The American media is oversaturated with voices misrepresenting the settler colonialist project of Israel. Effectively these voices seek to delegitimize the Palestinians' struggle for independence and self-determination while running defense for the Zionist movement by softening their crimes through a handful of repetitive tactics. One of the most common tactics is to conflate the occupation with a war or conflict. Language is a powerful tool in shaping how someone perceives reality; when American media publications refer to the illegal occupation of Palestine and subsequent violence as a conflict it seeks to create a false equivalency of the violence of the two sides, as stated by a non-profit The Slow Factory “What is happening in Palestine is settler colonialism, military occupation, land theft, and ethnic cleansing. A conflict means there is equal footing which is not the case. There is an active oppressor (Israel) and an oppressed (Palestine). A colonizer (Israel) and a colonized (Palestine).” This inaccurate framing portrays an equivalence that ignores the reality that according to the Congressional Research Service; Israeli military occupation has been supported by US aid with $3.8B a year paid for by US tax dollars since 2016 and continuing for the next ten years. Asia Khatun illuminates this attempt to shroud the realities facing Palestinians in his article written for Jacobin Magazine “The normalization of colonialism begins where it always has: in language. These language choices, be they irresponsible or just ignorant, reinforce the notion that this is a conflict in which both sides have the means to be equally violent toward each other. But the fact of the matter is that Israel is one of the most militarised occupying nations in the world, backed with billions of dollars and weapons from the United States. The power dynamic that Western society at large believes in simply does not exist…” Another common tactic for American media to delegitimize the struggles of an oppressed people against a colonizer is to decry any violent resistance as terrorist attacks. The term terroirist itself is not a description of an amoral group with the sole goal of causing violence, but a political designation that is applied disproportionately to resistance movements and historically seldom applied to the crimes of state actors with the same vigor. The primary distinction that separates if an act of violence is a terrorist act depends on the legitimacy of the actors' claims of being an independent nation in the eyes of the accusor. The United States House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence defines it thus (2002): "Terrorism is the illegitimate, premeditated violence or threat of violence by subnational groups against persons of property with the intent to coerce a government by installing fear amongst the populace." Note the all-important “subnational” distinction in their definition effectively this allows the same inhuman acts of violence done by a resistance movement or religious organization to be declared as terrorist while violent actions by a governmental body of a nation would not be subject to the same label even if the acts themselves bear a near indistinguishable likeness. Terrorism as a distinct denotation of a group is a dubious term at best and at worst is used entirely as a political means to delegitimize any opposition force against the interests of a state. Despite decades of careful deliberation, the UN has no agreed-upon definition of the term terrorism. The issue with the term is that it relies entirely on the perspective of the person using it, depending on your viewpoint an act of violence can either be an unjustifiable act of terror or a legitimate use of one's right to defend their sovereignty. A simple way to think about this idea is in the classic dilemma of the terrorist vs freedom fighter terms, does a person subjected to the ills of a foreign nation seeking to subjugate and oppress them have the right to pursue their liberation through violent resistance? In the case of the Palestinian people’s attempt to liberate themselves from the settler colonial occupation and systemic slaughter, we have a definitive historical record of the General Assembly of the United Nations to refer to the legal rights of these states. Time and again the General Assembly of the United Nations has upheld the rights of states to defend themselves from colonial occupation and specifically upheld the Palestinians' right to defend themselves from Israeli settler colonialism even with violent opposition.
The UNGA unequivocally reinforced the legal right of the Palestinian people and any people to defend themselves from colonial conquest through armed struggle and in the language of the resolution “any legal means necessary.” On December 3 1982 UNGA resolution 37/43 reaffirms “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle…” The same resolution goes on to directly address the Palestinian struggle for self-determination “reaffirming the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference…” The resolution goes on to strongly condemn “the expansionist activities of Israel in the Middle East and the continual bombing of Palestinian civilians, which constitute a serious obstacle to the realization of the self-determination and independence of the Palestinian people…” and consider “that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security…”
Another historically common tactic to legitimize a colonial state's actions is an appeal to complexity. As stated in an article by a non-profit Decolonize Palestine titled “It's just so incredibly complicated” “Appeals to complexity, especially in the context of settler colonialism, have been historically employed in an attempt to defend the indefensible. For example, during Apartheid in South Africa, white South Africans would commonly retort that things weren’t so black and white if you can forgive the pun. Similarly, those defending slavery in the United States would argue that while releasing the slaves was the moral thing to do, it was more complicated than that, because it would too greatly threaten the status quo and the economy. Some try to market such arguments as “nuance”, but in reality, they primarily serve the purpose of apologia for heinous oppression.” They continue to apply this logic to the colonization of Palestine “This arcanization serves to make Palestine exceptional, meaning that our normal judgment or morality go out of the window; they do not apply here due to these special circumstances.”Normally, it would be difficult to argue against the right of refugees to return to their homes, but in the case of Palestine these are special refugees created under special circumstances [You can read more about this here]. Our conventional approaches to law or morality are framed as ill-fitting and lacking in refinement or nuance.
Israel openly colonizing the West Bank is different due to its complicated history, it is not occupied it is contested. Consequently, Israel can then argue that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply either. Palestinian prisoners are unique and captured under special circumstances, therefore, they cannot be viewed as prisoners of war, nor can they be viewed as civilians deserving of a civilian court or due process. It’s quite versatile and convenient. It’s complicated because it is special, it’s special because it’s complicated. The cycle continues, and Palestinians continue to lose their lives and lands, yet find themselves unable to clearly indict their tormentors lest they be accused of lacking nuance. These exceptions aim to legitimize what cannot be legitimized and defend what cannot be defended. So that you can look at injustice, oppression, and domination and tell yourself it’s not as clear-cut as it looks.” Illan Pappe describes the mystification of the Israeli colonization in his work with Chomsky: On Palestine, “The last paradox is that the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story—hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people. The Zionists have not invented anything new in this respect. But Israel succeeded nonetheless, with the help of its allies everywhere, in building a multilayered explanation that is so complex that only Israel can understand it. Any interference from the outside world is immediately castigated as naïve at best or anti-Semitic at worst.”
Pappe also touches on another readily used tactic in American media which is to conflate criticisms of the actions undertaken by the current Israeli government as anti-Semitic. This is readily seen in the reporting on the pro-Palestine student protests at American universities. In an article by Fox News, they conflate the protests of university students as “Antisemitic Agitators” titled “Antisemitic Agitators what Protestors at Elite Universities are Shouting.” Not the importance of shifting the language to fit the narrative, the university students protesting for divestment from supporting Israel with their tuition become “Antisemitic Agitators.” Also note that the article strays away from calling the protests Pro-Palestine instead preferring to denote them as “Anti-Israel.” This is furthered by attempts to equate Zionism with Israel and Jewish ethnicity. In an article for the Georgetown Voice Annette Hasnas writes “ Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are linked, and the former certainly can be present in the latter, but it is not always. In fact, assertions that the two are inherently synonymous are themselves antisemitic. Such claims often rely on the idea that Jews as a collective must support the Zionist cause, which is not only untrue but also paints Jews as a monolith. Though the percentage of Jews who oppose Israel is a minority, it is a significant one. As many as one in 10 U.S. Jews actively supports the controversial Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement—a movement aimed at pressuring Israel into conforming with certain demands surrounding its treatment of Arab Palestinian residents of the region.” A coinciding narrative often pushed is the idea that Zionism is an inherent necessity for Israeli liberation continued in the article she combats this notion, “Supporters of Israel will often push the notion that to deny the nationhood of Israel would be to deprive Jews “of all people on earth” of the right to self-determination. But there is no shortage of examples of other peoples without total control of the governments that rule over them, including Uyghurs, Kashmiris, and Basques. These peoples, much like Jews, deserve self-determination, and separatist movements exist within many of them. But to oppose the establishment of an ethnostate for these groups is not generally considered evidence of bigotry against them. To claim that the protection of Jews necessitates a Jewish state is not just wrong, but dangerous. It buys into the arguments made by other ethnonationalists that the existence of a state controlled by one ethnicity or religious group is required to ensure that such a group is protected.”
Two other forms of media manipulation that succeed in obfuscating the realities on the ground in Palestine are utilizing emotive language and passive voice in favor of articles concerning the occupying state, and disproportionately reporting on the deaths of Israelis over the deaths of Palestinians despite Palestinian deaths far outpacing their counterparts. In a qualitative analysis done by Adam Johnson and Othman Ali in an article for the Intercept titled “Coverage of the Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows” the writers detail some of the strategies used by American media outlets that indicated bias that may not be as readily apparent to readers. “In the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, the words “Israeli” or “Israel” appear more than “Palestinian” or variations thereof, even as Palestinian deaths far outpaced Israeli deaths. For every two Palestinian deaths, Palestinians are mentioned once. For every Israeli death, Israelis are mentioned eight times — or a rate 16 times more per death that of Palestinians.” They continue by depicting the disparity in evocative language used, “Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around. (When the terms appeared in quotes rather than the editorial voice of the publication, they were omitted from the analysis.) The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.” The deaths of children naturally evokes a bitter sense of injustice and makes for a provocative title for any article therefore it is somewhat surprising that the analysis showed that “Only two headlines out of over 1,100 news articles in the study mention the word “children” related to Gazan children. In a notable exception, the New York Times ran a late-November front-page story on the historic pace of killings of Palestinian women and children, though the headline featured neither group. Despite Israel’s war on Gaza being perhaps the deadliest war for children — almost entirely Palestinian — in modern history, there is scant mention of the word “children” and related terms in the headlines of articles surveyed by The Intercept.” Similarly, the study found that this same discrepancy applied to the deaths of journalists, “While the war on Gaza has been one of the deadliest in modern history for journalists — overwhelmingly Palestinians — the word “journalists” and its iterations such as “reporters” and “photojournalists” only appears in nine headlines out of over 1,100 articles studied. Roughly 48 Palestinian reporters had been killed by Israeli bombardment at the time of the truce; today, the death toll for Palestinian journalists has topped 100. Only 4 of the 9 articles that contained the words journalist/reporter were about Arab reporters. The lack of coverage for the unprecedented killing of children and journalists, groups that typically elicit sympathy from Western media, is conspicuous. By way of comparison, more Palestinian children died in the first week of the Gaza bombing than during the first year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, yet the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times ran multiple personal, sympathetic stories highlighting the plight of children during the first six weeks of the Ukraine war.”
TL;DR: The American media uses false equivalence, delegitimization of violent struggle for self-determination through the terrorist label, false complexity, emotive language, passive voice, and selective publishing to obfuscate the realities of the Israeli settler colonialist project.
If you like this sort of content please visit my blog where I write articles and OP-EDs like these from a leftist perspective, thanks! paradigm-shift.blog
​

