss because I don’t like the wounds on Lainey that Sophie is giving all to protect herself from Lainey. My husband just will not let us re-home one of the kittens. Any professional or any advice someone can give me, on what to do about Lainey’s increasing aggression and getting my husband on board with finding a new home for her? My aunt lives in our neighborhood and has wanted Lainey since the day we got her…
Keeping Sophie seems like the better idea because we also have children and will Lainey becoming more aggressive I need to think to keep the more mild mannered one. Lainey has tried biting our kids before but has been unsuccessful so far, most of her aggression is saved for Sophie.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

There are 5 areals inside of which 5 elements reside. The five areals are: ● Mirage(hollow, reflective, refractive, instantanious, where psyche meets spirit). ● Woman (love, where spirit meets fire), ● Digitage( non-corporeal, energy storage where water meets fire) . ● Foilage(birthing, absorbing, growing, where animal meets water), ● Man(strife, where animal meets psyche)
(The elements between each areal are respectfully spirit, fire, water. animalia and psyche)
Inside animalia there are 6 distinct animals from which genesis occurs. Pachyderm (elephants, whales etc) Reptilian (lizards, snakes etc) Cephalapod (the sentient on the planet) Equine (horse, zebra etc) Canine (dog, wolf, jackal etc) Feline (cat, lion, cheetah etc)
Time is an illusion carried by humans (an amalgamation through time defying reproduction of the entirety of the cephalapods work in genesis on the planet earth.) The earliest intelligent animal on the earth was the vampyrapod. A ten tentacled species that landed here somehow flung from some rock or ejaculated by some larger animal. The vampyropods were fed upon by the local life here (trilobytes, bacteria etc) eating two of the tentacles (the mating tentacles (man(woman)) that began the genesis. The ten commandments themselfs biblically are the fossilized representation of one male and one female vampyropods. The ten tentacles arranged in their death explaining a meaning forever.
The 5 areals are where time is encased it is the job of humans to bear the weight of time while cephs continue the genesis.
If you imagine a star shape in which each point is an areal, and between each point is an element, than in the very center you will find salt, sugar, and vinegar (dry). With these base powders water, Nitrogen, And carbon can be formed. The basis of life on earth.
All the genesis of animalia as well as man made items were the creation of the cephs with intention. Mixing of animalia through time and genesis they have destroyed the dinosaurs and shifted them to aviaries. They did this through the tapeworm, an invention that not only makes up the organs of humans, (the intestines, the gallbladder etc) but was weaponized to destroy the dinosaurs en masse in preperation for the genesis plans of the cephs.
Modern octopus only live about 4.5 years and they have mastered the ability to transcend into the next through cannabalism as well as telepathy. They created the first language of enochian (the angels language) through tentacle and eye movements. Through many generations and reincarnations they developed telepathy as well as the ability to travel through time.
On genesis. An actuality has to occur from the cephs in time to create the genesis. Such as a ceph dying, killing. Being eaten. Eating. The laying of hands (tentacles in this case) or the travel through time to accomplish these. For example. A ceph intentionally was eaten by a komodo dragon, while conscious and being digested it telepathically sent the makeup from inside to another ceph. This ceph used that information to create the genesis of the tapeworm that would destroy the dinosaurs. After most reptilians were shifted to aviaries. There were remnants such as thr chameleon who is very fragile, has 2 penises that constnlantly prolapse and the female can hold sperm for years without self inseminating to create birth. If you take a pachyderm like an elephant an ld have it eat of a chameleon, perhaps with some other complicated genesis of elements and areals you will find you have a gnarwal. The main point is that once they mastered tome travel, they have had unlimited time to make use of their ability to create genesis on the planet. Every animal thay is alive today has been manipulated by the cephs to be exactly where it is in time to accommodate for a larger agenda.
Its my belief that there are only 3 unique cephs that survived the early devastation of trilobytes and other life feeding from these aliens. I call them Seth, Jack, and Claire. Seth is known for being cruel. Jack is more logical, Claire is more empathetic. Because they didnt have the gene popl to create offapring effectively they created this ability to utilize genesis to ensure their survival. This is why they are cannabls its because they must be in order to continue. The modern female octopus always feeds of the make after mating. The males always eat of the young ones after birth.
On 'man made' inventions Cephs proliferated through genesis all the tools to create the written word. From sea anemone to sea urchin to porcupine to bird feather, to quill. And you already know where the ink came from. These topls were provided to a banana pig infested with mutated tapeworms in order to solidify the structures of governance over time. Every iteration of every technology was also developed intentionally by the cephs in order to eatablish a relationahip with the digitage that is just now in our perception coming to power.
As a human, i am essentially just a warm blooded version of a ceph. (Make a bird with your hands, where are the beaks?) We exist inside this cage of time and bear its burden. Look at a shark it may sleep but it just keeps swimming. Humans cannot. We have to sleep. Which is close to the realm of death. We as humans are split and carry the weight of strife and love. This is gender and its roles. (This is not a politcal view of genders but a simplification for the idea that governs. Im positive that in infinite time, other genders maybe an option)
We are as a human race looking forward to scientific breakthroughs that happen when cephs accomplish the physical actuations in time that develop to possible situations we experience from that genesis. Such as. By 2027 scientists anticipate returning the wooly mammoth from extinction. It is my belief that we need an actualization of the 6th digit in the mammaths feet in order for a cephs agenda unknown.
Bird eating spiders are example of post genesis cannabalism that triggers another line of genesis to occur such as a poison tree frog or something. I beleive that venomous snakes were made that way because the egg is the fruit that the snake is tempted by. And if it ate of its own eggs it was cursed through genesis to bear the venom. A bovine has 4 stomachs. And udders that resemble somehwhat the tenacles of a ceph. Its my belief that a whale(pachyderm) that has 9 stomachs (the 9 circles of hell) consumed a ceph and in its 4th stomach met the remains of an equine and genesis occured. Resulting in a cud chewing cow. Precious ambergris is essential to perfumes and stimulated the olfactories in way unlike anything else in the world. It cannot be valued it unvaluable. Whales also sing ans produce music. The moder ceph has empirical hearing as well as oldlfactory experiences. Cephs love blueberries. Foe the antioxidants (ita okay its a joke you can laugh ) but really. They do. Modern octopus can be found in the pacific notherwest climbing trees. They dont eat and make their way up the rocky cliffs to the coniferous foilage in order to establish some genesis. That is a real human experience that is documented. They have cralwed in any form across every inch and again and again of this planet. A suction cup on the plastic window of a bill in the mail may have inadvertantly created the floppy disc.
On the macro and the myopic: We live in time where everything occurs simultaniously only on a different scale in a set of repeating patterns that run forwards or backwards in fractalization. Or so to say, the coast goes on forever. With innumurable bits of sand that outnumber the stars in the sky.
Youll find that rapa nui , or easter island is the end of time itself. A graveyard of sorts and a resting ground for the tired cephs who have labored throughout existence to provide the genesis for us to continue in this gestalt of a universe. Its not an end but also a beginning.

Hanuman is a Hindu God who is portrayed as a monkey and a devotee of Lord Rama who is believed to be the Lord Vishnu personified as a human. He is a muscular man, who represents physical strength devotion. Prayer to Hanuman is done by many for various reasons: to grow their power; to rise problems; for financial success and so ons.
But one special feature of Hanuman mantras and prayers for vashikaran is the purpose of winning other person or to attract them. Vashikaran is the technique which is used to manipulate or influence and even to control a person’s thoughts, mind and behavior. Using the Hanuman vashikaran formulas is applied to bring the person in question who is ardently desired or wanted. It may even be used to arrange for a girl who is missing or to look for a certain kind of a boy. The process of following the Hanuman vashikaran mantra assists you to establish connection with the desired person.
The Procedure for Hanuman Vashikaran Sadhana :How to Call Hanuman Vashikaran Sadhana:
Before starting the Hanuman vashikaran mantra it is important and necessary that a picture or statue of Lord Hanuman must be placed in front of the person. In the morning right before watching the said idol light a lamp or incense stick. Offer red any flower to the deity or one can apply sindoor on the deity. Chant this mantra 108 times on red string chanting beads and sit in front of Hanuman and ask him every day.
“Om Shree Hanumate Namah”
While chanting picture a handsomely attractive person you wanted to be. It is recommended you repeat the ritual for 41 days. The change of their behavior is possible within some days. She or he will begin to consider you as his or her sex partner and a strong sexual desire will develop when contacting each other sexually. It is possible that in a few weeks they would come to you in person or will appear in person among you once again.
What is Hanuman Vashikaran & How to do Vashikaran with Hanuman Mantra.
Vashikaran is just a method or a way of controlling the other person’s mind or having control on the thoughts of other. Hanuman vashikaran is such use of god Hanuman which affects the person for the individual. Hanuman is said to aid the devotee who possesses him with arousing spiritual energy whenever he or she faces any difficulties. His vashikaran sadhanas also operate like a kind of magnet to produce the desired attraction of a person or to make your lover to love in you in return.
Lovers of Hanuman too believe that if this God is worshipped with clean thoughts and whole hearted dedication then it leads to moksha and siddhi. The Hanuman vashikaran mantra will be effective only, if the person recites it without any evil intention and positive energy, then the energies of two souls would knit and this in turn invoke Hanuman to bless the couple.
Hanuman endorses your efforts of being so religious and thus fuses you with the loved one. Mantra chanting proves to be a good process that will attract your lover by sound waves that will lead to your lover’s coming to you on the subconscious level.
Why Hanuman is considered Worthy of Vashikaran?
Hanuman has been in many aspects viewed as the depiction of an ideal being whose actions are not self centered rather are directed towards God from the bottom of the heart because of his devotion. Rather than using these powers to enrich himself, he used them only to facilitate Lord Rama in settling difficulties in the people’s task.
Thus if you love Hanuman from the core of your heart and surrender to him and pray to him in this spirit he will be there to help you. Hanuman ji can detect what good intention you have to possess your desired spouse. So he invents this wonderful work through his magical powers in order to enable your lover to come into your life and deliver you to the best place in which you can have long term relationships.
Hanuman sadhanas has been attested in the testimonials of people who have benefited from them but only when they are pure in their intention. Regular repetition of words and phrases like this will create a positive association between your subconscious mind and you soul mate.
It send strong emotions which is able to calm even the maddest brain. : Thus it is thought that Hanuman vashikaran removes any blocks or boundaries between the couple. In that way, the client starts recognizing himself with you.
Thus it can be said that Hanuman vashikaran mantra can also prove to be highly advantageous while seeking such blessings for a relationship for ensuring pro-longing of the marriage if used in a positive manner.
However, it must be recalled that as highlighted earlier that the process of changing the mind set is a time-consuming one and this cannot be accomplished without putting your total faith and patience and persistence in the process.
Mantra for attracting a person of choice through spiritual means may be the Hanuman Vashikaran Sadhana if you are ready to invest your efforts and follow the right steps for making your wishes fulfilled.
Online Free Consultation With Baba Ji Please Visit:
https://www.astrobabag.com/

Vashikaran #HanumanMantra #PowerfulMantras #SpiritualAwakening #DivineIntervention #PositiveEnergy #Guidance #Blessings #MantraMeditation #HinduMantras #AncientWisdom #ManifestingDesires #DivineGrace #MeditateAndManifest #PositiveVibes #HarmonyInLife #ManifestationJourney #SpiritualEnlightenment #GoodVibesOnly #HigherConsciousness

Abstract

This paper explores the correlation between macro-sociological aspects of human societies and micro-anthropological insights into human evolution. By examining the evolutionary development of distinct biological features, it highlights how these features created the foundation for social stratification. The analysis draws on experiments and observations from primatology, particularly the seminal work of Frans de Waal in "Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes," and connects these findings with Vilfredo Pareto's analogy of Lions and Foxes in "The Mind and Society" to illustrate how adaptive intelligence among non-alpha individuals played a crucial role in balancing social hierarchies.