The American media is oversaturated with voices misrepresenting the settler colonialist project of Israel. Effectively these voices seek to delegitimize the Palestinians' struggle for independence and self-determination while running defense for the Zionist movement by softening their crimes through a handful of repetitive tactics. One of the most common tactics is to conflate the occupation with a war or conflict. Language is a powerful tool in shaping how someone perceives reality; when American media publications refer to the illegal occupation of Palestine and subsequent violence as a conflict it seeks to create a false equivalency of the violence of the two sides, as stated by a non-profit The Slow Factory “What is happening in Palestine is settler colonialism, military occupation, land theft, and ethnic cleansing. A conflict means there is equal footing which is not the case. There is an active oppressor (Israel) and an oppressed (Palestine). A colonizer (Israel) and a colonized (Palestine).” This inaccurate framing portrays an equivalence that ignores the reality that according to the Congressional Research Service; Israeli military occupation has been supported by US aid with $3.8B a year paid for by US tax dollars since 2016 and continuing for the next ten years. Asia Khatun illuminates this attempt to shroud the realities facing Palestinians in his article written for Jacobin Magazine “The normalization of colonialism begins where it always has: in language. These language choices, be they irresponsible or just ignorant, reinforce the notion that this is a conflict in which both sides have the means to be equally violent toward each other. But the fact of the matter is that Israel is one of the most militarised occupying nations in the world, backed with billions of dollars and weapons from the United States. The power dynamic that Western society at large believes in simply does not exist…” Another common tactic for American media to delegitimize the struggles of an oppressed people against a colonizer is to decry any violent resistance as terrorist attacks. The term terroirist itself is not a description of an amoral group with the sole goal of causing violence, but a political designation that is applied disproportionately to resistance movements and historically seldom applied to the crimes of state actors with the same vigor. The primary distinction that separates if an act of violence is a terrorist act depends on the legitimacy of the actors' claims of being an independent nation in the eyes of the accusor. The United States House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence defines it thus (2002): "Terrorism is the illegitimate, premeditated violence or threat of violence by subnational groups against persons of property with the intent to coerce a government by installing fear amongst the populace." Note the all-important “subnational” distinction in their definition effectively this allows the same inhuman acts of violence done by a resistance movement or religious organization to be declared as terrorist while violent actions by a governmental body of a nation would not be subject to the same label even if the acts themselves bear a near indistinguishable likeness. Terrorism as a distinct denotation of a group is a dubious term at best and at worst is used entirely as a political means to delegitimize any opposition force against the interests of a state. Despite decades of careful deliberation, the UN has no agreed-upon definition of the term terrorism. The issue with the term is that it relies entirely on the perspective of the person using it, depending on your viewpoint an act of violence can either be an unjustifiable act of terror or a legitimate use of one's right to defend their sovereignty. A simple way to think about this idea is in the classic dilemma of the terrorist vs freedom fighter terms, does a person subjected to the ills of a foreign nation seeking to subjugate and oppress them have the right to pursue their liberation through violent resistance? In the case of the Palestinian people’s attempt to liberate themselves from the settler colonial occupation and systemic slaughter, we have a definitive historical record of the General Assembly of the United Nations to refer to the legal rights of these states. Time and again the General Assembly of the United Nations has upheld the rights of states to defend themselves from colonial occupation and specifically upheld the Palestinians' right to defend themselves from Israeli settler colonialism even with violent opposition.
The UNGA unequivocally reinforced the legal right of the Palestinian people and any people to defend themselves from colonial conquest through armed struggle and in the language of the resolution “any legal means necessary.” On December 3 1982 UNGA resolution 37/43 reaffirms “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle…” The same resolution goes on to directly address the Palestinian struggle for self-determination “reaffirming the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference…” The resolution goes on to strongly condemn “the expansionist activities of Israel in the Middle East and the continual bombing of Palestinian civilians, which constitute a serious obstacle to the realization of the self-determination and independence of the Palestinian people…” and consider “that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security…”
Another historically common tactic to legitimize a colonial state's actions is an appeal to complexity. As stated in an article by a non-profit Decolonize Palestine titled “It's just so incredibly complicated” “Appeals to complexity, especially in the context of settler colonialism, have been historically employed in an attempt to defend the indefensible. For example, during Apartheid in South Africa, white South Africans would commonly retort that things weren’t so black and white if you can forgive the pun. Similarly, those defending slavery in the United States would argue that while releasing the slaves was the moral thing to do, it was more complicated than that, because it would too greatly threaten the status quo and the economy. Some try to market such arguments as “nuance”, but in reality, they primarily serve the purpose of apologia for heinous oppression.” They continue to apply this logic to the colonization of Palestine “This arcanization serves to make Palestine exceptional, meaning that our normal judgment or morality go out of the window; they do not apply here due to these special circumstances.”Normally, it would be difficult to argue against the right of refugees to return to their homes, but in the case of Palestine these are special refugees created under special circumstances [You can read more about this here]. Our conventional approaches to law or morality are framed as ill-fitting and lacking in refinement or nuance.
Israel openly colonizing the West Bank is different due to its complicated history, it is not occupied it is contested. Consequently, Israel can then argue that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply either. Palestinian prisoners are unique and captured under special circumstances, therefore, they cannot be viewed as prisoners of war, nor can they be viewed as civilians deserving of a civilian court or due process. It’s quite versatile and convenient. It’s complicated because it is special, it’s special because it’s complicated. The cycle continues, and Palestinians continue to lose their lives and lands, yet find themselves unable to clearly indict their tormentors lest they be accused of lacking nuance. These exceptions aim to legitimize what cannot be legitimized and defend what cannot be defended. So that you can look at injustice, oppression, and domination and tell yourself it’s not as clear-cut as it looks.” Illan Pappe describes the mystification of the Israeli colonization in his work with Chomsky: On Palestine, “The last paradox is that the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story—hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people. The Zionists have not invented anything new in this respect. But Israel succeeded nonetheless, with the help of its allies everywhere, in building a multilayered explanation that is so complex that only Israel can understand it. Any interference from the outside world is immediately castigated as naïve at best or anti-Semitic at worst.”
Pappe also touches on another readily used tactic in American media which is to conflate criticisms of the actions undertaken by the current Israeli government as anti-Semitic. This is readily seen in the reporting on the pro-Palestine student protests at American universities. In an article by Fox News, they conflate the protests of university students as “Antisemitic Agitators” titled “Antisemitic Agitators what Protestors at Elite Universities are Shouting.” Not the importance of shifting the language to fit the narrative, the university students protesting for divestment from supporting Israel with their tuition become “Antisemitic Agitators.” Also note that the article strays away from calling the protests Pro-Palestine instead preferring to denote them as “Anti-Israel.” This is furthered by attempts to equate Zionism with Israel and Jewish ethnicity. In an article for the Georgetown Voice Annette Hasnas writes “ Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are linked, and the former certainly can be present in the latter, but it is not always. In fact, assertions that the two are inherently synonymous are themselves antisemitic. Such claims often rely on the idea that Jews as a collective must support the Zionist cause, which is not only untrue but also paints Jews as a monolith. Though the percentage of Jews who oppose Israel is a minority, it is a significant one. As many as one in 10 U.S. Jews actively supports the controversial Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement—a movement aimed at pressuring Israel into conforming with certain demands surrounding its treatment of Arab Palestinian residents of the region.” A coinciding narrative often pushed is the idea that Zionism is an inherent necessity for Israeli liberation continued in the article she combats this notion, “Supporters of Israel will often push the notion that to deny the nationhood of Israel would be to deprive Jews “of all people on earth” of the right to self-determination. But there is no shortage of examples of other peoples without total control of the governments that rule over them, including Uyghurs, Kashmiris, and Basques. These peoples, much like Jews, deserve self-determination, and separatist movements exist within many of them. But to oppose the establishment of an ethnostate for these groups is not generally considered evidence of bigotry against them. To claim that the protection of Jews necessitates a Jewish state is not just wrong, but dangerous. It buys into the arguments made by other ethnonationalists that the existence of a state controlled by one ethnicity or religious group is required to ensure that such a group is protected.”
Two other forms of media manipulation that succeed in obfuscating the realities on the ground in Palestine are utilizing emotive language and passive voice in favor of articles concerning the occupying state, and disproportionately reporting on the deaths of Israelis over the deaths of Palestinians despite Palestinian deaths far outpacing their counterparts. In a qualitative analysis done by Adam Johnson and Othman Ali in an article for the Intercept titled “Coverage of the Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows” the writers detail some of the strategies used by American media outlets that indicated bias that may not be as readily apparent to readers. “In the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, the words “Israeli” or “Israel” appear more than “Palestinian” or variations thereof, even as Palestinian deaths far outpaced Israeli deaths. For every two Palestinian deaths, Palestinians are mentioned once. For every Israeli death, Israelis are mentioned eight times — or a rate 16 times more per death that of Palestinians.” They continue by depicting the disparity in evocative language used, “Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around. (When the terms appeared in quotes rather than the editorial voice of the publication, they were omitted from the analysis.) The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.” The deaths of children naturally evokes a bitter sense of injustice and makes for a provocative title for any article therefore it is somewhat surprising that the analysis showed that “Only two headlines out of over 1,100 news articles in the study mention the word “children” related to Gazan children. In a notable exception, the New York Times ran a late-November front-page story on the historic pace of killings of Palestinian women and children, though the headline featured neither group. Despite Israel’s war on Gaza being perhaps the deadliest war for children — almost entirely Palestinian — in modern history, there is scant mention of the word “children” and related terms in the headlines of articles surveyed by The Intercept.” Similarly, the study found that this same discrepancy applied to the deaths of journalists, “While the war on Gaza has been one of the deadliest in modern history for journalists — overwhelmingly Palestinians — the word “journalists” and its iterations such as “reporters” and “photojournalists” only appears in nine headlines out of over 1,100 articles studied. Roughly 48 Palestinian reporters had been killed by Israeli bombardment at the time of the truce; today, the death toll for Palestinian journalists has topped 100. Only 4 of the 9 articles that contained the words journalist/reporter were about Arab reporters. The lack of coverage for the unprecedented killing of children and journalists, groups that typically elicit sympathy from Western media, is conspicuous. By way of comparison, more Palestinian children died in the first week of the Gaza bombing than during the first year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, yet the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times ran multiple personal, sympathetic stories highlighting the plight of children during the first six weeks of the Ukraine war.”
TL;DR: The American media uses false equivalence, delegitimization of violent struggle for self-determination through the terrorist label, false complexity, emotive language, passive voice, and selective publishing to obfuscate the realities of the Israeli settler colonialist project.
If you like this sort of content please visit my blog where I write articles and OP-EDs like these from a leftist perspective, thanks! paradigm-shift.blog

Hello.
This is a short description of the events leading up to my death as an agnostic, a little of what I experienced while dead, and the spiritual inquiry that ensued after I recovered.
Introduction
Let me preface with this overly-complex single sentence introduction, with the caveat that "politically correct" terms for things I say may have changed in the last 40 years, but I have not kept abreast with them:
I am - or was - a high-functioning Idiot-Savant with Hyperlexia and close to an Eidetic memory, offset with Alexithymia and Reactive Attachment Disorder.
Think, "Heroin baby born mute, given up for adoption, beaten into cognitively acceptable behavior by years of torture from adopted parents, then shuffled around in foster care until 18 after the neighbors eventually called the police."
To wit - I've spent a lifetime being called an emotionless but brilliant robot.
Spiritual Preface
My life has been spent best characterized as agnostic. I believed that Plato's noble lie suitably explained spirituality to quell the terror and confusion humans experience contemplating infinity and the unknown.
I was never particularly interested in spirituality because I spent a lifetime doing interesting, meaningful things with far-reaching ramifications and was intellectually fulfilled by the complex challenges that made me a leader in my fields of expertise.
I Died
I died in early 2022. Some people may elect to call this an NDE. I did not almost die. I did die. I died as I had lived - believing that my own intellect and capabilities let me live what I thought was a pretty noteworthy life.
As I was breathing my last, choking on blood, I experienced the stages of grief. In a few minutes, I cycled through denial, bargaining, and acceptance.
Denial and Bargaining
Humans speak ~125wpm. Fast speakers; ~300wpm. I type ~90wpm. We can think ~800wpm. Throughout my life, I've been an effective crisis leader because as my stress level grows, my ability to cognitively process information grows as well.
In the most extreme stress of my life now, I tried thinking my way out of the problem. I cycled through countless versions of different scenarios trying to extend my life in what was probably seconds, time seemed to slow to a stop, and I lived and died over...and over...and over...and over...but every subtle nuance of the status quo led to me dying at roughly at the same time, give or take a minute or two. It was like I was doing timed trials with a stopwatch, trying to improve my performance. I even resorted to prayer and a promise to commit my life to God in exchange for life.
I ran out of ideas. I'm well-versed with muscle failure - the upper limit of a workout when your muscles simply give out and cannot do anything else. I hit brain failure. I skipped out of rapid cognition into exhausted nothing, and God spoke to me for the first time: "You don't bargain with me."
I had a moment of stark, cold terror - both that I couldn't work my way out of it, and that God spoke to me. And that God wasn't giving me what I wanted.
Acceptance
The most interesting thing about it was that I FELT terror. I experienced FEELINGS. Whatever lymphatic anomaly that caused me a lifetime of emotionless rational calculation poked through to the right side of my brain and FELT something. It was amazing - I started to cry. I thought of the highlights of my career - my wins, my triumphs, my career highlights; the charity work I've done, the lives I've touched, and decided I had a good life and I was alright with it being over. My last conscious thought was, "Fuck you God, I did this on my own." And then I died.
I was Somewhere
And then I was there - basking in the warm light of absolute euphoria. Eternal peace. One with the universe - and I had the sense that anyone I wanted to communicate with was there. Anyone. The first person I thought of was someone I respected in life, and I "summoned" Steven Hawking out of the light. I asked if he'd take another shot at life on Earth if he were whole; to leverage his intellect again, and his communication back to me was essentially a very sad rejoinder that he couldn't believe I would suggest giving up where we were to come back to THIS. I screamed in anguish, horrified that I'd suggested giving up eternal, euphoric peace to come back here. I turned my attention away from the "collective" and to the light at the center of this place.
I don't know how or where to even begin with any of it. If the souls of beings are sparks of God's divine consciousness emanating light ... there were orderly rows of what I sensed to be angels lining the "approach" to God. I didn't join the collective, I waited at the outside of this "causeway" approach and communed.
I learned some things. I watched creation unfold. Universal expansion. A mote of iron suspended in the vacuum of space, expanding to grow a gravity well, pulling in dust and gas, creating a planetoid, a magnetic field, beginning tectonic activity, being surrounded by a globe of water; the "firmament" reaching critical mass and flooding the world; countless generations of fish flopping up onto land created by tectonic activity disrupting their traditional swimming lanes, the first ones that evolved into surviving on land masses; making it to fresh water and new breeding and feeding grounds; learning to ambulate on land with their tail fins; the fins eventually separating into legs - and on and on and on through time. I asked what the purpose of the universe was, and learned about that and the infinite planes of existence spiraling through eternity back to the beginning...books worth of information, flooding into an Eidetic memory.
And I remember the primal horror of being ripped away from there as my body was being resuscitated.
Resurrection
My medical records show that I had a traumatic brain injury to pair with my massive physical trauma. Worst of all, I had global aphasia.
I'm a polygot; and I was incapable of speech again. Worse, I couldn't comprehend the nature of speech, or articulate sounds. Again. I was screaming incoherently in my head. My speech skills didn't return in any sensible order. Nor did they return in English first, which is my native language.
I spent most of my lifetime in service to my country in one form or another; and I came to awareness in a strange place, surrounded by strangers, outside of my comfort zone, in horrible pain, being questioned; as my memories started returning, I started calling senior military and government officials to report that I had been kidnapped and was being interrogated. Three letter agencies visited. I was transferred, and denied access to a phone or access to the outside world. It got worse.
It took months, and lawyers, and money and courts to get me released from the hospital I was in.
For a while, I thought I was Chinese. I used ambassadorial privilege that I'm no longer entitled to to seek asylum and tried to flee the country. I was detained.
MONTHS in the hospital, more months rebuilding my memories and sense of self, and then ... trying to make sense of something I didn't believe in. So I started researching.
I've lost my security clearances. I lost my career...but I have full medical and financial security until I die with the "Permanently and Totally Disabled" classification added to my record.
I have a new life and a new career in a new place. I'm not the same as I was, but I think I might be better than I was.
Spirituality Revisited
I have never been a man of faith, which I've always considered to be a tool for a weak mind to grapple with the unknown. I believe in OODA loops, the scientific method, and empirical evidence.
Well...I still believe in those things, and rationally I cannot deny God.
So I started researching, praying, and meditating. Why would someone like ME end up in Heaven when my final thought was a middle finger to God?
I have Questions
Instead of blasting questions into the aether for random digital people to answer, I've done some research.
As it turns out ...
The burgeoning church during the 3rd and 4th century squashing the concept of salvation for all (most effectively through the writings of St. Augustine), ex-communicating Pelagius, introducing the concept of original sin, and embarking on an effective 1700 year campaign to indoctrinate believers that they needed church, priests, and centralized religious guidance (effectively justifying their own bureaucracy and existence) to allow those of the faith to acquire salvation (and avoiding Hell) - and inventing Infernalism along the way.
There are five verses in Revelation that discuss negative eternal ramifications, and a commonly accepted and traditional interpretation is that the "lake of fire" and "hell" and the "second death" are symbolic of eternal pain, torment, pain of loss and perhaps pain of the senses, as punishment for wickedness.
However, the original text - the Greek words translated "torment" or "tormented" into English - come from the root βάσανος, basanos with the original meaning of "the testing of gold and silver as a medium of exchange by the proving stone" and a later connotation of a person, especially a slave, "severely tested by torture" to reveal truth.
This planet - this plane of existence - IS hell. Lucifer was cast down - here to Earth - and our lives - and how we live them - how we deal with torment and testing - determines the truth of our soul; what it's made of, whether it bends and breaks, whether it refines into something like "pure gold or pure silver" or any metal you like for the allegorical reference.
It's interesting that there are some 45,000+ splintered Christian factions around the world - because the truth is - God is not the province of Christianity. That's a single religion in a single epoch on a single planet in a single solar system in a single galaxy in a single cluster in a universe created by an omniscient intelligence.
I suspect that the God of our universe created our universe for the same reason that the God of THAT plane of existence created THAT universe --- all the way back to the origin of eternity. I could be wrong.
Scriptural Support