Introduction

Human societies have exhibited various forms of stratification throughout history, often influenced by the interplay between biological traits and social dynamics. To understand the roots of this phenomenon, it is essential to consider the evolutionary trajectory of humans and their primate relatives.

Human Evolution: An Overview

The evolutionary journey of humans began millions of years ago with our early ancestors, who gradually developed traits that differentiated them from other primates. Bipedalism, increased brain size, and complex social behaviors are among the key features that emerged during this process. As hominins evolved, they formed increasingly sophisticated social structures, which played a pivotal role in their survival and reproduction.

Emergence of Alpha Males and Resource Monopolization

As human ancestors formed social groups, certain individuals, often more physically strong and aggressive, began to dominate their peers. These alpha individuals monopolized resources, gaining control over food, shelter, and mating opportunities. Female mate selection further reinforced this hierarchy, as females often chose strong, dominant males, leading to a concentration of reproductive success among alphas.

Supporting Evidence from Primatology

This phenomenon is not unique to humans; it is also observed in our close relatives, the chimpanzees. Frans de Waal's research in "Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes" provides compelling evidence of similar dynamics in chimpanzee societies. In these groups, alpha males often monopolize resources and have higher reproductive success, while females prefer mating with these dominant individuals.

Adaptive Strategies of Non-Alpha Individuals

Faced with the dominance of alpha individuals, non-alpha males developed alternative strategies to survive and reproduce. Lacking the brute strength of alphas, these beta individuals relied on intelligence, cooperation, and innovation to navigate their social environment. This adaptive behavior can be observed in both human and primate societies.

Insights from Frans de Waal's Research

De Waal’s observations reveal that non-alpha chimpanzees exhibit higher levels of problem-solving skills, strategic thinking, and social learning compared to their alpha counterparts. These findings suggest that non-alpha individuals compensate for their lower physical dominance through enhanced cognitive abilities and social strategies.

Theoretical Implications: Lions and Foxes

Vilfredo Pareto’s work, "The Mind and Society," introduces the analogy of Lions and Foxes to describe the dual nature of elite power in societies. Lions represent the strong and powerful individuals who use force and traditional methods to maintain control, while Foxes symbolize the cunning and intelligent individuals who employ strategic thinking and innovation.
"The history of all societies is the history of the rise and fall of elites...the Lions, who rule through force, and the Foxes, who rule through cunning."
As human societies grew larger and more complex, power began to be divided between these two types of elites. This dual structure can be seen as a natural extension of the evolutionary strategies observed in primates, where both physical strength and intelligence play crucial roles in social dynamics.

Connecting Pareto and De Waal

The research by Frans de Waal on chimpanzees provides a microcosmic view of Pareto's Lions and Foxes analogy. In chimpanzee societies, alpha males (Lions) maintain their dominance through physical prowess, while non-alpha individuals (Foxes) use intelligence and strategic alliances to thrive. This dynamic balance between strength and cunning in both human and primate societies highlights the evolutionary roots of social stratification and the diverse strategies employed by individuals to gain and maintain power.

Historical Case Study: Ancient India

In ancient India, before the Vedic period, societies were organized into clans with leaders who often emerged due to their physical strength and ability to command. These leaders, akin to Pareto's Lions, consolidated political power and resources. However, as societies became more complex, another group emerged, consolidating knowledge and strategic thinking—these individuals can be likened to Pareto's Foxes.

• Neolithic to Early Vedic Period:

During the Neolithic age and into the early Vedic period, human settlements in India saw the rise of leaders who were not merely strong but also strategically adept. These early social structures included individuals who spent considerable time developing knowledge and skills, gaining strategic positions within their communities.

• Brahmins and Kshatriyas in Early Vedic Texts

The early Rig Vedas (Books 2-7) do not explicitly mention the Varna system but refer to Brahmins and Kshatriyas, reflecting a dual elite structure. The Kshatriyas (Lions) were the warrior class, maintaining power through force, while the Brahmins (Foxes) were the intellectual class, using knowledge and strategic thinking to influence society.

• Rigid Social Hierarchies in the Later Vedic Period

As the Vedic period progressed, social mobility became increasingly rigid. Texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and Dharmashastra codified these hierarchies, limiting social mobility and solidifying the division of power between the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The Brahmins, through their control of religious and educational resources, ensured their dominance in intellectual and spiritual matters, while the Kshatriyas continued to wield political and military power.
"The Brahmins and Kshatriyas symbolize the ultimate division of power: one through intellectual and spiritual dominance, and the other through physical and political control, mirroring Pareto’s Lions and Foxes" (Adapted from Pareto, The Mind and Society).

Historical Case Study: Medieval Europe

In medieval Europe, a similar dual structure of power existed between the Church and the Monarchs. This division of power created a dynamic interplay that shaped the social and political landscape of the period.

• The Role of the Church and Monarchs

During the medieval period, the Church wielded significant influence over spiritual and intellectual matters, while Monarchs held political and military power. The Church, with its vast knowledge and control over religious doctrine, can be likened to Pareto's Foxes, while the Monarchs, with their armies and political authority, resemble Pareto's Lions.

• Power Struggles and the Reformation

The power struggle between the Church and the Monarchs often led to conflicts and shifts in power. The Church's dominance was challenged by the Monarchs who sought to consolidate their control. This tension eventually contributed to significant events like the Reformation, which marked a profound shift in the religious and political landscape of Europe.
"The Reformation symbolizes the clash and eventual rebalancing of power between the Church (Foxes) and the Monarchs (Lions), reflecting Pareto's theory of the cyclical nature of elite power struggles" (Adapted from Pareto, The Mind and Society).

Conclusion

The intricate dance between physical dominance and intellectual strategy in both primate societies and human history reveals a deep-rooted evolutionary foundation for social stratification. Frans de Waal's research on chimpanzees provides a microcosmic view of how non-alpha individuals, through intelligence and innovation, balance the brute strength of alphas. This dynamic is echoed in Vilfredo Pareto's analogy of Lions and Foxes, where societal elites are divided into those who rule by force and those who rule by cunning.
By examining historical case studies, such as ancient India and medieval Europe, we see how these evolutionary strategies manifest in human societies. In ancient India, the rise of Brahmins (Foxes) and Kshatriyas (Lions) illustrates the division of intellectual and physical power, leading to rigid social hierarchies in the later Vedic period. Similarly, in medieval Europe, the power struggle between the Church (Foxes) and Monarchs (Lions) culminated in significant events like the Reformation, reshaping the social and political order.
These examples underscore that the balance of power in societies is not merely a product of cultural evolution but is deeply intertwined with our biological heritage. The adaptive strategies observed in primate behavior continue to influence human social structures, demonstrating the enduring legacy of our evolutionary past. Understanding these dynamics provides valuable insights into the nature of power and hierarchy, highlighting the complex interplay between physical strength and intellectual acumen that has shaped human history.
By integrating primatological insights with historical analysis, this paper illuminates the evolutionary roots of social stratification, offering a comprehensive framework to understand how power and intelligence have co-evolved to form the complex societies we see today.

This is more or less me just yelling into the void. I find that writing like this is therapeutic. Here it goes.
I know I don't have it anywhere as bad as most people. This post isn't about that. It's about my behavior and how I treat money. I don't know if it's the ADD or maybe it's just how I tend to self soothe when I'm feeling depressed but I spend money like it ain't no thang. I'm having a pretty serious financial problem right now from situations seemingly out of my control. The small stuff does add up though. I need to admit to myself that I'm irresponsible and work on it.
Having self control around money is something I've tried to beat into myself. I'm starting to just think I'm actually a child and I haven't spent anytime maturing. I'm 31 and I have lived a lot of life but this is the one thing I feel really nervous about. I look at credit cards and accounts with disbelief at times. It's sad really. My luck is about to change but even when everything is paid and great, this behavior is still there. I am absolutely sure I will mess it up again if I don't change. I don't want to fuck this up!
I'm not gambling, no I'm not spending money on drugs and I definitely don't try to mess myself up. I'm not buying designer bags or expensive cars. I'm not maxing credit cards on plastic surgery. It's nothing semi horrifying but interesting like that.
It's just normal everyday stuff I think I should be able to afford but I can't right now and I don't think I'm seeing the reality of the fact that within a month or two, I went from making more, to making less and suddenly having a lot more bills. Plus a bit of personal disaster. This is a huge change!
Right now I have a pretty full fridge of food (which I'm thankful about) I made a giant pot of chili which my boyfriend and room mate has been enjoying. I always try to make a big batch meal that is semi cheap and will last a long time. Look at me trying to be responsible. I buy everything great value brand at Walmart. (It's not seeming at cheap these days but anyways )
I have lots of eggs and milk and tons of cereal. I wasn't happy enough for that. I have cabinets over flowing with ramen packets and random ingredients.
I bought stuff to make an apple pie and a pie plate. My Mom used to make that for me and I thought it would be nice to make it for my boyfriend. I bought black berries and some cherries and some stuff to make miso soup. I bought some frozen dumplings and a new yoga matt because I don't have one.
I'm having a bit of an aha moment right now. So, If I'm being honest with myself I'm struggling with a development of a eating disorder and eating chili makes me feel nervous and scared. I feel safer eating cherries. I will need to definitely work harder on that in therapy.
I sat with my new things like a dragon sitting on its trove and I did honestly feel better. That dopamine rush didn't last long however. I know I need to change right now. I just think I'm self sabotaging myself. I'm going to try harder not to. Self sabotage is a cruel mistress.

Synopsis:
An engineer in another world—blending science and magic to achieve greatness in a world where skills and levels reign supreme.
—
Ethan was just a plain old engineer, but everything changed when he was reborn into a world of skills, levels, and magic. With his advanced knowledge far ahead of the time period he finds himself in, this new reincarnated life will be much different than his last, especially because he can construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct runes—something no one else can do.
But with royal politics, looming tax collectors, a mountain of debt, dungeon incursions, cults, and hostile fantasy races mixing together into a cocktail of bullshit that threatens to bury his dreams; Ethan must bridge the gap between steel and sorcery to grow stronger. — Runecrafting is slow burn. — What to Expect: - Weak to very strong progression - Hardcore wish fulfillment - A balance of action, kingdom building, and runecrafting. - MC will trigger an industrial revolution, revolutionize magic, modernize agriculture, communication, commerce, textile production, education, transportation, sanitation, weapons manufacturing, leisure & entertainment, and medicine.
First < Previous Next >

Chapter 04

-1-
Ethan's heart thumped in his throat as he looked at the arrow's head glinting. Fortunately, Roland had grabbed it in an instant. The arrow hadn't hit Ethan, and it likely wouldn't have. Roland threw the arrow aside as Ethan heard a muffled grunt and glanced out the window to the right. An arrow had pierced the side of their driver, right between the shoulder and chest. Ethan whipped back into his seat just as another projectile smashed against the other side of their carriage, denting it. Roland immediately stood up with a calm demeanor and unsheathed his sword. "Lord Theodore, please remain seated. This inconvenience will be dealt with shortly."
Ethan blinked up, nodded, and clasped his hands around his knee while resting his head against the window ledge as Roland got out. Situations such as this weren't anything he'd ever dealt with back on earth, but he had plenty of experience keeping himself in check when fear took hold. He'd been a boxer, after all. Ethan tapped his finger on his knee, again and again.
"Die, you shits!" a voice yelled, then a meaty crash was followed by a pained groan. It was clearly someone falling over. Moments later, footsteps approached from the other side. A man swung the carriage door open. "Get—"
Before he could say much else, a sword pierced through his chest. He slumped and hit the ground without a word, revealing Roland standing with a blank expression. His eyes were different than anything Ethan had seen since his transmigration—Roland looked nonchalant even after taking a life, which was understandable given that the man had likely taken a lot of lives. Ethan closed his eyes, refusing to look at the dead body.
More footsteps grew nearer. Two sets. They stopped beside their carriage. "Well fuck, what a piece of trash." one man said, then lurched at Roland with a bloody shout.
The fight was over in an instant.
Roland simply disappeared from his position before Ethan. Reappearing behind the two bandits flanking him, he delivered an equally lethal strike to each in turn. Simultaneously, a sharp crackling and whooshing sound made Ethan tense. Spreading out on the floor before the carriage, a dark blue magical glyph buzzed like electricity, sending sparks of electricity slamming into the bandits.
Then, the bandits' bodies split in two halves, their blood sprayed across the dirt before they even began collapsing with electricity sizzling on their bodies.
Just as he'd felt movement in the air through [Magic Perception], a man materialized right in front of Ethan. Tensing, Ethan didn't know what to do
Roland shouted from outside. Adrenaline rocketed through Ethan's veins. Hand moving, he grabbed the bandit's hand and twisted it. The bandit tackled him, and with the tight space, Ethan felt the tip of a knife nicking the side of his cheek. The wound stung badly, and with it, Ethan's mind blanked and his instincts kicked in.
Roland swiftly spun, but not in time to stop the man from pinning Ethan against the bench.
However, it wasn't needed. Ethan used [Elemental Spells] and summoned fire all over his palms. A sizzling sound erupted as the bandit cried out and went for Ethan's eyes with his free hand. Ethan bit the bandit's hand, and only got half a mouthful of skin and cloth. The bandit reeled back and leapt backward from the sudden burning pain, crying out as he crashed. Ethan lunged at him, grabbed and force-flipped the bandit's hand, and plunged the knife into his throat with an aggressive grunt. There was a short, gurgled cry, before the bandit tried swinging the knife towards him. "Cunt... bastard..." his bloody mouth formed the words, his eyes staring fearfully, but Ethan pushed the knife aggressively.
Blood sprayed and gushed onto Ethan's mouth.
Then, finally, the man stilled.
The corpse's weight fell onto Ethan, hot blood spilling out of the bandit's throat and filling the air with an acrid odor. Ethan felt it on his face. Hot. Metallic smell. He saw it dripping down the bandit's throat, all across his clothes, even in his hair. It was heavy, almost. Layer upon layer, the heavy cloak of the man's life weighting down on his spirit.
System notifications flashed but he ignored it given that bile rose in Ethan's throat. His vision darkened, and a rush of blood roared in his ear as his heart thumped like thunder. A violent urge to vomit rose within him, his entire body twitching. He had never seen a man die in front of him like this before. Disgusting as it was, he gulped everything down, even the reality he had found himself in, the death, the violence, it all set in at that moment. However, he had no time to delve on it. Even though he felt like someone had squeezed his windpipe, like a bullet was tearing through his skin, he needed to act. Now.
Ethan flipped the man aside and sat on his knees, pulling out the knife from the bandit's neck. From his place on the ground, he glanced at Roland engaged with three bandits.
One slipped past Roland and made it to Ethan. They're trying to get a hand on me. Why? The answer was simple. Oh, right... I'm a noble, they can just put a knife on my throat and demand shit...
Instead of giving the bandit the upper hand, Ethan took a breath. Once. Twice. Now or never, thinking so, he raised the knife and dove headfirst toward the approaching enemy. Caught by surprise, the bandit merely moved his free hand to counter attack. His fingers grasping the bandit's arm, he twisted it away, giving him room to go straight for the eye.
With a meaty sound, Ethan plunged the knife through the man's eyes. Blood spurted with a slick sound. The bandit wasn't fast enough to make a full reaction, as a sort of instinctive scream of terror got stuck halfway and died out. Then, as the feeling of having ended another life settled within him, Ethan retracted the dagger and stepped back. His back slamming against the carriage, he slid down and pressed a hand against his forehead. His cheek hurt. He smelled sweat and blood.
Fuck... Fuck... Breathe. This is... I can't... Breathe.
A chill ran down his spine and his heartbeat roared. He took a breath, adrenaline still surging through his veins. The sick feeling didn't leave his stomach, his entire body twitched as if electrocuted every once in a while, and his eyes started going hazy, unclear. Black spots in his field of vision. Sticky warmth all over. Hot metallic odor in his nostrils.
"Lord Theodore!" Roland's voice acted as a way for Ethan to reorient himself into reality. Roland looked ashen, not because he was tired but most likely because he'd let Ethan get into such a vulnerable position. Roland glanced at the corpse, then Ethan, then back at the corpse again, looking tense, lips tight and hands clutched into fists. "Are you alright, my lord?"
"Yes, of course," Ethan said as he studied the wound on his cheek. I need a healing skill. However, he noticed the visible distressed Roland was having and continued. "I'm fine. Don't worry. It's no big deal. For the moment, we need to clean up this mess."
Ethan could tell Roland was uncomfortable with the situation and Ethan's complete indifference, but the warrior dutifully obeyed his lord's commands. Ethan slumped onto his seat and looked through the notifications.
Your race, [Human], has leveled up — Lvl 0 -> Lvl 1!
Your class, [Mage], has level up — Lvl 0 -> Lvl 1!
[Unranked Mage] -> [Initiate]
[Elemental Spells] — Lvl 5 -> Lvl 6!
A [Quest] approaches!
Hmm, this is the second time I see the message 'A [Quest] approaches'... What is it? Why doesn't the system just give me the [Quest]? Are there conditions? Regardless, it seems that [Elemental Spells] just needed some use in battle instead of just plain old practice. Curious.
Ethan leaned back with a sigh. Now that his heartbeat wasn't drumming in his ear, the fear slowly ebbed away. All things considered, this turned out well, given the situation. However, now that he'd calmed somewhat, his eyes landed on the corpse right beside him, and that fresh scarlet blood seeping into the floorboards. The heavy coppery scent, the unmistakable smell of death. It all came crashing into him and he could no longer deny what he'd done. It had all gone so quickly.
No theatrics, the knife had just flown in, and the bandit had struggled, then stopped struggling.
Ethan stared at the corpses. With his hands on his lap, he gazed vacantly. For a single, stretched-out moment, the only thing he was aware of were the lifeless bodies right next to him, the sensation of having one less enemy standing in the way. One of the bandits had his jugular slashed. Another had a knife poking into his eyes. Ethan had killed them. Him. It was nauseatingly easy, taking another's life. It felt good. Ethan was disgusted at that thought, but damn did it feel good. I—I... I won. He wanted to grin, but he didn't.
Soon, the bandits were dealt with. Not a minute was wasted, and they cleaned up and got moving in a hurry, before Roland could throw the corpse inside the carriage out, Ethan stopped him.
He'd been staring at it, sitting there, silently. Bile would rise to the tip of his throat before he'd swallow it, a stone in his gut making his movements stiff. It felt unreal. When he took that step to make sure the bandit was dead, his eyes met with those of the corpse—with glassy black pupils that appeared frozen mid-realization that he was dying. Fearful, horrified eyes. Human eyes. Ethan stared into them, felt every fiber of his body clench, saw the smears of blood across the man's mouth where his desperate breaths had made him cough up, to live.
Ethan stared, not because he was a masochist or someone who derived pleasure from other people's misery. Rather, it was because he wanted this to never happen again. His reaction. It hadn't been optimal. He just knew he'd need to kill and spill blood if he was to survive, and thus, he needed to familiarize himself with the sight of death—death caused by his hands.
His thoughts were a little less orderly than he liked. That needed to change, fast. It would always be a burden, so he simply chose to stare, knowing he was staring down his weakness—at his fear.
After a solid five minutes, Ethan turned around. Roland's gaze met Ethan's. For a brief moment, the gaze was averted, the warrior showing clear guilt. Ethan placed a hand on the man's shoulder. "Roland, don't blame yourself. I understand you must have felt cornered and unable to react. Just know I appreciate you. Don't beat yourself up for it. There have been no casualties on our side."
Roland bowed his head. Ethan smiled, though it was strained. Roland had been standing there for a while now but hadn't wanted to interrupt Ethan's self-reflection time, despite being tense himself. The guards had burned the corpses. Soon, the men Ethan killed were taken out, too. Then they left for the woods.
A guard who appeared to be a [Mage] that had a spell called [Cleanse] walked to the carriage, and placed his hands near the gore-splattered interior. In mere moments, a rune flickered into existence, then, mana got sucked out of the guard, seeping into the rune—soon, the blood and even the smells were swept clean and everything returned to being a neat and tidy.
The guard staggered a little before his comrades stabilized him. Must be quite demanding, Ethan noted, nodding appreciatively as the guard stepped out of the carriage. "That's quite the useful skill," Ethan said, examining the results.
Roland gave a silent nod, no doubt feeling pretty damn bad about his failure.
The guard, on the other hand, bowed with a smile, clearly appreciating Ethan's recognition. "It's a pleasure to be of service, my lord. This humble guard has had this skill ever since he became a mage."
Ethan made an impressed noise. "I see."
The guard beamed, then bowed even more before walking over to his fellow guards, who patted his backs at a job well done. Then, the horses pulled the carriage, and the carriage resumed moving. As soon as his back had settled into the cushion of the seat, an exhausting wave rolled over Ethan's body.
Before everything, however. I saw the rune. Ethan grinned a little, then willed mana into the shape of the rune.
It sputtered.
Ethan tried again, connecting different parts of the rune. One. Two. Three. Four. And as the rune sputtered again.
Throughout the journey to Deadwoods, Ethan kept at it.
He failed every time—
—and he didn't know why.
An immense headache assaulted him, and he had to stop his attempts.
-2-
The Deadwoods proved to be just what he'd expected. Dead. Charred branches and crumbling trees lay spread throughout. Roland looked around solemnly. Ethan was more interested in what kept this place the way it was. This land was, to put it simply, the most horrific location in the entire barony. It was a huge portion of a forest that appeared to be dead, thus why it had gotten the name Deadwoods.
Leaves crunched underneath Ethan's feet, and he studied his surroundings with morbid curiosity. The trees, branches and leaves were all dark in color as if something had scorched them. Many creatures lived here, animals like the usual game of deer, wolves, and foxes and sometimes there'd even been bears spotted. The dangerous thing, however, wasn't that the animals existed, it was that they were magical beasts. Mutants.
"Lord Theodore," Roland said, hand on his sword, eyes darting around in caution. "It is dangerous to be here—"
"Peh." Ethan waved his hand nonchalantly, much to Roland's shock at such an uncharacteristic behavior. "It will be worth it."
After all, I'm gonna have fun hunting monsters, leveling up, and finally, finally finding some goddamn tree ash.
First < Previous Next >
Patreon Discord