• ”For no one is cast off by the Lord forever.” - Lamentations 3:31
  
• “Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” - Luke 3:5-6
  
• “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” - John 12:32
  
• “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” - Romans 15:18-19
  
• “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” - Romans 11:32
  
• "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22
  
• "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." - Colossians 1:19-20
  
• “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” - 1 Timothy 4:10
  

All of these scriptures speak to the salvation of all, not the salvation for some and the damnation of others. That plausibly explains why I ended up where I did when I died.
If there are any scientists amongst you, you know what comes next! You've read my problem statement, my hypothesis, a limited set of data that I am willing to share on the internet, and my conclusion.
If you scroll through my posting history, you'll find that I originally shared this story quite some time ago; that the ensuing couple of years have been spent in historical research of scripture and cultural ramifications when those things were written, and that my field of expertise is in neurochemistry.

Paul Oskar Kristeller

22 May 1905 – 07 June 1999
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Paul Oskar Kristeller and the Status of Historical Knowledge
It is the 119th anniversary of the birth of Paul Oskar Kristeller (22 May 1905 – 07 June 1999), who was born in Berlin on this date in 1905.
Kristeller is most widely known for a popular anthology of renaissance philosophy—Renaissance Thought: the Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains—and I quoted Kristeller in my episode about renaissance philosopher Franciscus Patricius. Here is Kristeller on the historiography of renaissance humanists:

“The humanist works on history have a number of peculiarities, both good and bad. They are often written in a highly rhetorical Latin, and they show the influence of classical historiography in the use of fictitious speeches. Since they were usually commissioned by the very state or city whose history was to be written, there is an element of eulogy and of regional or dynastic bias, something which I understand is not entirely absent from the national histories of modern times. On the other hand, the humanists usually did not place much credence in miracles and avoided theological speculations, and they tend to account for historical events on a strictly rational basis. Moreover, they often had access to the archives and original documents illustrating the subject matter of their history, and employed more exacting standards of documentation and historical criticism than had been the custom during the preceding centuries. Valla’s treatise on the Donation of Constantine is a famous example of historical criticism in the fifteenth century; in the sixteenth, we might single out humanists such as Sigonius, who must be considered in their erudition and critical acumen as the direct forerunners of the great historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”

Kristeller wasn’t exclusively a renaissance scholar. He was also fully engaged in the philosophy of his time. Kristeller edited and wrote the introduction to Siegfried Kracauer’s book on philosophy of history, History, the Last Things Before the Last. In my episode on Kracauer I quoted from Kristeller’s introduction to Kracauer. Of Kracauer’s book Kristeller wrote, “I profoundly agree with the spirit out of which all of his work was written,” so at least some of what he says about Kracauer applies to his own conception of history. In his Foreword to Kracauer’s book Kristeller wrote:

“On several important issues, Kracauer hesitates to give a definitive solution, but rather formulates a problem and thus lays the ground for further thought. The discrepancy between general and special history, or as he calls it, macro and micro history, represents a serious dilemma. Kracauer seems to think that the results of special research are so complicated and so resistant to generalization that most of them must be ignored by the general historian. I tend to be slightly more hopeful, and to believe that the results of special research, after some lapse of time, will penetrate the general histories, and that the diversity of contradictory details can be handled in terms of comparative and qualified statements.”

And…

“Another basic dilemma that Kracauer forcefully presents but does not resolve is that between chronological time and ‘shaped’ time, or between the general sequence of all events occurring at a given period, and the specific sequences peculiar to one particular area or tradition. Again I should be inclined to be more optimistic, and try to lay the stress on the pluralism of cultural history, while maintaining the concept of universal cultural history at least as a regulative idea in the Kantian sense.”

Thus Kristeller presents himself as being more sympathetic to the possibility of a philosophically informed history (or what we could call a macro-historical account) eventually coming into being, than was Kracauer, but Kristeller is also willing to grant significant concessions to the idiographic conception of history implicitly held by Kracauer. In another place in this Foreword, Kristeller notes that Kracauer was less interested in philosophers discussing history than in the actual practices of historians, so we shouldn’t be surprised at Kracauer’s philosophical skepticism, which Kristeller does not fully share, though he implies that his point of departure in philosophy of history is similar to that of Kracauer’s.
As I discussed in my episode on Morton White, there is a tension in those philosophers of history that claim to follow the lead of the practicing historian, because they want to borrow the authority of the historian within his own discipline, but they rarely want to follow the historian’s lead in all matters theoretical. And many historians seem to leave no theoretical lead for the philosopher to follow, or it is a very slim lead at best. This might be better expressed as there being an overlap between the practicing historian and the philosopher who takes his inspiration from the practicing historian. Where exactly is the overlap between the practicing historian and the philosopher of history, and how extensive ought it to be?
More often than not, the overlap is an idiographic orientation toward historical knowledge, along with the conviction that philosophers seeking nomothetic explanations have gotten lost in specifically philosophical problems that aren’t firmly rooted in history and the study of history. On the other hand, there is a perceived gap between historians and philosophers of history who make no pretense of taking their talking points form historians, which is what I just called philosophers discussing history, in contradistinction to philosophers discussing the work of practicing historians.
It is worth mentioning in this context that there is a temperamental difference among those philosophers who are impatient with other philosophers who they see as getting too deep in the weeds on specifically philosophical problems, and those philosophers who are impatient with other philosophers who get too deep in the weeds on specific disciplinary questions that are not part of philosophy proper. At least they have their impatience with each other in common. For my part, it makes perfectly good sense that philosophers should discuss specifically philosophical problems, whether related to history or not, but there is a certain mauvais foi about this at present.
We can see more hints of Kristeller’s idiographic epistemic orientation in a 1943 paper co-authored with Lincoln Reis, Some Remarks on the Method of History. In this paper the authors wade into the venerable question of historical methodology, seeming to come down on the side of Dilthey, Windelband, Rickert, and Isaiah Berlin, inter alia, that history has a method all its own, and this is a method of particularity, not one of general laws, i.e., idiographic rather than nomothetic:

“…the special contribution of the historian is the reconstruction and interpretation of specific events. It results from the combination of elements united by the historian and made accessible to the reader. Every element of that combination must be supported by the proper evidence, and thus the whole combination must be verifiable. It is a picture rather than a causal generalization. Though it includes causal relations, it is itself not a causal relation. For this reason, narrative rather than generalization is the only possible mode of presentation of the historical event.”

However, Kristeller goes a little bit further than most philosophers of history who contend that the historical method is not that of the natural sciences. He places this unique historical method and its narrative products in a larger context that includes rather than rejects natural science and philosophy of history:

“We have said that universal laws or rules have no place in the actual work of the historian, which consists in fact-finding and interpretation, but that they do have their place before and after this work, and outside history. They belong to a different field which we may prefer to call sociology or rather the philosophy of history. Hence the philosophy of history will make use of the work of the historian, and to a certain extent it will provide him with the guiding ideas for his work. It is this latter fact which explains why the historian himself very often is also a philosopher of history, and rightly so. This accounts for the point we have discussed above, that is, that some people have taken the philosophical statements of great historians as authoritative statements about the actual method of historical investigation. The main requirement for such a philosophy of history is that it should be critical, not dogmatic, to use the Kantian terms. What it says about general laws of history should be tentative and flexible, since the precise manner in which these rules should be applied is a matter of debate, and it should be subjected to the test of further historical research. Otherwise it is as harmful to historical research as general metaphysical preconceptions are and have been to the progress of the natural sciences.”

Kristeller is saying here that philosophy of history is distinct from history itself, and part of its task is to place history in a larger epistemological framework, which latter would include the methodologies excluded from narrowly historical inquiry. However, I don’t think that many historians are likely to take kindly to the idea of philosophers of history providing them with “guiding ideas” for their work, which he implies is another task of philosophy of history, though Kristeller has formulated this a little ambiguously, so that we could give his sentence the opposite meaning, namely that the philosopher of history should take his guiding ideas from history.
At the same time Kristeller holds that the historian is also a philosopher of history, at least in some cases, or at some times. This is a theme I’ve discussed in several episodes, quoting Hayden White on every history involving an implicit philosophy of history. One of the distinctions we can draw within the philosophy of history is between those who hold that philosophical ideas distort and contaminate history, which ideally should be a bare account of facts, so that true history is innocent of all philosophy, and those who hold that all history involves philosophical presuppositions, whether or not an historian wants to acknowledge his use of them.
An overlapping distinction is that between the historian as historian and the historian as philosopher of history. One and the same person might put on the hat of an historian and write history, and then swap his historian’s hat for the hat of a philosopher of history, and in this way provide his own guidance, and integrate his strictly historical work into a large epistemic framework. In this way, a philosopher could provide the guiding ideas for a history, because they are his own ideas. And in this context, when then historian and the philosopher are the same person by turns taking different roles, this is the same thing as historians providing the guiding ideas for philosophers.
The same year as Kristeller’s paper with Lincoln Reis, 1943, Morton White responded directly to Reis and Kristeller in “A Note on the Method of History,” and he, too, goes a little beyond the familiar dialectic and keeps moving the ball forward:

“In general, I think, it is rare to find disciplines distinguished from each other solely on the basis of the number of logical concepts they employ. In this case, so far as I am able to see, Reis and Kristeller would have us rigidly separate two disciplines simply because one of them employs the logical operation of generalization or quantification, whereas the other does not. On the whole, I think, the history of the empirical sciences teaches us that this divorce is a rare one. Moreover, the history of methodology teaches us that it is a dangerous one. For these reasons, I think that Reis and Kristeller are wrong in their analysis of the nature of historical statements, and not only that—historians who practice as if Reis and Kristeller were right would do well to change their procedures.”

Both Kristeller and White are trying to get at the big picture, but each of them sees a slightly different big picture, hence there is a distinct role for history in each of their big pictures. As recently as 2018, Kristeller wrote in his paper “Philosophy and Its Historiography”:

“Philosophers who claim to explore the status of historical knowledge have written about general laws of history and about causal explanation. These topics may concern the philosopher of history and also the sociologist or anthropologist, but they are speculative and derivative, and at best marginal for the practicing historian or philologist.”

Again in it we see the idiographic orientation and the effective irrelevance of philosophy to history, though I’m not sure how Kristeller’s dismissive attitude to philosophy in relation to history is to be squared with his claim that historian could take the directives of philosophers for the guiding ideas for their work, but, as we saw, this claim can also be interpreted in the reverse sense, that philosophers of history should take their guiding ideas from historians. Kristeller’s views on philosophy of history did not substantively change from 1943 to 1985, as he is still making the same point, but here it has been shorn from Kristeller’s larger point from his earlier writings about the reunification of knowledge within a larger framework.
The previous quote from Kristeller was used by Fons Dewulf in his 2018 paper “Revisiting Hempel’s 1942 Contribution to the Philosophy of History.” Dewulf concludes this paper with the following observation:

“The disappearance of the Windelbandian problem left open what kind of philosophical questions one could ask about the historical sciences. Here, Hempel’s paper saw its most visible contribution. It suggested the centrality of a philosophical concept that had not yet received much analytic attention, namely ‘explanation.’ In Hempel’s and Oppenheim’s 1948 paper, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation,’ explanation became a central concept for understanding scientific activity in general, and thus a prime object of analysis for the philosophy of science as a discipline. This in turn was refracted into an analytic philosophy of history that in the 1950s and 1960s focused its debate around ‘historical explanation.’ Thus, when Dray looks back at four decades of analytic philosophy of history and lauds Hempel’s 1942 paper, he testifies to these shifts that radically changed the methodological and conceptual norms for a philosophy of history. And when Kristeller laments the path of the philosophy of history in the twentieth century, he also attests to these shifts, but evaluates them differently, since it is his methodological and conceptual voice that became lost in the disciplinary norms of the philosophy of science and the philosophy of history after the Second World War.”