(This is a Theory not an actual statement. Please read before posting any comments stating he's a Good guy and that.)
There are many reasons for this theory.
Reason 1: I've been curious about the whole soap death scene. What if after the Trojan horse mission; Makarov hired men to secretly take his body for extraction and make it seem as if they burned his body, I believe Makarov hired Soap way before Price.
You see Soap had a huge rivalry against Makarov, Makarov promised to kill Soap. What if Soap was an undercover agent for Konni and Makarov? Soap easily could have killed Makarov in the head with the knife... But what if he stabbed him in the shoulder to make it seem believable as if Soap was trying to stop Makarov from killing Price?
Reasons

• Makarov seemed to make Soap his target/victim in the Flashpoint mission. He didn't choose Gaz, Ghost, or Price, Only Soap. Gaz and Price are the only closest mates to Soap or Ghost, You see when Price saw Soap's death, he didn't react as much as he should which is what most soldiers would do in a situation like that. If Price saw a ghost die he would react the same way with soap. But if it was Gaz, the price would react a whole new way.
  
• Makarov took too long to shoot Price in the head, I know that sounds like he was waiting for soap and He didn't shoot soap in the head. He shot him in the shoulder and then the head.
  
• What if the bullets were fake? I've seen realistic bullets but instead with animal brain parts. In Peaky Blinders Thomas Shelby used it on Danny Dogs to ship him to safety. So what if Makarov placed 2 actual bullets in the mag shooting Soap on the shoulder then used the other actual bullet at price, Then used the fake bullet for soap?
  
• Also, Soap has a skin that is similar to Nolan's Skin after getting both Makarov and Warden's skins. also a similarity to Konni Operative skins in most of the cutscenes during the Campaign.
  

So yet again this is a theory.
Inconclusion Soap is a possible enemy in the next Call of Duty. But recently we just got the next season of cod. Season 4 brings soap back with the Time and Containment Theme which leaves us with a weird question:
"What is soap doing?"
"Is he good or bad?"
"Did he time travel?"
Who knows but let me know what you think.

I am rehabbing a horse at a barn that primarily does H/J work. He has some behavioral issues due to tack that has since been resolved! He has been back into semi-regular work for about a week or so. There is a woman (late 20s?) at the barn who is always saying how she can’t wait to get on him when he is better to ride. How do I tell her that she should not expect to get to ride my horse? I have tried being polite and saying things like “Unfortunately myself and trainers are the only ones allowed on him.” How would you all handle this?

…The manosphere claims its worldview is grounded in science, specifically the discipline of evolutionary psychology. That’s my discipline — I am an evolutionary psychologist and associate professor at UC Santa Barbara, the home of evolutionary psychology. In fact, it turns out incels have coopted some of my research to justify their ideology...
For example, incels maintain a wiki page of scientific citations they claim support their worldview — an annotated bibliography of misogyny. In one case, in a sort of Russian nesting doll of misrepresentation, the incel wiki quotes a paper citing a study of mine as demonstrating that women prefer dominant men — which they further twist into the incel notion that women actually prefer violent men as romantic partners.
Reading this entry, I thought, “That’s odd, I don’t remember ever publishing on dominance preferences — do the incels know my work better than I do?” No. I double-checked: That study didn’t even mention dominance preferences.
Curiously overlooked in this whole wiki section on women’s preferences is the fact that kindness is repeatedly found to be among the most desired qualities in large-scale, cross-cultural studies of mate preferences.
This is just one example. Peering into the manosphere has been like walking through a funhouse mirror version of my science. The manosphere view of evolutionary psychology is distorted, filtered, selective, and embellished…
At the end of the day, incels attempt to draw from evolutionary theory a power it does not have. Evolution is not destiny. It is a powerful tool for explaining how we came to be who we are today, but it cannot tell us who we should be today or who we can be tomorrow. In fact, we can leverage an understanding of our evolved psychology to create the world we want to live in. The manosphere interprets my science to mean that love is impossible — but a major focus of my lab is helping people form happy, enduring relationships...
If I could teach the young men flicking through passport bro videos anything about evolutionary psychology, it would be that believing evolution is important for explaining human behavior need not commit you to a regressive worldview. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling ideology, not science.

Having seen many cringeworthy “analysis” from various armchair warriors dissecting IDF’s actions (usually ending with a backlink to their idea of “poof” of Israel’s “war crimes”), I figured I’d offer a more detailed perspective on things from someone more familiar with the topic than an average redditor.
This started as a response to a comment “what would you do different with unlimited budget” but then grew beyond a simple response – hence I’m making it into a couple lengthy posts.
I’m going to break it into two parts:
1. General perspective on urban war, what it’s like, and things to keep in mind when analyzing reports from the ground (Today).
2. More technical thoughts on urban combat, analysis of IDF’s operation, etc. (that I’ll probably do tomorrow)
About me: 10 years military (U.S.), intimately familiar with urban battlefield. Ethnically I’m part Moroccan, Bedouin, Jewish, and Finish. Born in USSR of all places. Immigrated to the US as a teenager. Third-generation military (the first two were in Soviet forces). Lots of formerly professional (and now, personal) interest and experience with all relevant aspects of this topic. Curious student of history – especially of the military variety.
Also of relevance – I’m an atheist, though baptized as Christian… but the only religion practiced in my family is Islam (about a quarter of my family is Muslim). I love my Muslim family members. I have no problem with "normal" Muslims or Arabs (as I’m part one myself). But I really, really f-ing hate Islamists and wish each one of them a slow, painful death – as soon as possible. Their ideology is the most insidious form of evil I’ve ever encountered personally. And it’s incompatible with modern civilization.
Ok… part one.

The realities of War (killing sacred cows)

1. War is fun. There – I said it. It’s not fun if you’re the one getting your rear end kicked. But when you’re the one doing the kicking – truth is… it can be a lot of fun. It’s taboo to say, but it’s true.

2. Reasons it's fun: clarity – routine concerns of peaceful life drop off. Your daily objectives become crystal clear. Basic human emotions become amplified. The highs are really high. The lows are really low. And, if you survive the lows, even they take on a special, perversely-nostalgic meaning later on.
3. Why this matters.
(a). The reasons one goes to war are critically important. Because war is fun – it’s stupid easy to enlist young men full of testosterone to fight. Most young men feel invincible until they aren’t – and by that point, bullets are already flying.
(b.) Hence, drawing moral equivalence between a side that responds to violence and the side that deliberately provokes violence is absurd. As the saying goes – old men start wars and young men die in them. These “old men” already know what war entails. Thus, provoking a war is a far more insidious act than reacting to it… all other circumstances being equal.
4. Side note (a personal theory of mine) – the energy of war begins with a lot of testosterone (until it takes on its own velocity). Which leads to a personal observation – societies where young men get laid, typically fight a lot less wars. Islamist ideologies are breeding grounds for wannabe jihadis. Primarily, due to the ideology itself. But also, by prohibiting the mating energy of young men and channeling it into rage and violence instead. If you think can change my opinion on it – feel free.
5. War is absurd. Each day consists of hours of boredom followed by minutes of terror and exhilaration. It’s a bipolar environment. The whole thing is absurd. And when you stumble upon trivial, idiotic things following hours of combat – the only way to stay sane is to embrace dark humor and laugh at things you’d never laugh at in normal life.
(a). Imagine a scenario – you just survived an hour-long close-proximity firefight. An Apache finally swoops in and takes the roof off the building you were unable to suppress for the past 30 minutes. You move in to investigate – stepping over dead bodies, trying not to slip on blood, cracking stupid jokes because you’re still terrified. You walk into a child’s bedroom and see spent shell casings, dead bodies, weapons, a copy of Quaran among children’s toys on the floor. You make your way through the house trying to ID who it belonged to, etc. You start opening drawers and what-dya-know – red, sexy lingerie of the former lady of the house. The ONLY sane reaction to this absurdity is uncontrollable laughter. Grown men will put the bra over their plate carrier, pose for pictures like idiots, etc.
(b). Is posting such pictures on social media a breach of discipline? Of course it is. But the idiotic joy of it – it’s a normal reaction. In fact, it’s a weirdly healthy reaction. People who post pictures of soldiers acting like idiots and claim them to be “proof” of some…idk… animal character of IDF soldiers are clueless. If you’re one of those – you have no idea what you’re talking about.
c. But I’ll tell you what I don’t see. I don’t see pictures of IDF dragging bodies of Hamas fighters and spitting on them. I don’t see pictures of IDF running behind detainees and yelling “Moses is Great”, etc. For those of you drawing moral equivalence between IDF behavior and that of Hamas – I’d like to congratulate you on being an idiot.

6. Controlled Violence.
(a). Fundamentally, the objective of a well-executed war is controlled violence in order to achieve political/strategic goals. How the violence actually plays out is very difficult to fully control. Therefore, INTENTIONS MATTER. A LOT.
i. A force intent on minimizing unnecessary casualties and failing is still far superior morally to a force intent on inflicting unnecessary casualties. IDF is the former. Hamas is the latter.
(b). ~Violence (once initiated) is extremely difficult to control~. That’s why a professional military (a real one) is much different in executing violence than a militia.
i. A militia (any militia) will inevitably escalate violence beyond necessary. The most “alpha” characters usually rise to the top. Often, via sheer brutality and fighting prowess. Human emotions (anger, revenge, pride) take over. And they’re difficult to control.
ii. A professional military operates by objectives and command structure. It will inevitably make errors and even commit war crimes – again, war is chaos that one never fully controls. However, “emotional” decisions rarely rise above tactical necessities. And conduct “unbecoming” is typically punished promptly by your own – because (almost) everyone understands the necessity of structure, rules, and strict moral code.
iii. Are there professional military units that end up committing crime deliberately or behaving in unbecoming manner? Of course – it only takes a few bad apples in key positions of command. But that’s rather an exception that proves the rule.
(c). ~Not all military units are made equal~. IDF, for instance, consists of some professional elements and a whole bunch of citizen soldiers. Everyone has a role to play. Some units are designated as more combat-focused than others. And even within designations, there is a hierarchy of combat readiness. It’s not always formal, but commanders have a good sense of it. Less combat-ready (even when combat-designated) units will usually be assigned more passive roles. “Better” units will be the ones moving forward and seeking contact with the enemy (provided that command has this luxury (i.e. enough options at their disposal).
i. IDF, however, has very few luxuries – it’s mostly citizen soldiers in a nation of only 8 million people. Their more “professional” units are world class – it really doesn’t get much better. But there aren’t a lot of them.
ii. IDF’s “citizen soldiers” are also quite good. Much better than any other conscripted military I’ve ever seen (and I happen to be intimately familiar with the Soviet and Russian militaries – once deemed the “scariest” conscripted forces).

7. War is Chaotic. Every unit will make mistakes. Through a combination of fear, fatigue, lack of clarity, and a very narrow “field of view” for each individual and most line units. That’s why things like Rules of Engagement, “Commander’s Intent”, etc. are critical. Yet, mistakes will happen. And the “citizen soldiers” will commit more errors than more “professional” units.
(a). The chaos is exacerbated by urban environment. In a city, each sub-element lives in its tiny “world” – at any given point, it’s rarely larger than a city block. When they hear gunfire – rarely do they have the context behind it unless they’re engaged in it. The information coming through is sparce and, often, it’s by design.
(b). Among this chaos and close proximity, these units operate in silos, trying to accomplish their objectives and not shoot each other while at it.
(c). Inevitably, someone gets jumpy – think of IDF shooting Israeli hostages a couple months back. Under the circumstances – I’m surprised things like that don’t happen more often. Truth is, most armchair generals who like to issue judgements on such things, would’ve been scared sh*tless themselves and probably would’ve pulled the trigger even quicker than the unfortunate idiot who killed those hostages.
8. The Soldier’s Field of View is very narrow. Rarely do you see the people shooting at you. Rarely do you know if you killed the person who was shooting at you or if someone else did. Rarely do you know that there are civilians somewhere in the house you’re taking fire from – usually you find bodies after the fact. Etc., etc. When you hear that a professional military unit killed a civilian in an active combat zone – if your first reaction is “they meant to do it” – congratulations again - you’re a clueless idiot.
9. The Islamist Enemy is Insidious. I can’t think of a more insidious enemy to fight than a bunch of Islamist lunatics with a plan, terrain knowledge, and very lose command structure. Every horror story you’ve heard about Hamas is true. How do I know? Because we’ve seen it all before. You don’t have to take IDF’s word for it – just ask any Amercian soldier who’ve seen sh*t in any other Islamist dumpster fire of a country. (Or any former Russian soldier who've fought in Chechnya or Afghanistan back in their day).
(a). Child rape – rampant
(b). Abuse of own population – daily. They’re straight-up thugs. Antisocial meatheads with a holy book, drunk on power, and convinced of their moral superiority.
(c). None of them can actually string together a coherent sentence explaining their grievances – but they can all recite a few sentences they heard from an imam… mostly some variation of “Americans are dogs” (they really f-ing hate dogs).
(d). Ultimately, it’s a death cult. But very few of them actually want to die. Most join militia groups because it’s what passes as “cool” in their neighborhood. Sure, they’ll yell something about Allah… but mostly it’s a “I belong to a group that has guns, and guns are fun” type thing.
(e). When push comes to shove – some of them will fight in a suicidal manner. But, when their leadership is dead and the group cohesion is broken – a surprising number will want to surrender. The whole “martyrdom” thing is just an obscure aspiration that many learn that they didn’t really mean it when they signed up for it.
(f). The truly ideological ones are a whole different type of evil. It’s a special kind of evil – one convinced of its own righteousness. They really do use civilians as human shields – especially children. Why children? Because kids are innocent – thus, by sacrificing a child, a truly lunatic Jihadi is doing them a favor… he’s sending them straight to paradise. It’s a shortcut, really. Wrap your head around that one and then imagine staring this evil, bearder, toothless f-ing monster in the face and watching him grin as he explains why he just shot up a building full of school girls. And then imagine what it takes not to drag this creature outside, douse him in fuel, and light a match.
So, these are some general thoughts on war for those unfamiliar. Tomorrow, I will post a more technical “play-by-play” breakdown on urban combat tomorrow, analysis of IDF actions, etc.

Hello all! As the title suggests, I M24 have very recently come to the conclusion that I'm sick of my best friend's (M24) pattern of behavior. We met in the third grade and have done a ton together since we're grown up. We spent all of school hanging out, got through break ups together, climbed mountains, built our own desks, and many more things. But throughout this whole thing, I always had a gut feeling that there was some difference in the amount of respect we held for each other. I felt like he had contempt for me, that he didn't see me as his best friend the way I saw him as mine.
Over the past few months, he's began a pattern of behavior that (while happening before) hasn't happened as consistently. For one reason or another, he'll begin to avoid acknowledging my existence. Not inviting me to play games like we used to, ignoring my direct messages, basically everything all while still talking to other people the same. I know he's had emotional issues in the past, as he is a man who does not like to really express his emotions, and prefers to keep them bottled up. So I ask him if everything is okay, he doesn't respond, then he gets angry at me for being concerned about him and not to do it again, and then everything goes away with any kind of resolution.
This has happened multiple times, and just recently I've had enough. The same thing happened, he ignored me, I messaged asking if he was okay, the usual. I message his sister (who is a close friend of mine as well) and ask her if he's okay, and she says that she doesn't notice anything wrong, but that the ignoring isn't cool. Finally, I tell my friend that the ignoring isn't cool. He proceeds to respond with a long message about how we're growing apart in priorities and interests, how I'm filling his head with fake problem and fake scenarios, and how I shouldn't message him, message his sister, or go to a party for his birthday that was scheduled for the night after........
Naturally, I'm a bit taken back by this. I don't know what I did wrong here to set him off, and now he's not only saying I shouldn't message him anymore, but he's also blatantly excluding me from events he had already invited me to. His sister attempted to talk him down (according to her own words), and came to the conclusion that he's a dick and I deserve better. In her own words, he doubled down and was very dismissive about my feelings on the matter.
That was 3 days ago, and I've been pissed about the whole situation since then. Today I go to lunch with another friend of ours M24 who has been a part of our friend group since the 5th grade, let's call him J. I ask J if he went to the party, and apparently, he was messaged by my other friend that "[I] started some shit and we're probably not gonna be friends anymore, so he shouldn't go to the party." Remember, J had no horse in this race and literally was unaware of the entire situation, and now he's being punished because of my friend's feelings towards me.
This already pissed me off to no end, and to my surprise, that wasn't the end of it. A few days ago we were discussing jobs. My friend has a pretty nice job and his own apartment, J is looking for part time work and living with his family, and I'm living with my family while I look for a full time job and complete my master's degree. We were talking about this, and my friend seemed very judgy about my situation, but nothing serious. Apparently during this conversation, my friend started DMing J, telling him about how I'm a freeloader taking advantage of my parents and how I'm lazy and unproductive...
Now that's it. Now I've had it. This shows not only how he feels about me, but also that he doesn't know anything about my family that he's known for the majority of his life. For context, I live with my hard working father, physically handicapped mother and mentally handicapped sister, and I do all I can to help. I've spoken with my family regarding my "freeloading", and they've insisted I make myself more useful than I could ever know, and they're happy to house me until I find something of my own. And yet, instead of talking to me about this, the man who has known me for most of my life decides I'm just lazy and a freeloader....
I helped him through the hardest point of his life... He lost the love of his life and was forced to move out, and I was there for him. He confided in me, cried on my shoulder, and drunkenly told me I was the best friend he had, and now he does this. So I'm done. Recently he apparently told his sister he "may have over-reacted", but I'm not expecting an apology from him based on his history. Whatever he wants to say will have to be something good if he wants a chance of things going back to normal.
So what do we think? I don't want to just let him get away with this again, and think he can treat me terribly like this out of nowhere. Of course it will hurt to lose my best friend, but he is not treating me as a friend should and I think I deserve better. And I can't expect an apology from him, because I can't remember a time he has apologized in the past. Any advice here?
TLDR: My (M24) friend (M24) has a pattern of mistreating me out of nowhere, not apologizing, and then it all disappears, but this time it's gotten out of hand and I'm finally sick of it. I feel as though I can't associate with him anymore. I'm sad, angry and shocked. Any advice?