The Windelbandian problem, as far as I can ascertain in this context, is a neo-Kantian understanding of logic as transcendental logic, i.e., determining the conditions of the possibility of knowledge, which in this case means the conditions of historical knowledge. We can find this in Windelband’s Theories in Logic, from which I quoted in the episode on Windelband.
Windelband’s conception of logic is much more comprehensive than that of Hempel. It was the disappearance of this comprehensive point of view in logic that led Anglo-American philosophers of history, following Hempel, to think of logic exclusively as an extentionalist modern formal logic, which is all about determining the conditions of valid inference. The extensionalist conception of logic, which is pervasive in contemporary mathematical logic, and in analytical philosophy built on mathematical logic, is prima facie less relevant to history than traditional logic. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is Dewulf’s point about the different valuations of this historical development made by Dray and Kristeller.
Logic has gotten trapped into its current extensionalist incarnation by its own precision, which no one wants to surrender, but that leaves a great deal of what we would like to think of as rational thought without the immediate assistance of logic. We can shift this problem a bit by recasting it from the problem of the role of logical inference in historical explanation, to the role of rationality in historical inquiry, or intelligibility of history. Whether or not historical explanation conforms to canons of extensionalist validity is a much narrower question than whether historical inquiry is a rational enterprise and whether history itself is intelligible.
Certainly, Morton White and Kristeller have somewhat divergent conceptions of scientific rationality, and therefore different conditions for the intelligibility of history. Dewulf formulates this in terms of the logic employed in historical explanation; above I characterized it in terms of a different conception of how history fits into the bigger picture of human knowledge. But the Windelbandian problem in the larger sense, in the sense of whether history has its own distinctive methodology, which is in turn the perennial problem of whether history is a science, has not disappeared.
This problem can be temporarily papered over, but it always returns, and it will continue to return until we formulate a conception of science and a conception of history sufficiently comprehensive that the two either fully coincide, and it can be shown that history is definitively a science, or that the two overlap to some degree, and the extent to which they overlap, and at what points they overlap, can be definitively shown. This addresses the point about the reunification of knowledge in a larger framework that I mentioned earlier. History and philosophy of history are incomplete until we can do this. However, logic and science are also incomplete until we can do this.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/Zn4SjntNsSE
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7Sq41ZNJKB/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/paul-oskar-kristeller-and-the-status-of:f

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/YD1PtCLROJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/ae88addf-169d-4283-a275-f97b9c3c0271/today-in-philosophy-of-history-paul-oskar-kristeller-and-the-status-of-historical-knowledge
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/paul-oskar-kristeller-and-the-status-178735703/
​

Last 24 hours in next 21 minutes.

Yerevan implements a stricter cash rule to combat corruption and sees a jump in reported daily revenue, fires a top bus official, new official prompts a protest by drivers

A group of bus drivers in Yerevan went on strike on Wednesday after the city fired a ranking Yerevan Autobus official suspected of "wasting" millions of dollars. The city had also reprimanded several drivers for "violating their duties and driving outside of predetermined routes".
Drivers say the firings were unjust. They also complained about the Autobus director never meeting them to hear their complaints: "Նախկին տնօրենի վախտով լավ ենք ապրել, նորին չենք ուզում". The director denied the charge, saying he regularly meets the staff.
A city official called the strike an attempt by drivers to sabotage the ongoing public transport reforms. Earlier another city official said they raised the drivers' salaries to ֏550,000 ($1,400) for 14 days of work and imposed stricter rules against smoking and improper conduct towards passengers and traffic.
OFFICIAL: The drivers are protesting because we were able to crack down on payment theft and we demanded high-quality service for passengers. We have received specific information that this protest was "directed". We will pursue and bring the perpetrators to justice. //
The drivers said they wanted the city to reverse the decision that fired Yerevan Autobus's chief architect Andranik Manukyan. He was fired after the city found $2.5 million in financial abuse or miscalculations under his tenure. He denies wrongdoing.
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT CHIEF: Andranik Manukyan will not be reinstated. There is overwhelming evidence. As a result of stricter oversight, we have reduced theft by several millions per month. Where was that money flowing to? More on that later...
MAYOR AVINYAN's OFFICE: We recently announced that drivers must no longer handle cash; their sole duty is to drive. During the latest meeting, the Yerevan Autobus director informed us that as a result of these stricter rules, the daily revenue increased by ֏4 million. This says a lot. Some drivers and those who were fired are unhappy over this change. //
Mayor Avinyan and a Deputy Mayor met the drivers to hear their complaints. The drivers asked for their ex-boss to be reinstated. Avinyan agreed that the director must communicate with his employees more often, but said the anti-corruption steps and the reduction of the alleged fare theft [not necessarily committed by drivers] will continue.
source, source, source, source, source, source, source, source, source, source, source,

delegation led by Luxemburg Parliament leader Claude Wiseler was invited to give a speech in Armenia's Parliament

• Condemned the "forced exodus" of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians caused by an "unjustified military operation launched by Azerbaijan".
• Applauded Armenia's decision to ratify the Rome Statute.
• Supports the EU border mission in Armenia and the EU's peace efforts.
• Demanded Azerbaijan to release all Armenian prisoners of war and provide information about missing persons.
• Supported Armenia's democratic path.
• Luxemburg is lobbying Brussels to advance the new beefed-up version of the AM-EU CEPA agreement.
Azerbaijani parliament, apparently led by Borat, released a response mocking Luxemburg's decision to adopt French as an official language.
video, video, video, source,

ANIF is being dissolved after yearlong issues at top leadership

The official decision will be made tomorrow after a May 17 meeting to discuss ANIF's future.
ANIF recently invested in Hard Rock restaurant which successfully launched in central Yerevan. They also invested in a new solar farm co-funded by MASDAR, which hasn't launched yet.
ANIF's largest investment, some $12 million, was in the creation of a national airline to address the COVID-era shortage and overreliance on foreign airlines. It operated for a few years but had to shut down due to renewed post-COVID competition. It was managed by Air Arabia.
Last year Pashinyan's State Supervision Service launched an audit of ANIF amid reports of unfairly high wages for ANIF's top brass and improper expenditures. In response, ANIF hired international auditors to "prove" that their wages were on par with similar national investment funds in other countries. Armenian authorities went on to launch a felony case based on the findings of the State Supervision Service but there have been no arrests.
source, source,

Armenia receives a $3 million grant from the Eurasian Fund for Stabilization and Development to expand capacity to fight infectious diseases

The funds will be used to renovate several branches of the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Artashat and Echmiadzin. The ones in the worst shape were chosen for a complete revamp.
source,

PM Pashinyan made a brief visit to Iran

He participated in the official ceremony of paying homage to the Iranian officials who died in the helicopter crash, and also met Iranian leader Khamenei.
PASHINYAN: I have warm memories of the contacts with President Raisi and FM Amir-Abdollahian. Armenia and its people stand by the good friend and neighbor Iran and Iranian people during this difficult period.
KHAMENEI: Thank you. Armenia and Iran will continue the steps aimed at the development and expansion of warm and friendly relations. Our late president was very sensitive to the border issues related to Armenia and the events happening around it, and this sensitivity and care should still be taken into account. We must be able to secure our own interests. My emphasis on expanding AM-IR cooperation is indicative of the strategic nature of the relationship, but the relationship between Iran and Armenia has adversaries, and issues relating to both countries must be handled with care.
MOKHBER (acting president): All the cooperation programs with Armenia will continue. The presence of the Prime Minister of Armenia encourages and gives us strength in these difficult days. The disaster has shocked the people of Iran and we deeply appreciate that friendly Armenia shares the grief today. //
After the trip to the Azerbaijan border for the inauguration of the new dam, Raisi was supposed to visit Armenia's southern region of Syunik to inaugurate the construction of the southern section of the North-South highway, but this trip was canceled for unknown reasons.
source, source, source, source, source, source,

the government is negotiating with Zvartnots Airport operator to build a new terminal amid rising passenger flow

RULING MP: Armenia has seen a significant increase in passenger flights to and from Yerevan's Zvartnots airport in recent few years. Zvartnots has physical limitations and won't be able to handle the rising traffic. We hear about hours-long queues to exit and enter planes. Do we have a long- and short-term solutions? Could we implement electronic crossing checks for Armenian citizens like it's done in other countries, instead of having border agents handle them? Perhaps building new terminals is the right approach? I've personally experienced how my plane had to wait for an available terminal upon landing.
MHER GRIGORYAN (Deputy PM): The current terminal is truly insufficient. We have made some improvements to increase the flow but more needs to be done; we need to build a new terminal. Yes, there are negotiations to build one, but it's difficult because we believe it's impossible to continue under the current contract terms because some of its parameters are unacceptable under existing realities. The 20% [presumably the profitability of Eurnekian's company that manages the airport] is too high for Armenia. We have a plan for a new terminal but negotiations continue around the terms. We will have more info next month. The investments will amount to €450 million.
RULING MP: That's a long-term solution because it'll take years to build the terminal. In the meantime, you should consider digitizing the work currently handled by border agents to expedite the processes.
MHER GRIGORYAN: We will look into it.
RULING MP: Also do something about the long lines on the border with Georgia during holidays because the problem is on their side. Our checkpoints have 7 windows while Georgians only operate 2, leading to 5-kilometer-long lines in Armenia.
MHER GRIGORYAN: We will try to find solutions.

... Armenia and the EU are discussing changes to CEPA to attach new elements of cooperation

RULING MP: Pashinyan made a famous speech in the European Parliament where he said Armenia is ready to get as close to the EU as possible. At the moment, the main tool to accomplish this is the CEPA agreement, but it's evident that at a political level, we have advanced beyond CEPA. Nevertheless, the effective implementation of CEPA is the pillar for closer AM-EU relations. Our European colleagues emphasize this during our meetings. We have information that CEPA is currently being reviewed and this is welcome news because it was written in a different era when the priorities were different. Tell us what changes you plan to make to CEPA and how much of it has been implemented so far.
FM ARARAT MIRZOYAN: Indeed Armenia and Europe are reviewing their relations and the agenda, in a positive way. We are currently discussing issues and there will be processes that are broader than CEPA. There are several such tools, some of which were mentioned on April 5, from aviation to economic diversification, improvements to quality standards and economic ties, political cooperation, etc.
RULING MP: So we are expanding the scope of areas covered by CEPA. What about the deadlines? It's 2026 for CEPA. Do we have time to implement the additional reforms by then?
FM ARARAT MIRZOYAN: Technically we are not signing a new agreement because CEPA allows us to attach these additional programs. We will continue to implement CEPA in full while simultaneously introducing new elements.

... PM Pashinyan explains the maps used for border delimitation in Tavush and all of Armenia

RULING MP: The opposition claims this process is illegal.
PASHINYAN: We held dozens of meetings at the National Security Council and Government and placed our decisions under rigorous legal scrutiny.
RULING MP: The opposition is very smart and has of course found many errors and more recently decided to pit maps from various years against each other and create a conflict in an attempt to discredit the entire delimitation process. They cite maps from 1965, 75, then 28, and more recently 88. Can you explain which maps are being used, and why?
PASHINYAN: We are reproducing the de jure border at the time of the collapse of the USSR. That means we are not "creating" a new border, we are reproducing the legal border that already exists.
Regarding the demarcation work of 1988.
(1) These efforts, led by Vladimir Movsisyan, have documents that explain when and under what conditions that work would gain de jure power. Those conditions, described by the document itself, were never met. It never gained legal power because it wasn't sent to the Supreme Council Presidency and didn't pass the relevant procedures. (2) Some demarcation work was done in 1988 but they didn't reach the mapping stage.
Regarding the 1969 maps. I'd like to use the opportunity and [pulls out a map from his pocket] and show you the 1976 map that's being used for today's process. This is the map from the USSR army's General Staff. It underwent the necessary legal procedures and verification by relevant USSR agencies. This 1976 map is based on the 1969 delimitation results; that's very important. These maps play an important role in the future development and sovereignty of Armenia because they describe the de jure borders of Armenia. These maps have 19 pages. We've done meticulous work on them and reproduced Armenia's border from top to bottom.
The opposition refuses to accept Armenia's 29,743 km² because they are guided by the mentality of Historical Armenia. They think they are doing Armenia a favor by leaving it vague; they want it to be 300,000 km² without realizing that by not recognizing our territories they are also opening an opportunity to shrink us down to 23 km^2. That is how you lose your sovereignty and independence. They want a population that enjoys a coffee in central Yerevan while dreaming about Kars. That is how you lose Yerevan, too. This is the conceptual difference between Real Armenia and Historical Armenia. We have to choose between Real Armenia and Historical Armenia. Ապագա կա, and it's in these maps [shows the 1976 map based on 1969 delimitation], and we must ensure its security not by kissing others' boots every morning but by standing on our legitimate positions. You can shout "he is surrendering, he is giving away" all you want. We have decided that legitimacy and standing on our legitimate borders are the cornerstone for Armenia's security and statehood. We have no claim over what lies beyond our borders.

... Pashinyan unloads on Russian Empire and pro-Russian opposition forces in Armenia

RULING MP: Who benefits from derailing the border delimitation and why is the opposition doing that?
PASHINYAN: We have learned new things and realized new things along this journey. I am more confident than ever that legitimacy is the strongest guarantee we can have. The opponents of border delimitation want Armenia to stand outside of its legitimate ground so we will be exposed as a legitimate target. Why do they want Armenia to become a legitimate target? So they can convince the people that Armenia is incapable of being independent and needs to be a [Russian] fortpost. Live quietly, eat your food quietly, light your candle, and we will take care of the rest, they will say. They [Russia] will manage our foreign policy, will promise to protect us, etc. Why do you even need independence? Why do you need a parliament? Let's have it like the church. They have dioceses everywhere. Instead of 10 provinces, we will have 10 dioceses. After all, Armenia has an experience living under that regime, brought by others. We were managed by an empire. They'd travel to Kesarya for approval and return and serve as agents of foreign influence. King Pap was able to move that to Armenia, but to this day we have a problem with agents of foreign influence, but it will be resolved within the next 2-3 months.
Today we are addressing a problem that has existed for thousands of years in Armenia. Why do you think I keep bringing up King Pap? He was the last leader to take action and the process was interrupted with his assassination. King Pap [the process of making Armenia independent] will no longer be killed. As the Prime Minister of Armenia, I assure you that King Pap will no longer be killed and the statehood of Armenia will not be killed, regardless of the type of gown they wear [referring to attempts by pro-Russian forces to take over]. Bring the heaviest cross you have. King Pap will not be killed. Today's Republic of Armenia is realizing the dream of King Pap, and it has been realized, and it can no longer be killed. This is our political mission.
Today some history teachers enter a classroom and fill the children's brains with nonsense. I know exactly what is happening today. I urge students to convince their teachers to take an attestation exam to double their wages. It will also expose the teachers' level of knowledge. Spread the word, kids. Don't let your teachers brainwash you. //

... Pashinyan about the CSTO "allies" that backstabbed Armenia by helping Azerbaijan

RULING MP: Lukashenko visited Baku and revealed a pre-war dinner conversation he had with Ilham Aliyev, during which he said it was possible and important to win the war. Before the war, the two also discussed the need to rebuild the territories after capturing them through a war. "We won", said Lukashenko... "We" won, he said.
PASHINYAN: Lukashenko said what I've been telling you for 4 years indirectly because I couldn't say it directly. Now that I have that opportunity, I'll be direct with you. Two of our "allies" took part in the preparation of the 2020 war. These countries created an imitation of attempting to help Armenia but I need you to understand that the 2020 war was NOT about Nagorno-Karabakh because the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh was "closed" by them long ago. The war of 2020 was about controlling Armenia and the end of Armenia's independence.
Their expectations were not met during the November 10, 2020, riots to hijack power, so they made another attempt in May 2021. As you recall, at the time the government had resigned to trigger snap elections [Azerbaijan attacked, Armenia's "Russian-linked" diplomats resigned "during difficult hours"]; they failed again. The next failed attempt was in September 2022, followed by September 2023. The latest attempt was on May 9, 2024, and it didn't work out again, and will not work. Had we not delimited the 4 villages, we could have witnessed an attack on our borders simultaneously with the May 9 process.
In 2022 I told you that if we are able to preserve Armenia's statehood for 2 more years, its existence will be guaranteed for at least another 50-100 years. The delimitation in Tavush has completed 60% of that task. That's why they create so much noise. They want to prevent citizens from realizing that we are placing the cornerstones of our statehood in Kirants right now.
So yes, Lukashenko said the truth. I had to endure this torture for 4 years until he said it out loud. I'm happy that I was able to get him to say it. I will do it to more people. There are people who need to reveal other information. [Open լափառռոշ and speak then? Petition to waterboard Pashinyan regularly until he sings.]

... Pashinyan about relations with Russia

RULING MP: Our pensioner diplomats [a group of ex-diplomats gathered by ex-regime] recently brought forward a plan of action, one of which is the restoration of strong relations with Russia. They have always pinned the blame for everything that unfolded against Armenia on our administration, and that supposedly we are the ones who damaged the relations. What is your opinion? Could Armenia do anything to improve relations or is this a matter of Armenia and Russia having opposing national interests?
PASHINYAN: Our former diplomats must explain why in 2012-2013 [before Pashinyan] our strategic ally Russia signed a $3 billion arms contract with Azerbaijan. Explain it. They are tough diplomats who were protecting Armenia's interests, so explain it.
They must also explain the transcript of the January 2016 conversation between Foreign Ministers of Russia and Armenia. They must explain how it happened. By the way, the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Russia were "friends" and had warm personal relations. Explain why that didn't prevent the disastrous conversation of January 2016. Remember when Serj Sargsyan warned about a possible disaster during his Parliament speech in 2018? That disaster actually happened in January 2016.
They must explain why in August 2016 Russia initiated a 2-step resolution package for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that practically nullified any and all chances of Nagorno-Karabakh having any status outside of Azerbaijan. Although as I've already said, the "practical" chances of Nagorno-Karabakh having a status outside Azerbaijan were made zero long before that. They [big power(s)] of course didn't want to tell that to our diplomats directly, while our ex-diplomats were illiterate and incapable of comprehending the text. Or, they did read and understand but continue to manipulate today.

... Pashinyan accuses the church of neglecting its own properties and being engaged in corrupt schemes

RULING MP: The church demands 5 villages from Armenia. One of its representatives says villages Vagharshapat, Oshakan, Mughni, Yeghvard, and Mastara must be returned to the church "before you can talk about taxing the church". What's your opinion on the church demanding 5 villages from Armenia?
PASHINYAN: They have property lawsuits against Turkey so I won't be surprised if they do the same to Armenia. Years ago I offered the church leadership to develop a joint project to preserve hundreds of cultural-historical monuments that were literally crumbling. The topic didn't interest the church. The only reason I can think of is that since it was going to be a joint state project, the investments made by the church would be required to be transparent.
Not long ago we learned about a very strange process. Under the advice of the church, one of the municipalities classified a 7th-century church as an "illegal property" and transferred it to one of the dioceses. We have filed a lawsuit to return this historical-cultural property to the state and the people. [the fuck?]
A while ago we officially offered the church to improve its financial transparency by taxing them and returning all of the taxed amount back, just to have transparency. They rejected the idea. They appear to have issues with the financial flows. Why else would they turn down the idea? We were ready to return all of the taxed amount back, and then more, to help with the preservation of monuments.

... Shurnukh's new district is finally ready after the government resolves "major" water delivery and electricity issues

The construction of the houses is not what took so long, it was the utilities and pipelines, said Infrastructure Minister Thanosyan on Wednesday. The houses will be distributed soon.
source,

Gremlin's foreign memestry spokespriest be fightin' demons

A new beef is brewing between Moscow and Armenia's pro-West speaker of the parliament who clearly needs exorcism.
Context: The ruling party and pro-West figures have criticized the church for the recent politicization and "meddling" in the state's affairs. Some have questioned whether the church is co-funding the ex-regime's ongoing political protests and things like the big stage used by Archbishop Galstanyan on May 9. There were calls to tax the church. The church already pays some income taxes but they enjoy significant exemptions. Armenia's pro-West parliament speaker Alen Simonyan appears to support taxing the church.
Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was not happy and believes Simonyan is a devilish puppet of the West.
ZAKHAROVA: Speaker Simonyan announced the need to discuss the reasons why the church is exempt from taxation and the need to review the law. Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliamentary party led by Poroshenko has brought forward a motion to discuss a total ban on [the Russian wing of the church in Ukraine]. Why do those whom the West feeds literally become demonic? //
Kremlin-linked figures continue to support the protest co-leader Archbishop Galstanyan and last year suggested using him as the figurehead for future protests.
source, source,

protest co-leader Archbishop Galstanyan will present his vision for Armenia during the May 26 mega-massive rally

It's the final battle. May 26. Don't miss the final days of the Pashinyan administration.
source,

authorities arrest another suspect accused of bribing several people to attend anti-Pashinyan protests

AUTHORITIES: A resident of Vanadzor offered to help a local resident get a position at a hospital if she paid a $550 bribe. During the searches conducted at the suspect's address, the agents found 5 pages of A4 paper with several names handwritten on them and a sum next to each other. Further investigation revealed that the suspect was offering bribes for people to join the protests in Tavush and Yerevan. The suspect is under arrest.
source,

an associate of ex-President Kocharyan's son is arrested for allegedly plotting an armed takeover of state buildings during the planned May 26 mega-rally by opposition; audio interception

Hayk Ghevondyan, the son of famous singer Spitaktsi Hayko, has been arrested.
AUTHORITIES: Being a close ally of an opposition alliance [Kocharyan's Armenia Alliance], and having disagreements with the government's foreign and internal policies, the suspect planned to usurp power with the help of a group. The plan was to hijack the Government, Parliament, and Police buildings, as well as to forcefully control processes in the Parliament and Government. They discussed the possibility of carrying out the plan during the May 26 protest. //
Authorities released an audio of the alleged suspect saying he wants to enter the aforementioned buildings and that he is ready to die. "Let them shoot me. It's better to sacrifice 10-20 people for the sake of preserving our country. [...] The rally is on the 26th, I don't know. Everything is on srbazan's [Archbishop Galstanyan's] shoulders. He has to take everything."
AUTHORITIES: The suspect was unable to carry out the plan because the plot was uncovered by Interior Ministry agents. The suspect is under arrest. The investigation continues to uncover the identities of other participants.
source, source, source, video, video, source, video,

ruling party MP threatens pro-Russian opposition forces with retaliation if they continue to serve "foreign interests"

MP KHACHATUR SUKIASYAN (Grzo): We live in interesting times. Armenia wants to strengthen itself and its borders and become a strong state, while some members of this parliament and various political forces hinder this process. Some do this knowingly while having contracts [with foreign states], while others do it unwittingly under the influence of their friends. The history won't be kind to your names. Armenia must be a powerful independent state.
If we go back in time and remember who led Armenia and how they managed things in Armenia, and how they treated those who dared to utter the name of a foreign country or had foreign relations, they were treated very poorly. They would either end up in jail, die, or lose everything they owned. Now I'm telling you, if you cross the line and continue to hinder the development of Armenia, the same things will happen to you. Know your boundaries, or else whatever tools you used for 20 years will be used against you.
As a citizen of Armenia who has a family, children, and grandchildren, I will do everything possible to ensure Armenia becomes strong. The fairy tales you make up about us "surrendering our lands" and "our borders" are all meant to mislead the public.
Second. You deal major damage to our brothers and sisters from Nagorno-Karabakh by inviting them to join the [anti-Pashinyan] processes. The refugees are being taken care of in Armenia with social payments and soon the housing program. Do not drag them into these processes.
I get it, you are an opposition and you have rights, but everything has limits. This was a warning as an ordinary citizen of Armenia. I want people in my country to live in peace, for Armenia to gain strength and have normal relations with its neighbors, to have a strong army while not needing to use it to fight a war.
Did you schedule a protest right outside the EBRD forum in Opera after hearing that they planned to invest $500 million to develop various branches of our economy? We held the EBRD forum in Armenia for the first time with thousands of financial sector guests and you attempted to derail it. This is part of your effort to ensure Armenia is not independent and fails to secure the funds to address its issues. //
REPORTER: Did you earlier threaten the opposition MPs?
SUKIASYAN: What I said is what if the same thing was done to you, not that it's definitely going to happen. I want Armenia to develop and strengthen.
source, source,

Armenia's export stats for March

The top export destination was the UAE, with a 7-fold increase, as it remains the main market for gold and jewelry exports.
Footwear +40%
Machinery +29%
Agricultural goods +8%
Vehicles (re-export) -77%
Non-precious metals -59%
source,

the EU wants to trade with China, and it doesn't mind if Armenia joins the east-west Middle Corridor

Context in May 16 news. During the EBRD forum held in Yerevan, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between EBRD and USAID to develop the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, also known as the Middle Corridor, to further enhance connectivity between Asia and Europe via the South Caucasus.
The partnership will focus on expanding trade, green energy, investment in new industries, as well as transport and digital infrastructure in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.
This week the EU President Ursula von der Leyen laid out her economic ideas for a potential second term as European Commission president.
While the US imposes tariffs on Chinese imports, von der Leyen has rejected the idea that the West is already in a trade war with China and she won't join the US on the side of trade barricades.
LEYEN: We share some of the concerns of our American counterparts but our approach should be different from the US. The Americans have just applied blanket tariffs. We want a tailored approach and duties that correspond to the level of damage. We want competition, we want to trade together, but it must be fair and China should stop flooding our market with artificially cheap products [e.g., electric vehicles]. We want to de-risk, not de-couple. //
Leyen also wants to create a centrally-funded European air defense system.

Europeans go to the polls from 6-9 June, to elect the 720 lawmakers who will sit in the European Parliament for five years – and the result could also determine who takes over at the EU’s executive arm.