Hear me out, I've been 27 yo FA kisless hand-holding-less virgin, I've been a regular visitor of this sub for about 9 years. I'm probably one of the few true hardcore forever alones. Through out my life I haven't really had friends with whom I celebrated birthdays, went on trips or visited their homes or invited to mine. I havent ever experienced that. Through out my youth I used to spend summers locked in my room at parent's apparments, because I was/is ugly, weak, futile and I had nobody who respected me and wanted to hang out with me, that obviously also was relevate for girls. After drastic changes in my life I managed to escape virginity at 27 and get a gf. It took tremendous amount of effort, energy, planning and luck. And the thing is guys, I was of that opinion even before I escaped and I am of that opinion now - a gf doesn't dispel your forever-alone-ness, or rather shall I say, not every girl can dispel it. A girl does dispel your virginity, she does remove your internal complex of being incomplete and utterly unsuccessful at one of the most important biological intrinsic goals that all males have. But I've realized now even further that because I've been socially isolated for my whole life is that it's very childish and naive to expect that your girlfriend would satisfy all your social needs. It is extremely rare in this life for all people around us to find a mate with whom you match 100%. I have no shared interests with my girlfriend. I'm typical male who is interested in watching sports, politics, e-games, poker and doing active sports. She doesnt like any of that, besides the fact that she used to regularly watch how her previous boyfriend played League of Legends. She's not really a person who is into any deep or theoretical talks (to be fair very few women are). She's not person of high libido, so after few years sex aspect became almost non existent for the most part. You would ask, how are we together then? And the answer is simple, she was highly insecure girl who was used by all her previous partners. I was the only one who treated her with kidness, first one who payed for her at restaurants and first one who didnt use her as sex doll, but paid attention to her feelings and wanted to make it enjoyable for her. (It was also huge slap in the face by the surrounding reality, that I realized how a lot of men treat girls and still have girlfriends, not even pretty bad boys, but even regular guys treat their gfs like trash and still get laid and still are in relationships.) So that's why she liked me and wanted to be with me, because I was the first one who had decent paying job, had potential for the future and treated her well. And obviously from my side it was a miracle, at that point in my life I didnt really believe that I would ever lose virginity, I couldn't believe that I physically could achieve or "deserved" sex (in hindsight I would advise to anyone and myself back then to go to hookers and get experience in that department). So imagine this situation, where two of you got together, because both of you were kinda desperate for warmth, kidness and support and you both got it, but realistically you do not match. And to add to this picture, my gf is also FA and because she has been through a lot of negativity, abuse and lossess (just like myself), she has 1-3 friends and she's quite depressive towards life. To be honest, before I escaped, I did realize that most likely such type of girl would be my only chance or option, because 1 - I would not be able to connect with any girl who has had successful life, tons of positive memories, lots of experience in relationships and 2 - such girls would not consider me after getting to know my life experience. And now imagine you are in my place, you have girlfriend like mine. The reality is that you are still forever-alone, you have nothing really to talk about or really to connect over. I can't even go on walks with my gf, because we wouldnt have much to talk about. You do not do anything together with, besides maybe going to some restaurant to eat something. It's not even fun to travel somewhere, because your personalities dont really match. (I know, the alternative to that to just going by yourself everywhere looks pretty fucking grim, but it's almost identical, if you dont really connect with a person on a deep level). On top of that, I do realize that if she leaves my life, I will return to absolute square one, with even less than I have now. From my experience, I realized that I dont feel miserable, I dont feel depressed, I feel uplifted whenever I connect with people socially. For instance, I've had experience of going on vacation to a villa where a lot of unfamiliar adults chill together, and since I am ugly and that I've had boring useless life I became an outcast in that villa almost instantly. Other males who were there dominated heavily, each of them picked their niche and played their role in the group and girls loved that and I became an outcast. And even though I was around people and they spoke to me I felt even more lonely than I was feeling at home playing video games with voice chat with other folks. However, there was that one girl from her own different group and even though she had husband back home, we did chat and joke and when I connected with her positively like that and I could feel her respect, I felt uplifted, I didnt feel as depressed and as nihilistic or even almost suicidal. Same thing I felt after I've been working from home for about a year and then went to the office for a few days. And even though I thought my psyche got used to social isolation through my life time and that I liked working from home and not to see other people, I realized it wasn't fully truthful. Because when I stayed after office hours and few guys still were there and I spoke to them and we chatted about life a bit and I felt connection with them, I then again went back home uplifted, happy. This positive social interaction and more importantly feeling of being accepted and feeling of belonging to some social group is what human psyche needs to live healthy. I've never really fully had it due to being ugly or being useless. And the biggest problem, I feel like, is that it becomes almost impossible to escape it after 30 yo. You have very few chances to make senseful lasting realiable friendships after you leave college, but even less chances to do that after 30 yo. And if you are initially FA that means it happened because of something and if you havent fixed this something, then it's a signed sentence. (In my case it's being ugly and with years and aging I become even uglier due to grey hairs and baldness) The weight of that hopeless loneliness with no light at the end of the tunnel, where you have no dear soul who would care about you or respect and like you, it can truly drive you insane, that's why so many people around to cope with life turn to drugs or some self-destructive behavior or go mental or even change sexual orientation. And I have no answer to this life dilemma still. (I mean the answer would be to start looking like Brad Pitt, but we all know that's not gona happen) I wish I could create a group and bond with some group of driven motivated men who are ugly and that's why all of us struggled in this life, so at least we could support each other. (But then again, I feel like even if we all connected, it wouldnt fully work, since we'd know that we are all loners and it wouldn't really have same positive impact on psyche.)

I’ve been working on a project that has taken a lot of preparation, planning, and coordination with far too many people who all want to be the “head chef” so to speak.
I got through a particularly difficult presentation today where I was questioned not only by the people I presented to, which was expected, but also by the people who have been involved in the project. In the meeting I was told by a higher up on my team to “quit horsing around and give it to them straight”.
My response was drowned out by other men trying to prove me wrong until one person I’ve been working closely with, and someone I have leaned on (also a man with far more decades experience than me) basically tore them all a new one and explained in no minced words how I was correct.
I presented and was as polite as anyone could possibly be after that garish display of behavior by them. Afterwards I was told by someone around my age “nice job with the presenting… one thing though” then proceeded to tell me I gave too much time between slides even though that was what was explicitly asked of me when we did dry runs.
I know for a fact that this guy would have fumbled the shit out of this presentation and that I did more than a bang up job.
How do you reply to these scenarios? I’m always going to get some sort of feedback that I’m sure they think is helpful and valiant to knock me down a peg or two.
I’ve been in this field for about a decade, and I can’t help but think that I’d be taken so much more seriously and promoted several times if I were a man.
This happens a lot and counting to 10 and taking deep breaths can only do so much to help me. Ignoring them is not often an option though I do it when I can. Otherwise I’m seen as a bitch or someone who takes things too personally.