Polls suggest Leyen's center-right EPP will be the largest in the Parliament, which could allow her to be reelected if she is able to form a coalition to gain a majority.
source, source, presidential debates, presidential debates,

21 new U.S. Peace Corps volunteers will live and work in Armenia for the next 2 years

They will teach English and support youth projects. The swearing-in ceremony was held on Wednesday.
source,

update: Parliament elects a new Constitutional Court judge nominated by hundreds of fellow judges

Davit Khachatryan will replace a Serj-era judge who left the court for a new job. Details in Tuesday news digest.
source,

Pashinyan's ruling party is set to nominate a mayor in Parakar under a 2022 deal with a coalition ally

Parties led by Pashinyan, Ruben Vardanyan, and a local official Davit Minasyan won enough seats to enter the city council in Parakar.
Pashinyan and Minasyan formed an alliance under the condition that during the first 2.5 years, the mayor would be from Minasyan's party, followed by 2.5 years of Pashinyan party. That deal is going through as planned and ruling QP will appoint a new mayor soon.
Ruben Vardanyan's Aprelu Yerkir recently convinced one of Minasyan's party members to switch ranks and join them to initiate a vote of no confidence against the mayor but the latter chose to resign and, as agreed in 2022, endorsed his QP coalition ally for mayor's position.
source, source,

anti-corruption: asset forfeiture case against 2016-2018 Defense Minister Vigen Sargsyan

Prosecutors say Sargsyan owns properties and money in Armenia and the US that were obtained illegally.
• Real estate in central Yerevan worth $469,000
• Real estate in Massachusetts worth $2.5 million
• Cash $660,000
• $447,000 that cannot be confiscated because he transferred it to innocent purchasers between 2004-2022
source,

anti-corruption: authorities want to seize 46 real estate properties and ֏372 million with suspected illegal origins from the former governor of Ararat province as part of an asset forfeiture case

• 46 real estate
• 2 vehicles
• shares in 3 companies
• etc.
source,

anti-corruption: ex-officials at National Body for Standardization and Metrology have returned ֏51 million to the state

AUTHORITIES: A group of officials who served in 2010-2018 struck deals with 27 individuals to register them as fake employees so they could collect paychecks without working. A criminal case was launched in 2020. On Monday they recovered the stolen funds.
source,

are monkeys becoming smarter than humans?

Chimpanzee throws dropped sandal back to zoo visitor
video,

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen.
Readings:
Psalm 18:1–20 Reading: Proverbs 7
Gospel: Matthew 11:25–30
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Commentary:
This is another of those that you must read the chapter in context to be able to understand. John the Baptist had been arrested and imprisoned. John, who so clearly recognized who Jesus was when he baptized him, is now having doubts. Who can blame him? The great judgment John announced has not materialized, the corrupt are still in power, and John is languishing in Herod’s prison.
John sends some of his disciples to inquire if Christ was the promised one, or not. Jesus sends them back with his instruction to tell John what they have heard and seen — the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, the lepers cleansed, the deaf hearing, the dead raised, and the poor receiving good news.
Starting with verse 7 and continuing through verse 19 Jesus—speaking to a large group gathered there—praises John as well as pointing out how John had been treated the same was as the prophets of old.
With verses 20 through 24, he laments the cities that heard the word of God but failed to repent. This general critique of these cities by Christ gives us a hint of what his cryptic prayer in verse 25 is all about.
He said; “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:” The “wise and intelligent” may refer to any who reject Jesus and his message, but perhaps especially to the religious leaders, whom Jesus often rebukes for their self-importance and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees pride themselves on being learned in the law yet fail to understand the basics of justice, mercy, and faith (23:23). They repeatedly reject Jesus and conspire against him, thus conspiring against the very purposes of God.
The “infants,” on the other hand, are not regarded as wise or important. They are the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, all whom Jesus calls blessed (5:3-12). They are the sick and the lame, the lepers and demon-possessed, the tax collectors and sinners, who come to Jesus for healing of body and spirit. It is God’s gracious will to act in ways that confound human wisdom (11:26), and so these “infants” see what the “wise” cannot — that Jesus is sent by the Father and reveals the Father (11:27).
Jesus’ prayer then turns to invitation: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest” (11:28). Who are the ones laboring wearily and heavily burdened? Again, it is the common people rather than their leaders. Later in Matthew, Jesus chastises the scribes and Pharisees because “they tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (23:4). The heavy burden they lay on the people is not the law per se; it is rather their particular interpretation and practice of the law, which, for instance, excludes from meals the ritually unclean (9:10-13), places restrictions on the Sabbath that ignore human need (12:1-14), is zealous about tithing mint, dill, and cumin, but neglects the “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith”
The religious leaders in Matthew’s story are also complicit with the Roman rulers in maintaining the imperial system. The common people labor wearily under Roman occupation, in which the ruling elite secure wealth, status, and power at the expense of the lowly.
To all those laboring under harsh religious and political systems, Jesus says, “Come to me… and I will give you rest.” Rest in the Septuagint can refer to Sabbath rest, the rest of death, or rest from war when Israel’s enemies have been subdued. Rest also functions as an image of salvation, of what will be when the world is finally ordered according to God’s purposes and enjoys its full and complete Sabbath. In promising “rest,” Jesus promises life under God’s reign in the new world that he is bringing into being.
Jesus further invites the weary: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”
What is the yoke Jesus offers? We might infer that it is his teaching, his way of discipleship, which is not burdensome but life-giving. He invites the weary to learn from him, for he is not a tyrant who lords it over his disciples, but is “gentle and humble in heart.” His yoke is easy (chrestos, better translated “good” or “kind”) and his burden is light. To take his yoke upon oneself is to be yoked to the one in whom God’s kingdom of justice, mercy, and compassion is breaking into this world, and to find the rest for which the soul longs.
Benediction
May God’s love surround you, God’s Spirit guide you, God’s whisper cheer you, God’s peace calm you, God’s shield protect you, God’s wisdom arm you, wherever God may lead you. Lord, be with us now to strengthen us; about us, to keep us; above us, to protect us; beneath us, to uphold us; before us, to direct us; behind us, to keep us from straying; and ‘round about us, to defend us. Blessed are You, O Father, forever and ever. Amen
Thought for the Day:
You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.
Thomas Sowell

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen.
Readings:
Psalm 18:1–20 Reading: Proverbs 7
Gospel: Matthew 11:25–30
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Commentary:
This is another of those that you must read the chapter in context to be able to understand. John the Baptist had been arrested and imprisoned. John, who so clearly recognized who Jesus was when he baptized him, is now having doubts. Who can blame him? The great judgment John announced has not materialized, the corrupt are still in power, and John is languishing in Herod’s prison.
John sends some of his disciples to inquire if Christ was the promised one, or not. Jesus sends them back with his instruction to tell John what they have heard and seen — the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, the lepers cleansed, the deaf hearing, the dead raised, and the poor receiving good news.
Starting with verse 7 and continuing through verse 19 Jesus—speaking to a large group gathered there—praises John as well as pointing out how John had been treated the same was as the prophets of old.
With verses 20 through 24, he laments the cities that heard the word of God but failed to repent. This general critique of these cities by Christ gives us a hint of what his cryptic prayer in verse 25 is all about.
He said; “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:” The “wise and intelligent” may refer to any who reject Jesus and his message, but perhaps especially to the religious leaders, whom Jesus often rebukes for their self-importance and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees pride themselves on being learned in the law yet fail to understand the basics of justice, mercy, and faith (23:23). They repeatedly reject Jesus and conspire against him, thus conspiring against the very purposes of God.
The “infants,” on the other hand, are not regarded as wise or important. They are the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, all whom Jesus calls blessed (5:3-12). They are the sick and the lame, the lepers and demon-possessed, the tax collectors and sinners, who come to Jesus for healing of body and spirit. It is God’s gracious will to act in ways that confound human wisdom (11:26), and so these “infants” see what the “wise” cannot — that Jesus is sent by the Father and reveals the Father (11:27).
Jesus’ prayer then turns to invitation: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest” (11:28). Who are the ones laboring wearily and heavily burdened? Again, it is the common people rather than their leaders. Later in Matthew, Jesus chastises the scribes and Pharisees because “they tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (23:4). The heavy burden they lay on the people is not the law per se; it is rather their particular interpretation and practice of the law, which, for instance, excludes from meals the ritually unclean (9:10-13), places restrictions on the Sabbath that ignore human need (12:1-14), is zealous about tithing mint, dill, and cumin, but neglects the “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith”
The religious leaders in Matthew’s story are also complicit with the Roman rulers in maintaining the imperial system. The common people labor wearily under Roman occupation, in which the ruling elite secure wealth, status, and power at the expense of the lowly.
To all those laboring under harsh religious and political systems, Jesus says, “Come to me… and I will give you rest.” Rest in the Septuagint can refer to Sabbath rest, the rest of death, or rest from war when Israel’s enemies have been subdued. Rest also functions as an image of salvation, of what will be when the world is finally ordered according to God’s purposes and enjoys its full and complete Sabbath. In promising “rest,” Jesus promises life under God’s reign in the new world that he is bringing into being.
Jesus further invites the weary: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”
What is the yoke Jesus offers? We might infer that it is his teaching, his way of discipleship, which is not burdensome but life-giving. He invites the weary to learn from him, for he is not a tyrant who lords it over his disciples, but is “gentle and humble in heart.” His yoke is easy (chrestos, better translated “good” or “kind”) and his burden is light. To take his yoke upon oneself is to be yoked to the one in whom God’s kingdom of justice, mercy, and compassion is breaking into this world, and to find the rest for which the soul longs.
Benediction
May God’s love surround you, God’s Spirit guide you, God’s whisper cheer you, God’s peace calm you, God’s shield protect you, God’s wisdom arm you, wherever God may lead you. Lord, be with us now to strengthen us; about us, to keep us; above us, to protect us; beneath us, to uphold us; before us, to direct us; behind us, to keep us from straying; and ‘round about us, to defend us. Blessed are You, O Father, forever and ever. Amen
Thought for the Day:
You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.
Thomas Sowell

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen.
Readings:
Psalm 18:1–20 Reading: Proverbs 7
Gospel: Matthew 11:25–30
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Commentary:
This is another of those that you must read the chapter in context to be able to understand. John the Baptist had been arrested and imprisoned. John, who so clearly recognized who Jesus was when he baptized him, is now having doubts. Who can blame him? The great judgment John announced has not materialized, the corrupt are still in power, and John is languishing in Herod’s prison.
John sends some of his disciples to inquire if Christ was the promised one, or not. Jesus sends them back with his instruction to tell John what they have heard and seen — the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, the lepers cleansed, the deaf hearing, the dead raised, and the poor receiving good news.
Starting with verse 7 and continuing through verse 19 Jesus—speaking to a large group gathered there—praises John as well as pointing out how John had been treated the same was as the prophets of old.
With verses 20 through 24, he laments the cities that heard the word of God but failed to repent. This general critique of these cities by Christ gives us a hint of what his cryptic prayer in verse 25 is all about.
He said; “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:” The “wise and intelligent” may refer to any who reject Jesus and his message, but perhaps especially to the religious leaders, whom Jesus often rebukes for their self-importance and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees pride themselves on being learned in the law yet fail to understand the basics of justice, mercy, and faith (23:23). They repeatedly reject Jesus and conspire against him, thus conspiring against the very purposes of God.
The “infants,” on the other hand, are not regarded as wise or important. They are the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, all whom Jesus calls blessed (5:3-12). They are the sick and the lame, the lepers and demon-possessed, the tax collectors and sinners, who come to Jesus for healing of body and spirit. It is God’s gracious will to act in ways that confound human wisdom (11:26), and so these “infants” see what the “wise” cannot — that Jesus is sent by the Father and reveals the Father (11:27).
Jesus’ prayer then turns to invitation: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest” (11:28). Who are the ones laboring wearily and heavily burdened? Again, it is the common people rather than their leaders. Later in Matthew, Jesus chastises the scribes and Pharisees because “they tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (23:4). The heavy burden they lay on the people is not the law per se; it is rather their particular interpretation and practice of the law, which, for instance, excludes from meals the ritually unclean (9:10-13), places restrictions on the Sabbath that ignore human need (12:1-14), is zealous about tithing mint, dill, and cumin, but neglects the “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith”
The religious leaders in Matthew’s story are also complicit with the Roman rulers in maintaining the imperial system. The common people labor wearily under Roman occupation, in which the ruling elite secure wealth, status, and power at the expense of the lowly.
To all those laboring under harsh religious and political systems, Jesus says, “Come to me… and I will give you rest.” Rest in the Septuagint can refer to Sabbath rest, the rest of death, or rest from war when Israel’s enemies have been subdued. Rest also functions as an image of salvation, of what will be when the world is finally ordered according to God’s purposes and enjoys its full and complete Sabbath. In promising “rest,” Jesus promises life under God’s reign in the new world that he is bringing into being.
Jesus further invites the weary: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”
What is the yoke Jesus offers? We might infer that it is his teaching, his way of discipleship, which is not burdensome but life-giving. He invites the weary to learn from him, for he is not a tyrant who lords it over his disciples, but is “gentle and humble in heart.” His yoke is easy (chrestos, better translated “good” or “kind”) and his burden is light. To take his yoke upon oneself is to be yoked to the one in whom God’s kingdom of justice, mercy, and compassion is breaking into this world, and to find the rest for which the soul longs.
Benediction
May God’s love surround you, God’s Spirit guide you, God’s whisper cheer you, God’s peace calm you, God’s shield protect you, God’s wisdom arm you, wherever God may lead you. Lord, be with us now to strengthen us; about us, to keep us; above us, to protect us; beneath us, to uphold us; before us, to direct us; behind us, to keep us from straying; and ‘round about us, to defend us. Blessed are You, O Father, forever and ever. Amen
Thought for the Day:
You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.
Thomas Sowell