Chapter 5
Location: Bareth Solitude
POV: Arathan
Arathan gets lost in his mind while doing some hard riding across what used to be a lake. He enjoys his freedom to go wherever he wants in his mind. Arathan also muses on the various forms of prison. Physical, emotional, and in thought. All barriers are enemies to freedom. By all measures the ride is horrible for Arathan, but the open sky and forward movement make him feel more free than at House Dracons.
Location: outside of house Dracons prior to the opening of this chapter
POV: Arathan
Before leaving House Dracons, Arathan felt fear and shame at that fear. Sagander's luggage was checked and mostly left behind. There are no pack horses for this journey. Sagander is furious and is taking it out on the servants. Finally Sagander calls Arathan over and blames the fact that he packed two cases on the boy. He demands that Arathan make room in his own pack for several of Sagander's items. While trying to fit Sagander's weights and measures into his bedroll, Draconus arrives and asks him why he isn't ready. Draconus sees the scales that Sagander gave to Arathan, picks them up and gives them to a servant. He says we do not have time for this. Sagander glares at Arathan.
Arathan will bring two horses. One a warhorse, Hellar, and the other, Besra, a gelding more suited for the long trek. As he passes the gate out of House Dracons, he looks back and sees his 3 half-sisters. He is chilled by their appearance. Just out of the gate Sagander, who was ahead of Arathan, stops and tells Arathan to look back. He tells him that his sisters hate him and they don't expect to ever see him again. Sagander admonishes Arathan for not being ready when his father arrived and for also choosing to ride Besra the gelding instead of the charger. He says when you leave, you ride the charger. Up the road Arathan sees a path to the right that looks familiar. It's the path to the quarry where he almost drowned.
As they ride they encounter no other people. They go through what used to be a vast forest, but all of the wood had been harvested and Arathan wonders what all the wood had been used for. Sagander was now too sore to turn around and criticize Arathan, which suited him perfectly. Arathan would love if he could go unnoticed the rest of the trip and in face the rest of his life. The party reaches a resupply station at the edge of House Dracons land where food and water are waiting for them. Arathan dismounts and after a minute understands that he must lead his horses to the water. Draconus had already led his horse to water, but the rest of the party is waiting for Arathan. As he is leading Besra, the horse he had ridden all day, to the trough, Raskan silently shakes his had at him. Arathan is not sure why and thinks surely the horse he rode the whole way should drink before the warhorse. He leads Besra to drink. Arathan reaches to cup some water for himself, but Raskan stops him. Raskan tells him that he can only share water with his warhorse. Arathan tells Raskan that he will share with the horse that bore him and begins to drink. Draconus tells Raskan that Arathan's warhorse, Hellar, is now under his care as the boy does not understand his responsibility. Raskan agrees, but says that Arathan should still ride Hellar this afternoon for a time. Draconus agrees and then beckons Feren for a private word.
Raskan explains the situation to Arathan, who still wonders aloud why we shouldn't honor every beast that serves us. Raskan tells him that he should crush thoughts that go against Tiste ways. Arathan contemplates how one comes to disdain others and understands that pride must preclude disdain. "One day I will find something to be proud of, and then I will find this taste of disdain, and see if it suits me". He does not think it will. "Not every virtue must be a weapon. These thoughts are my own. I will not crush them."
POV: Rint (bordersword)
The male borderswords wonder what Draconus and Feren are speaking about, while preparing the first meal. Ville thinks he wants her for sex. Rint doesn't like that idea, but says that it is none of their business and Feren will decide for herself. Ville really doesn't like Draconus and thinks he doesn't understand honor. Rint warns him that if he keeps up with this talk he will be left behind. Rint tells Raskan and Sagander that this will be the last time the midday meal is cooked. By tradition it is a large meal that allows all involved, especially the horses, a break as the first day of a journey is often the hardest and injuries occur. Rint also says they are a few days out of Abara Delack where they can re-provision. Raskan tells him that the party will go around Abara Delack. Rint questions that this is to be a secret journey. Raskan affirms. Raskan also tells the borderswords to not keep to themselves so much as this is a very small party.
Rint rejoins the borderswords and sees that his sister has done the same. As he approaches, she shakes her head. Probably signaling to him not to ask about her meeting with Draconus. Instead he tells the borderswords they are to mingle. Ville describes Arathan as a Rabbit in a boy's skin. Galak likes that. Rint tells them to forget they ever heard it. Galak says it fits, but Feren surprises everyone by asking how he knows. Feren says she likes the fact that Arathan honored the beast that bore him. That traditions are traditions for a reason, but that sometimes we forget that reason and just continue the tradition. Rint is worried about this outburst from Feren. She has been subdued for years and he should be happy at this new turn, but he's not sure of its source. Galak announces that the meat is ready. Rint calls the others.
POV: Arathan
Feren approaches Arathan and brings him out of his reverie and tells him traditionally everyone shares meat at the first meal. She tells him she agrees with his horse decision as it was made from the heart. She is twice his age. She tells him the first taste of meat belongs to his father and the second is his. He tells her he is a bastard. She says that is his father's fault, not his and that soon he will be his own man. Arathan wonders what Draconus has that engenders loyalty to him. It is certainly not camaraderie. Perhaps it was his actions in the Forulkan war.
The meal ends and the party mounts their horses. Arathan goes to Besra, but Raskan has readied Hellar. Feren tells him that Hellar views Arathan as his protector. Arathan knows he can't protect her from anything. Feren tells him Hellar doesn't know that. Arathan asks Feren why she's being nice to him and if its because his father asked her to be. She says no. He asks if their conversation was about him. She says it's private. She gets angry and asks if they will all have to wait for him to get into his saddle. Arathan regrets his words to Feren, but still feels humiliated by his father wondering if he thinks he needs a woman to take care of him even now. He wishes his father wouldn't have asked her to be his mother. He doesn't understand why his father cares at all, given that he hasn't participated in his life up to now. Sagander tries to give him some advice about Feren. Telling him that she doesn't mean him any good and that borderswords carry lice and disease.
Sagander decides to give Arathan a lesson on weakness and desire. Sagander says that weakness does not exist with the noblest of Tiste and that's why they are upper class. Lowly workers are weak and therefore deserve to remain low class. Weakness is a choice. Arathan asks Sagander if the fact that the forest has been completely cut bare does not turn a strength into a weakness as it was surely strength and determination that cut every tree down. Sagander responds that strength is always strength and weakness is always weakness and Arathan can ask no more questions. He says that Arathan doesn't understand and this is because he is a bastard. Arathan asks if that is his father's weakness. Sagander backhands Arathan in the mouth very hard. Arathan almost falls off his horse. Hellar responds by unmounting Sagander and stomping on his leg breaking his bones. Arathan, stunned, is able to rein in Hellar. The borderswords come back to the scene. Sagander's horse is dying on ground and Sagander is screaming. His thigh is a mess of broken bone and blood is pouring everywhere.
Rint helps Arathan off of his horse and Feren comes to him, her face dark with fury. Arathan thinks her look is directed at him and that he deserves it. She tells him that Rint saw, but Arathan has no idea what she's talking about. Draconus comes back and tells them to put the horse out of its misery and to bind Sagander's leg before he bleeds out. Galak tells Draconus they will have to cut off the leg and cauterize the blood vessels. Sagander might still die. Draconus asks Rint to walk with him and relate in detail what he saw. Feren is pushing against Arathan's chest and when he finally notices she tells him to lie down and that he has a concussion. Arathan asks Feren what happened. She tells him that Hellar knocked down Sagander's horse and smashed his leg. Hellar was about to smash his head, but Arathan was able to pull her back. Arathan thinks it's his fault, but Feren says no. He is a lord's son and Sagander should never have struck him. Even if he survives Draconus may choose to kill him. Arathan tells her he said the wrong thing and it's his fault. That he will defend Sagander to his father. He tells her he was weak. Her surprised face is all he sees before he loses consciousness.
POV: Ville
Ville has slaughtered Sagander's horse and is cooking the meat. Rint returns from his talk with Draconus. Ville comments that this is a bad omen. Rint tells Ville that he and Galak are to take Sagander to Abara Delack to the monks there. Then catch up. Ville asks about Draconus's judgment, but Rint doesn't know. He may still execute him after he has healed up. Arathan is still unconscious, but Feren says it's regular sleep now and he's tossing and turning. No fever though. Feren eludes to a secret conversation between her and her brother.
POV: Raskan
Raskan makes a blood broth for Sagander that is pretty gross, but may save his life. Draconus tells Raskan he may have erred in taking away Hellar from Arathan. Horse and boy are bonded absolutely now. Draconus chalks up Sagander's idiocy to old age and bitterness. Raskan says Draconus is more forgiving that he would be. Draconus cuts him off and says he hasn't forgiven anything. Draconus tells Raskan he forgets himself, but that he speaks from the heart so he will forgive it. Raskan thinks another lord may have had him beaten, but not Draconus. "Draconus did not work that way, and he met the eye of every soldier and every servant under his care" Draconus further comments that Raskan's boots are worn out and that moccasins are better suited for the forest. Raskan says he has none. Draconus gives him an old pair of his.
Draconus then looks at the stars and tells Raskan about distant worlds and black holes. Raskan thinks this must be taught in Kharkanas, but Draconus disabuses him of this though and tells him, "Do not let the title of scholar, or poet, or lord, intimidate you overmuch. More importantly, do not delude yourself into imagining that such men and women are loftier, or somehow cleverer or purer of integrity or ideal than you or any other commoner." He continues to discuss fear and darkness.
POV: Arathan
Arathan wakes in the middle of the night to find Feren sleeping beside him. Trying to think of anything but the warm body beside him he recalls Sagander's explanation for stars. Pin holes in the fabric of night. All tiste scholars agree on this. Feren takes the lead and has sex with Arathan. He is bewildered and has no idea where his penis is going. Eventually through her instruction he lost all rational thought and just enjoyed himself. She then teaches him how to return the favor.
POV: Rint
Rint hears it all. Feren had told him that Draconus made this request, but said she was free to deny and there would be no repercussions. She said she would think about it. Rint believes it is solely for her pleasure.
POV: Sagander
Sagander wakes in terrible pain and before he can scream, he finds Draconus's hand over his mouth. Draconus demands an explanation for why he struck Arathan. Sagander argues that he was defending his lord's honor. After relaying his lesson, Draconus is proud of Arathan for seeing through Sagander's idiocy and tells Sagander that he is right, Arathan is his weakness thus this trip. For giving Draconus something to be proud about, Sagander will not be executed. Rather healed and fired. Sagander is furious. He does not consider Arathan a highborn and therefore is not subject to the prohibition against striking highborns. In fact he's struck him countless times. He thinks about challenging his fate in Kharkanas, but discards this idea. Instead he focuses now on vengeance against Arathan and Draconus.
POV: Arathan
Arathan wakes to find himself alone. Remembering the events of the previous day his feeling of shame returns. But also a feeling of ecstasy. Arathan still thinks everything is his fault and he feels sorry for Sagander who is now on his way to Abara Delack. He thinks his father is furious with him. Finding Feren near the cookfire, she hands him a plate, but says nothing to him. He thinks he did it wrong and she doesn't want anything else to do with him. Raskan hands the reins of Besra to Arathan. Arathan thinks this means he is not good enough for a warhorse, but that isn't the case. Raskan tells him his father wants to talk to him. Today he will ride by his father's side. Draconus tells him he saved Sagander's life twice. Once when he pulled Hellar back after he was concussed and then when he said he was his father's weakness.
His father tells him to stop chewing his fingers as it may in fact lead to his death when sword-fighting. For some reason Draconus mentions however that soft fingers will please women. Arathan takes this as evidence that Feren has reported the previous nights events to Draconus. Draconus then goes on to explain why he must get Arathan as far away from Kurald Galain as possible. His enemies may use Arathan. His sisters are protected by the powerful family that their mother comes from, but not Arathan. Draconus says his enemies would try to turn Arathan against him. Draconus says, "you have no cause to love me, or feel any manner of loyalty towards me" Arathan responds that he did not know love needed a cause. This ends their conversation.
POV: Rint
Rint is angry about what Draconus has made his sister do. He is also angry for the secrecy of this journey. Ignorance leads to injury. He misses Ville and Galak who are taking Sagander to Abara Delack. This leaves only his sister to talk to, which he's not sure he wouldn't get really angry when talking to her. His mood is compounded by not knowing Bareth Solitude or the Azathanai. From what he knew they were solitary people that only came among the Tiste one at a time. They weren't interested in friends. Rint would even prefer the Jaghut over the Azathanai and that's saying something. The Jaghut had turned back the Jheleck at least. The Azathanai didn't seem to care about the Jheleck raids. Perhaps because the Jheleck never attacked Azathanai, stole no children, raped no women. They just stole stuff and burned down houses. The Azathanai did not care about this. "Wealth,’ they said, ‘is a false measure. Honour cannot be hoarded. Integrity cannot adorn a room. There is no courage in gold. Only fools build a fortress of wealth. Only fools would live in it and imagine themselves safe."
Draconus had climbed a rise beyond the river. He sees someone coming and that person is expected. Feren joins Rint at the river and wonders who the visitor might be. Rint takes this opportunity to get some anger out. He tells her Arathan is about the same age as her dead son would be. He immediately knows he has injured her and apologizes, but it's too late. Feren responds that children die and mothers get over it and that it was his father's fault. Rint sees the visitor and knows him as Grizzin Farl. a huge Azathanai of some Thel Akai blood. Known as the protector and the lone warrior among the Azathanai. Mate of Kilmandaros. Grizzin calls out to Draconus asking him, "Is this how you hide from all the world?"
POV: Arathan
Arathan observes that Grizzin Farl is full of life. He makes those around him happier. He introduces himself to everyone and when he clasps Arathan's arm he comments on it being a swordweilders arm. Grizzin tells Arathan that he may be the dagger that finds Draconus's heart. Arathan says he has no ambitions. Grizzin asks if he will hide forever and Arathan says yes. Grizzin talks about darkness being used as a weapon and reveals he is on his way to Kharkanas to see. Grizzin introduces himself to Feren on one knee and flirts with her in a self-effacing manor. She tells him her name and Grizzin says that her voice tells of tragedy and loss of hope. Feren is taken aback and says he's wrong.
Grizzin has brought ale and they all get drunk. Arathan wakes up hungover and notices Grizzin is not with them anymore. He wanted to find out more about darkness as a weapon and explore how Grizzin and his father's histories interwove. The night had seemed to do much to improve the morale of the party after their rocky start. Draconus says he is sorry he didn't warn Arathan about the ale. Arathan asks why Grizzin calls him friend. Draconus says he calls everyone friend and to drop it.
Location: Now we are back to Bareth Solitude
POV: Arathan
Arathan muses on how close he is to freedom now. He thinks that he will never stab his father in the back and that no one will use him as knife. Grizzin gave Arathan one piece of information. His Mother was still alive in great grief because she still loved him. He resolves to find her and steal her away. "And we will love each other, and from that love, there will be peace."