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen.
Readings:
Psalm 18:1–20 Reading: Proverbs 7
Gospel: Matthew 11:25–30
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Commentary:
This is another of those that you must read the chapter in context to be able to understand. John the Baptist had been arrested and imprisoned. John, who so clearly recognized who Jesus was when he baptized him, is now having doubts. Who can blame him? The great judgment John announced has not materialized, the corrupt are still in power, and John is languishing in Herod’s prison.
John sends some of his disciples to inquire if Christ was the promised one, or not. Jesus sends them back with his instruction to tell John what they have heard and seen — the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, the lepers cleansed, the deaf hearing, the dead raised, and the poor receiving good news.
Starting with verse 7 and continuing through verse 19 Jesus—speaking to a large group gathered there—praises John as well as pointing out how John had been treated the same was as the prophets of old.
With verses 20 through 24, he laments the cities that heard the word of God but failed to repent. This general critique of these cities by Christ gives us a hint of what his cryptic prayer in verse 25 is all about.
He said; “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:” The “wise and intelligent” may refer to any who reject Jesus and his message, but perhaps especially to the religious leaders, whom Jesus often rebukes for their self-importance and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees pride themselves on being learned in the law yet fail to understand the basics of justice, mercy, and faith (23:23). They repeatedly reject Jesus and conspire against him, thus conspiring against the very purposes of God.
The “infants,” on the other hand, are not regarded as wise or important. They are the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, all whom Jesus calls blessed (5:3-12). They are the sick and the lame, the lepers and demon-possessed, the tax collectors and sinners, who come to Jesus for healing of body and spirit. It is God’s gracious will to act in ways that confound human wisdom (11:26), and so these “infants” see what the “wise” cannot — that Jesus is sent by the Father and reveals the Father (11:27).
Jesus’ prayer then turns to invitation: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest” (11:28). Who are the ones laboring wearily and heavily burdened? Again, it is the common people rather than their leaders. Later in Matthew, Jesus chastises the scribes and Pharisees because “they tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (23:4). The heavy burden they lay on the people is not the law per se; it is rather their particular interpretation and practice of the law, which, for instance, excludes from meals the ritually unclean (9:10-13), places restrictions on the Sabbath that ignore human need (12:1-14), is zealous about tithing mint, dill, and cumin, but neglects the “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith”
The religious leaders in Matthew’s story are also complicit with the Roman rulers in maintaining the imperial system. The common people labor wearily under Roman occupation, in which the ruling elite secure wealth, status, and power at the expense of the lowly.
To all those laboring under harsh religious and political systems, Jesus says, “Come to me… and I will give you rest.” Rest in the Septuagint can refer to Sabbath rest, the rest of death, or rest from war when Israel’s enemies have been subdued. Rest also functions as an image of salvation, of what will be when the world is finally ordered according to God’s purposes and enjoys its full and complete Sabbath. In promising “rest,” Jesus promises life under God’s reign in the new world that he is bringing into being.
Jesus further invites the weary: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”
What is the yoke Jesus offers? We might infer that it is his teaching, his way of discipleship, which is not burdensome but life-giving. He invites the weary to learn from him, for he is not a tyrant who lords it over his disciples, but is “gentle and humble in heart.” His yoke is easy (chrestos, better translated “good” or “kind”) and his burden is light. To take his yoke upon oneself is to be yoked to the one in whom God’s kingdom of justice, mercy, and compassion is breaking into this world, and to find the rest for which the soul longs.
Benediction
May God’s love surround you, God’s Spirit guide you, God’s whisper cheer you, God’s peace calm you, God’s shield protect you, God’s wisdom arm you, wherever God may lead you. Lord, be with us now to strengthen us; about us, to keep us; above us, to protect us; beneath us, to uphold us; before us, to direct us; behind us, to keep us from straying; and ‘round about us, to defend us. Blessed are You, O Father, forever and ever. Amen
Thought for the Day:
You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.
Thomas Sowell

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen.
Readings:
Psalm 18:1–20 Reading: Proverbs 7
Gospel: Matthew 11:25–30
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Commentary:
This is another of those that you must read the chapter in context to be able to understand. John the Baptist had been arrested and imprisoned. John, who so clearly recognized who Jesus was when he baptized him, is now having doubts. Who can blame him? The great judgment John announced has not materialized, the corrupt are still in power, and John is languishing in Herod’s prison.
John sends some of his disciples to inquire if Christ was the promised one, or not. Jesus sends them back with his instruction to tell John what they have heard and seen — the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, the lepers cleansed, the deaf hearing, the dead raised, and the poor receiving good news.
Starting with verse 7 and continuing through verse 19 Jesus—speaking to a large group gathered there—praises John as well as pointing out how John had been treated the same was as the prophets of old.
With verses 20 through 24, he laments the cities that heard the word of God but failed to repent. This general critique of these cities by Christ gives us a hint of what his cryptic prayer in verse 25 is all about.
He said; “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:” The “wise and intelligent” may refer to any who reject Jesus and his message, but perhaps especially to the religious leaders, whom Jesus often rebukes for their self-importance and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees pride themselves on being learned in the law yet fail to understand the basics of justice, mercy, and faith (23:23). They repeatedly reject Jesus and conspire against him, thus conspiring against the very purposes of God.
The “infants,” on the other hand, are not regarded as wise or important. They are the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the persecuted, all whom Jesus calls blessed (5:3-12). They are the sick and the lame, the lepers and demon-possessed, the tax collectors and sinners, who come to Jesus for healing of body and spirit. It is God’s gracious will to act in ways that confound human wisdom (11:26), and so these “infants” see what the “wise” cannot — that Jesus is sent by the Father and reveals the Father (11:27).
Jesus’ prayer then turns to invitation: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest” (11:28). Who are the ones laboring wearily and heavily burdened? Again, it is the common people rather than their leaders. Later in Matthew, Jesus chastises the scribes and Pharisees because “they tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (23:4). The heavy burden they lay on the people is not the law per se; it is rather their particular interpretation and practice of the law, which, for instance, excludes from meals the ritually unclean (9:10-13), places restrictions on the Sabbath that ignore human need (12:1-14), is zealous about tithing mint, dill, and cumin, but neglects the “weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith”
The religious leaders in Matthew’s story are also complicit with the Roman rulers in maintaining the imperial system. The common people labor wearily under Roman occupation, in which the ruling elite secure wealth, status, and power at the expense of the lowly.
To all those laboring under harsh religious and political systems, Jesus says, “Come to me… and I will give you rest.” Rest in the Septuagint can refer to Sabbath rest, the rest of death, or rest from war when Israel’s enemies have been subdued. Rest also functions as an image of salvation, of what will be when the world is finally ordered according to God’s purposes and enjoys its full and complete Sabbath. In promising “rest,” Jesus promises life under God’s reign in the new world that he is bringing into being.
Jesus further invites the weary: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”
What is the yoke Jesus offers? We might infer that it is his teaching, his way of discipleship, which is not burdensome but life-giving. He invites the weary to learn from him, for he is not a tyrant who lords it over his disciples, but is “gentle and humble in heart.” His yoke is easy (chrestos, better translated “good” or “kind”) and his burden is light. To take his yoke upon oneself is to be yoked to the one in whom God’s kingdom of justice, mercy, and compassion is breaking into this world, and to find the rest for which the soul longs.
Benediction
May God’s love surround you, God’s Spirit guide you, God’s whisper cheer you, God’s peace calm you, God’s shield protect you, God’s wisdom arm you, wherever God may lead you. Lord, be with us now to strengthen us; about us, to keep us; above us, to protect us; beneath us, to uphold us; before us, to direct us; behind us, to keep us from straying; and ‘round about us, to defend us. Blessed are You, O Father, forever and ever. Amen
Thought for the Day:
You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.
Thomas Sowell

You should be more concerned that Israel is building their third temple. “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” (Matthew 24:15–16; compare with Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11)

Revelation 13:16-17 King James Version

¹⁶ And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
¹⁷ And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Digital chip implant/QR-Code)
Latvia/Lithuania published Nuclear war survival guides for their citizens. Russia will use RSM-56s, RS-28s, Evangards, R36M2s, etc this year.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 - For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Revelation 3:10 - Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Mark 13:32 - But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Daniel 12:1-2 - And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Matthew 24:27 - For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 - For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
Matthew 24:42 - Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Luke 17:34 - I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
1 Peter 5:8 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
John 10:10 - The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
June 2 - > Devil Comet Passes w/planet alignment
Revelation 21:6-8 ⁶ Jesus said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. ⁷ Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. ⁸ But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Most people will proclaim their own goodness. Gods standard of good is very different than mans. Here is the major difference:

1. Gods standard for good is moral perfection
2. Peoples standard for good is moral exceptions

The worst judge of your own goodness is you, because you excuse yourself from blame if you can rationalize doing something evil. Frequent exceptions are:

1. The evil act was in the past
2. The evil act was for a perceived good
3. The evil act was done in ignorance
4. The evil act was inconsequential
5. The evil act was necessary
6. The evil act was right

And so on. People find reasons to excuse themselves from moral responsibility and have a false view of the amount of evil they've done, often grossly underestimating the amount of sins that they commit. For example, people who use casual blasphemy like JC or GD have blasphemed God thousands of times in their life. Not following the greatest commandment, and having idols before God, are also grave sins. Many people are fornicating, looking at pornography, gossiping, hating, etc.
The human standard of good is also often based on things you haven't done. As long as you haven't crossed an imaginary line somewhere, you are good. "Well, I haven't raped or murdered therefore I am a good person." Yet God calls everything short of moral perfection sin.
So this self delusion of using relative standards for good instead of using Gods absolute standard in His word makes it difficult for people to receive God's forgiveness. They think they are good so they don't really need God's forgiveness. They may even hate God out of pride because His absolute standard exposes their hypocritical standard.
Some people will say that their past actions don't define them but they apply a different standard to others. What do you call someone who has stolen? You call them a thief. What do you call someone who tells lies? A liar. Do you trust a thief around your precious things? Do you trust the testimony of liars? Of course a liar will say trust me. I've lied in the past but I won't lie to you. But there are conditions and circumstances in which they will lie to your face without any conscience about it. The problem here is having a standard of goodness that is too low because you create exceptions for yourself while condemning others. Our actions do define who we are because they prove out what we really are versus what we would prefer to believe about ourselves.
People will make moral exceptions for themselves because they just know in their hearts that they had good intentions. What does the bible say?
Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV — “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
The world says follow your heart. The bible says people don't know their own hearts and that they are irreversibly inclined towards wicked behavior.
Proverbs 20:6 NKJV — Most men will proclaim each his own goodness, But who can find a faithful man?
Men think they are generally good when God's word says they are generally evil and people commit sins are called sinners. Until you truly evaluate your behavior with God's word, you will deceive yourself into thinking that you are good enough when the truth is the opposite. The scripture reveals the truth about mens hearts:
John 3:19-21 NKJV — “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
People love their sin and they don't want to give it up. They also have many things to hide before God and other people because it would shame and expose them. People are never going to admit in a public forum things that could destroy their reputation, livelihood, or important and intimate relationships. They are not going to admit to things which could land them in prison. So the facade of the good person prevails in western culture. It is a fluid and self serving standard that deludes people into thinking they are fine with God when in reality they are going to receive an eternal punishment without forgiveness for their sins through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
God is a judge and so when sin comes before Him, He must do what is right and punish the guilty. This is called justice and this is no different than a human courtroom. If the judge were to let the person go without punishment he would be a corrupt judge, and God is not a corrupt judge. He will by no means clear the guilty. He is a holy God and He will not forgive sin no matter how many good things you have done. You cannot bribe God with your good works in an attempt to get Him to commute your sentence. So therefore, we are all guilty before God and facing eternal punishment in hell for the sins we have committed, with no way to atone for our guilt. That is the situation facing every man, woman and child born into this world. This is why Jesus went to the cross:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Jesus willingly died on the cross to make atonement for our sins, yours and mine. He was a perfect and spotless lamb in Gods eyes, totally innocent of sin. Because of His moral purity, He fulfilled all the law of God and God accepted His sacrifice as the full payment for the sins of the world. When He died He said this:
John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
The word Jesus used in the greek was "tetelestai", which is a word merchants would use. When someone repaid their loan, they would stamp tetelestai on the document which meant the debt was paid in full. Someone could take that document to court to prove they repaid the loan. This is exactly what happens in a spiritual sense. Sin is a legal matter before a holy God. When we come before His court with sin He must judge the sin by declaring us guilty of an eternal punishment. Yet when receive this good news, or gospel by faith, Jesus steps into Gods courtroom and pays our fine for us. Because of this, God can legally dismiss our case and declare us not guilty because Jesus took care of the sin debt that we owed. God proved this was true by raising Jesus from the dead.
How do we receive this miracle of Gods forgiveness and eternal life? By trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
We do this by praying to God and surrendering our lives to Jesus. We turn away from sin, and from our own righteousness, which is like filthy rags before a holy God, and turn towards Jesus our Savior. When we do that God credits the righteousness of Jesus to our account. He forgives all of our sins and gives us eternal life. Here is a simple prayer you can pray to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior:
Lord God, I know that I am a sinner who has broken Your laws
I believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of my sins
I ask you now to forgive me for all of my sins because Jesus paid for them on my behalf (list any sins that come to mind)
Please give me eternal life with you and fill me with the Holy Spirit
Please turn my heart to turn away from sin completely and live for you every day
Thank you for saving me
In Jesus name, Amen
If you prayed this prayer sincerely with a true heart of repentance towards God, He promises to save you.
Romans 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
By receiving this by faith God has saved you and has written your name in the book of life. He adopts you as His own child and calls you son or daughter. He will answer your prayers when you pray them in the name of Jesus. Now you need to continue to press in and seek God by reading His word, starting in the New Testament. Go all the way through it until you get a grasp and then tackle the Old Testament. God will guide you every day and make Himself real to you when you pursue Him with all of your heart:
Jeremiah 29:11-13 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
God has plans for you and He wants you to discover them. He wants you to know why He created you and put you here on Earth. He will reveal this as you seek Him out and live for Him.
Be sure to tell people what God has done for you. Find a Christian fellowship that teaches the word of God truthfully. Pray to the LORD and ask Him to direct you to a fellowship that honors Him. Please message me if you have any questions or concerns. God bless you.