Boy do I have a roommate story for you guys! Sorry in advance for the novel here.
I moved back to the east coast, 2 years ago, after living in LA for over 10 years.
Long story short, COVID really messed me up, and I just couldn’t afford California anymore (who can?)
The housing market out here is really bad, and it took far longer to find a place than I expected.
After 4 months of really unsuccessful searching, one of my cousins called me to tell me she just rented a house from one of her close friends, and had a room available for rent. Seemed like an obvious choice, as I was already close with the house mate, and rent was very reasonable.
What I did not know on my move in day, was that I was moving in with a raging alcoholic.
She comes home from the bar blacked out drunk, every single night. I have lived here for a year and a half, and theres maybe been two nights ever where she didnt go out drinking.
She has two German Shepherds who before I moved in, were entirely untrained and had behavioral problems, to the point the neighbors were calling animal control on us. She would just let them bark aggressively at anyone who passed by, as she got some kind of weird enjoyment out of having mean and scary dogs. She would leave me home with this, and make it my problem, so she could go out and drink. She got the boy dog neutered, brought him home, and then immediately went out to drink with her bar “friends”. I have done extensive training with both dogs, and they are now thankfully both very sweet and gentle dogs. Proof that dogs mirror their owners.
Her coming home at 3-4 am, stumbling, screaming, passing out drunk in the middle of our living room floor, having really dramatic and theatric “panic attacks”, etc. is a regular occurrence.
On top of this, she treats our house like a frat house. There has been several times where I have woken up to random people in my house, there has been several times where she will have a party on a Tuesday afternoon during work hours (i work from home). Her friends come over at least once a week to do cocaine with her and “clean the house”. She is 33 years old. She does not think she has a problem, she makes excuses and says she is bored. She thinks this behavior makes her cool.
Any time she starts dating someone new, I am practically forced to live with them. They are over constantly, using my utilities, eating my food, and offering to pay for none of it. I am perfectly fine with guests, but we are talking literally them coming over 9 times in a 24 hour period.
Any time I speak up about any of this, the house turns into World War 3. She will throw an absolute childish hissy fit, and attack my entire life, for simply asking her to limit the visits as other people live here too. I will get the nastiest messages full of profanities, and insults. I am also usually told “if you dont like it you can leave.” I am on the lease with her until October, and I pay 50% of everything in the house, including groceries. There has even been times where I have suspected her of embezzling my rent money (theres been multiple Mexico trips, the day after I give her the rent). Any time I mention it, we’re right back to the greatest hits, which to me shows more guilt than anything else.
She recently got fired from her job (she claims she quit) for showing up to work drunk, for the 12th time. She was also accused of stealing money, which she has drunkenly admitted to doing, several times. Her first inclination was to spend a weekend at the beach with her friends, instead of doing the responsible thing and finding a new job.
I told her I was not going to cover her end of the bills, and thats where we started having real problems.
She became increasingly hostile towards me, far more than ever before. The visits from her boyfriend started increasing at a ridiculous level (the guy that came over 9 times in 24 hours), and he would often come over high on cocaine.
I asked her again, to please limit the visits, and to please take finding a job seriously. I explained that we were already just making ends meet as it was, and that me being the only one with an income was very bad for us both. I spoke with a lot of firmness in my voice this time, and also informed her that if she didnt make a real effort to do those things, then I would have to have a discussion with the landlord about breaking the lease early.
This is when all hell broke loose.
She sent me this long text about what an insensitive prick I am, and then blocked me from everything.
The next day, she posts an eviction notice on my bedroom door, printed from none other than “EvictionNotices.com”. She is not the landlord, and I am current on my rent. Our lease is not up until October. I explained this to her, and she says she found another roommate already and that if I was not gone in 30 days, she was going to change the locks.
This prompted me to hire a lawyer, as I went through some really bad situations in California with dishonest landlords. I actually had to take a landlord to court, and won basically because he stiffed me with a locksmith bill, after the only exit and entrance to the building jammed shut after every tenant told him it was going to break.
She received a reply from my attorney that simply said “hes current on his rent, you guys have a lease until October. You are not the landlord, and the landlord needs a valid legal reason to remove him from the premises, if a lease is going to be broken.”
She called my lawyer every creative profane word you could think of, and then tried to go to the court.
The court told her the same exact thing, in a much more aggressive manner.
She also cursed them out.
She then went to the landlord to try and get him to evict me. he told her he didnt want anything to do with it, and that she could get him sued like crazy if he were to go along with it.
She is now resorting to pettier tactics, now that she realizes she has no legal recourse.
Coming home at 4 am and slamming her car doors shut as hard as she can, because my bedroom window faces the driveway.
She will come in the house screaming at the top of her lungs, just to wake me up and make me angry.
I have heard her on the phone at the crack of dawn, inviting people over to party. Luckily, most of her friends are fed up with her too, and dont enable her. The friends she did have that enabled her, she has already fallen out with over the last couple months.
Last night, she didnt come home. Every time she stays out, her dogs end up sleeping in my room, because they have separation anxiety. One of the dogs started barking like crazy at around 8 am and I told her to stop.
Right after I hear my cousin yell at me “STOP YELLING AT MY FUCKING DOGS!!!”. I will admit, this caused me to lose my temper a little bit, after tolerating so much. I yelled back who tf do you think you’re talking to? told her to shut up, and went back to bed.
I am now in a situation, where I have to get in a bullshit made up legal battle with my COUSIN because she has no self control, and because she never grew up.
While the courts told her she cant evict me, my lawyer has strongly advised me that I file with the court to have her removed from the house, since she is such a problem. He went off on a tangent about quiet enjoyment and how this is clear cut harassment. Apparently taking the law into her own hands, and posted a “legal notice” on my door, was very very illegal.
Idk i suppose this was mostly to get this off of my chest, but also want to know if any of you have been in a similar situation? If so, how did you handle it?
I know I should absolutely do what I can to protect myself, but theres a bit of me that feels guilty, because its family.
Thanks.

I genuinely do love this series & characters but sometimes I just absolutely GIGGLE at some of the writing. I know it's known the authors need an editor but some of this shit is tooooo much for me. Just a few tidbits that have gone through my head while reading - I'm about to finish book 8.

1. The pegasus constantly huffing/stomping/whinnying in fae form is hilarious. I just picture of bunch of teenagers playing hobby horse. Love it.
2. The darcy / orion teacher fantasy needed to end after they left school. It just turns into a weird porno sometimes.
3. Why does everyone get horny during danger?!?!?!!? I know thats part of being 'fae' but let's allll keep our dicks in our pants and beat the fucking shadows and lionel FFS.
4. Lionel's chapters are truly fucking insane and I laugh the entire way through them. Specifically the poop throwing one where Vard gets hit in the face with faeces aka feces.
5. We all know Darius isn't staying dead so can everyone stop saying ~nobody comes back from beyond the veil~ he's one of the main character's mates, he's coming back. Let's all chill the F out.
6. Leon is seriously my favorite character and I love how stupid him and seth are together.
7. I can't help but burst out laughing when Washer is in scenes. Why is he SO sexually driven it's fucking INSANE hahahahhaahha. I need a chapter of him teaching sex ed.
8. Can someone PLEASE for the love of god punch all of the celestial council members in the fucking face - it's time to give it up. The vega's will be queen get over it.
9. The faebook posts/updates are so insane but also really does add a geeky little insight a reader like me enjoys. I love little real life moments.
10. Geraldine is absolutely iconic. Can't get enough of her and how she's constantly topless, and has the most insane one liners. Love it.

Please drop your thoughts and whats makes you laugh!!! I can't wait to finish this amazing/ridiculous series.

I think this is why Taylor is hurt and angry the most. And why at least she is wary of wanting a relationship with him again. He left, but he left in such a brutal manner. It's very very painful when someone who says they love you cuts contact abruptly. It's shocking and so hurtful.
Why didn't he at least stay in contact or try to work something out? Why did he leave so suddenly?
When she sang How did it end? I think she is just as baffled as us.
Why did he leave her so empty handed with absolutely nothing?
The 1975 fans may be better at giving reasons for his behavior? Does he he hate confrontation? Does he find it easier to just make a complete break because he can be easily swayed if not? Did he not think she could ever change fans minds? I know people say he was protecting his family/band mates. But I am sure they could have pretended they broke up so the "heat died down" or some other plan. She's got access to an insane PR machine.
Why did he do it?
I guess my true question is:
Why did he not think he could withstand battling it out with her? It was such early days, and that's when the negativity is the worst. But people move on/accept it after awhile. Why did he succumb so quickly to the fans insanity?

I have been rewatching VPR and I forgot about the interaction between James and his mom when James is trying to set boundaries and explain his frustration and his mom just is refusing to listen. Instead, she takes him setting boundaries as an insult--which I can understand that because I can be that way too since I take criticism too personally sometimes--but this is your SON! It's so frustrating to watch her just kind of dismiss his feelings and instead remind him of how much she did for him as a mother. And yes, he lived a lavish lifestyle growing up, but just because you gave him this luxurious life doesn't mean your mother of the year.
Like even though James is very sucky and has done some EGREGIOUS things, this moment in particular made me really empathize with him. It is not to excuse his behavior, but perhaps understand it? I also have a mother like this so that is why I think that this particular scene moved me.
Here is the link to the video for your convenience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEkf910gQyM&ab_channel=Bravo
Another time I remember when I was rewatching season 2. Stassi was furious with Katie at her birthday dinner because Katie and Schwartz were fighting about something...? I forgot what. And I understand its Stassi's birthday dinner, but goodness when she was yelling at Katie for "ruining her birthday" (I think those were the words used), it made me really feel for Katie.
I have to admit--and I guess this is an unpopular opinion--but I am not a Katie fan. But, in that moment, I really empathized with Katie despite my dislike towards her. And I will say, after rewatching that scene and other incidents in the earlier seasons, I have started to appreciate Katie a bit more. I still wouldn't call myself a fan just yet though, but I understand better the BS she went through with Schwartz and stuff.
Were there times in the show that you empathized the most with cast mates you don't particularly like? Of course, there are the obviously ones, but did one little scene in particular stand out to you? Were there any scenes that reminded you of a situation that happened to you or you can relate to in some way?