2024-196 / Zedd MAP: 39.82 / MLZ MAP: 32.22 / Score Gap: 7.60
Wikipedia / IMDb / Official Trailer / Our Collection
If you’ve seen any 70s or 80s New World Pictures’ release, you’ve (more or less) seen them all - that doesn’t stop me from actively collecting them. You might think those low MAPs might slow the roll of Roger Corman produced flicks but they’ve got a special place in my movie heart. When the mood for ultra-low budget, poorly written motion pictures strikes - Corman’s never far.
From IMDb: One thousand years into the future, after the Great Neutron Wars, the world is divided into desert wastes and isolated city-states. Lord Zirpola captures Kaz, a notorious motorcycling Desert Ranger, to fight to the death in his game, Deathsport. Now Kaz must face his past and fight to save himself and his city from the war that Lord Zirpola is about to wage.
Although Mrs. Lady Zedd’s first expressed opinion on this one was, “what the fuck are you watching”, I think she came around. I pointed out its “what the fuck are we watching” and she countered, “don’t assume because I’m sitting in the room, looking at the television, hearing the dialog that there’s any we going on”. She’s just yanking my chain. She’ll sit through these films because I will.
For what it’s worth - watching David Carradine do his thing has always been a fun thing to do - dude just does whatever came down the pipe and turned in the same performance every time. I find his body of work… consistent. There’s entertainment value in that. ‘Nuff said.
Moving right along - Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV Mini Series 2022‑2022). We finished the series today and, while it’s not being counted as a movie, we wanted to say a few words. MLZ picked up a bunch of the steelbooks from the Disney Movie Club and honestly we were on the fence whether we were going to watch Obi-Wan or not. Eventually, our love of Ewan McGregor won out and here we are.
The show was on wobbly ground for us, from the get go - we’re just as committed to “start at 50” for episodic television as we are with movies but projects like this (prequels) often have an uphill climb. My hats off to the folks who try to thread that line connecting one set of films with another. When the narrative is so nailed down and well known - what’s more well known than Star Wars - how do you write authentically but also fresh. That’s the trick.
Overall the story was ((shrug)) fine? The production values were high but not at the same mark set by The Mandalorian; but certainly better than The Book of Boba Fett (well, the parts that weren’t actually The Mandalorian). McGregor did well, I’m not a fan of Hayden Christensen but it was good (somehow) to see him. MLZ thought Vivien Lyra Blair was a solid pick for a sassy pint-sized Princess Leia, fair enough.
The box - that steelbook, I’m going to throw a few pictures up - that’s a very well thought out case, graphics-wise. I think I’d have bought the show just for that case. I love when they design the case art to work with the material - the metal, it just works for me. Special presentation materials and packaging, for those of us that enjoy collecting as much as watching the movies - well, we appreciate the thought and artistry. Just another way to movie on.

I read this book back in the 2000s. I don't know when it was written, however, but no later than 2010.
The setting is a fantasy world, where two factions are at war. One faction (the home of the protagonist) has magic, and (surprise...) the other faction doesn't and relies on technology and gun powder.
The main protagonist is a reasonably high-ranking officer in the magic kingdoms military. She is gifted with the ability to control lightning magic, which she uses to devastating effect on the battlefield.
I vaguely remember a description of a battle where the other army was storming the walls of her fortified position, and she unleashed sheets of electricity that killed much of the attacking force.
There are several other central characters, all from different backgrounds (to include the other army). The catch is that the main protagonist is 'drawn' to them, and the more of them she is able to establish a bond with, the more powerful she becomes. It's pretty much just a reason to establish a large polycule.
So, our heroine goes out on an adventure to find all of her other partners.

The realization that having the final word may have been bitter-sweet had begun to dawn on Solon, as he sat on a low brick wall near a well at the center of the market. Clearly, people like Vur'z and Sheela, those that spoke English, were hard to come across. On top of the language barrier, the mercenary had another issue. Money. His world or this one, coins were words everyone knew. And he had none of those either.
He tried to hire a guide or ask for directions out of the desert, but the mouths of the villagers were as dry as his pockets. Roaming around the village, trying to avoid attention while pondering his next move, he noticed a good number of people going in and out of a small saloon styled building. The words written on the sign in front were unintelligible to Solon, but from his knowledge of this world, the chances of it being a guild or an adventurer agency of some sort were pretty high. Pushing the doors open, strolling into the main room with the stride of an Old Western gunslinger, Solon threw away any attempts of staying under the radar.
Every head turned to him, analyzing and studying the man that walked through the door, eyes lingering on his prosthetic left arm. The soldier walked over to what he had assumed was the main desk, and before he could even open his mouth to speak, the beastfolk woman on the other side interrupted him.
"Igilin! Abatu, pa'ta marez lof." She spoke, he ears perking up and her tail moving around welcomingly. She was a jackal like creature, from what Solon could tell and her hyper behavior confirmed that.
Her voice was high pitched, assaulting the man’s ears with a relentless slew of words he could not understand. The speed of her talk took him down memory lane, reminding him of a toy phone he had a kid, one that made random noises when he'd press a button or say "I love you" at 10 times the speed.
The guild woman kept on talking, now pulling out charts and several guide books, pointing her clawed finger and flipping pages. Solon exhaled loudly, before giving her the thumbs up with his good hand and turning to leave, when something caught his eye. A bullet board on the other side of the room, covered all over with countless quest requests and offers. One paper stood out from the bunch. A large drawing of a beastfolk child, along with several scribbled under which was a nice coin offer. To the mercenary, it was common knowledge that two things were universal on any world. Bounty posters and missing people posters. And this one was of the latter.
He pulled the poster off the board, looking over it once more. The offer indeed was enough to entice any man, just by the number of zeros written on the page. Solon looked up at the sky as if thanking God for the intervention. He'd seed the person on the poster before, the screaming beastfolk boy that Vur'z was transporting in his caravan. Clearly whoever the boy was taken from would pay a pretty penny to have him back. Something did bother him about the situation however. With an offer so lucrative, the was no chance the poster would be left hung for that long without anyone taking on the bounty. Vur'z sons were strong young men, but they were far from an issue when it came to a group of adventurers. That odd suspicion was further solidified by all the stares the man felt drilling into his back. The guild patrols gave him dirty looks as he rolled up the poster and stuck it under his cloak, in his back pocket and went back out on the street to find Vur'z.
Solon wandered the village until sundown, until he finally stumbled across the resting spot for trade caravans. He was hungry and quite in a sour mood, walking over to the wagons without a word. Sedef spotted him first, sending his 3 brothers to go and fetch their father while he tried to deal with the mercenary.
"Solon! Nice seeing you again so soon." Sedef said, walking over to the man.
"Where's your old man Sedef?" Solon asked, walking past the guard.
"He went to fetch supplies from the market. Shouldn't be long before he's back." The young man replied. "Would you like to wait for him here?"
The young man felt uneasy, his own inability to simply tell the mercenary to piss off didn't sit well with him. He was the best hand to hand combatant in his little village, but even with that, Sedef knew that if he were to swing at the soldier, it would end badly. So he swallowed his pride and decided on a more friendly approach.
"Yeah, if you don't mind." Solon sat down, his stomach growling with hunger.
The two men sat in awkward silence for a while, before finally Vur'z appeared around the corner. "Ah, Solon. I see Lady Sheela is not with you. What can I do you for?" Spoke the slaver.
With his mechanical arm, the soldier pulled out the poster and showed it to Vur'z. The other one seemed oddly relieved. "Oh, you're here for that? Sad to say I already handed him over."
Solon sighed, rubbing the bridge of his nose in frustration. "So, where is it?"
"Come have dinner with us. If you're serious about getting the kid, you'll need some info about where he's been taken and by who first." Vur'z patted the man on the back, inviting him to the wagon.
***
"What's the situation?"
The elven scout turned around swiftly, almost jumping out of his own skin from fright. "My Lady." He placed his hand on his chest to calm his heartbeat. "I beg of you, do not sneak up on me that way."
General Eirlys hid a smile, before focusing her eyes towards the squad of invaders walking through the woods, setting up a defense perimeter. The Vatur kingdom has been struggling with containing the invading humans, especially when it came to portal control. Having multiple wild portal gates just outside the borders of the elven forest made it very hard to prevent humans from breaching from the other side. Countless skirmishes had broken out since the humans first captured the largest portal and make it their outposts. The Iron Fortress that blew a hole through the, now almost fully healed, Home Tree still stood tall and was heavily protected. The smaller gates were less guarded so the elves managed to take those back within a few months, as the invading murder apes seemed not too keen on dying over those strategic points.
However, it seemed that the enemy had now set their sight on the second largest gate and begun turning it into an outpost. The worked tirelessly, day and night, fending off occasional elven raid parties sent by the Vatur kingdom with ease. The motion detecting turrets proved to be the biggest issue that elves could not overcome. As soon as they would get within range, even under the cover of night, the machines would mercilessly shower them with bullets until they were gunned down.
Desperate, Princess Claudia requested the presence of the kingdoms most decorated general, Eirlys Atteris. A warrior known for her outstanding strategic prowess, merciless approach to combat and the ability to turn even the spineless of elves into soldiers worthy of serving the kingdom. Within weeks of her arrival, she managed to push the expansion of the murder ape outpost back within range of their turrets and lock them in a stalemate. That gave the elven troops enough morale boost to believe that victory was possible. However, to the general, the behavior of the enemy told a completely opposite story. The human invaders seemed too content to stay within the confines of the stalemate and not expand the outpost further, as they have been doing thus far. Even their establishing of defense perimeters seemed to be oriented around doubling, if not tripling the defenses of the already established outposts borders rather than a preparation for a counter assault.
"They seem to be doubling the defenses again. This is the third day in the row that they turn the portal on. The reinforcements coming through however aren't really numerous. If they are mounting a counter attack, they will need a lot more manpower than this, even with their equipment, to breach into the forest." The scout replied.
"Something doesn't sit right with me about this entire thing." Eirlys thought to herself.
The humans seemed to be moving around, tinkering on some stationary devices, hooking them up to the portal. Most of them that came through the gate didn't even seem like military personnel, if uniform and lack of weaponry was something to based such an opinion on.
"My Lady." A tap on the shoulder interrupted the general from her train of thought. "Permission to speak freely?"
"Go ahead."
"I am Amara Lindwysp, I served under Lord Eothen and Lady Claudia." Said the scout.
"And?" Replied the general.
"I have seen this before. The night his Majesty lost his life and her Majesty her legs." Amara continued. "These people aren't soldiers, they are..." She searched her mind for the right word. "Engineers."
"Engineers?" The other scout butted in.
"Yes. That's what the murder apes call them. They are in charge of the equipment. They were there the night the Iron Fortress breached the gate."
"The Iron Fortress..." Mumbled the general, turning her gaze back to the encampment, observing the humans work and set up various equipment. "But this gate is too small for another Iron Fortress to pass through."
"That may be so my Lady, but the devices they are setting up are designed to generate massive amounts of energy to keep the gate open for an extended period of time. I cannot be certain what they are up to, but they are priming that portal to be open for a while. Divines only know what sort of contraption they plan on ushering through it." Amara said.
The look on the scout’s face gave the general everything she needed to know about the gravity of the situation. There was not a single lie in the girl’s words. Something like this should not be dismissed.
"So, what are we to do? You've been there. Tell me." Eirlys said, catching the girl off guard.
"Oh uhm. I don't believe I am fit to advise you on what our best course of action is my Lady." The elf replied, losing her composure for a second.
"Not the time for humility or modesty Amara Lindwysp!" The general said coldly. "You've been there. You best know what went wrong with the assault on the Iron Fortress. Now, for the sake of the kingdom and your comrades, speak."
Amara took a deep breath, steeling herself. "The devices that shoot, they follow movements. Even through rain and fog. Illusion spells don't work them either. If we get in range, they will mow us down before we even can get off a single arrow."
"That I am well aware of. Tell me something that I can actually use."
"Yes, yes, my apologies. Hitting them with explosive spells from outside of their range should do the trick, as they do not appear to track any movement that isn't actual enemy troops. They do not seem to be activated by arrows that fly past them, nor birds or any other critters I've noticed move within their range." The scout continued, trying her best to remember everything she knows about the enemy.
"Devices they are setting up, they're the ones keeping the portal gate open for a long time. If we take out those, it should close before they pull whatever they plan to, through the gate. And I don't see..." She focused her eyes on the encampment, as if searching for something amidst the enemy. "...any warhounds."
"Warhounds?" Eirlys raised an eyebrow quizzically.
"Yes, my Lady. It was a one-armed, one-eyed human that ended the life of Prince Eothen that night. It had a metal left arm. Apparently, those soldiers are called war hounds and are here to exterminate the local population before the larger troops can move in."
"Gods, what a barbaric species. You'd think them demons in human skin, rather than actual humans." The other scout said in shock.
"I see. Do not omit anything scout." The general added.
"That is all I know my Lady." Amara bowed her head.
***
"So, the gladiatorial arena?" Solon asked, leaning against the wall of the wagon.
With his stomach full of food, the mood of the man improved significantly. Vur'z nodded.
"Yes. But don't think you can just whisk the kid away. The arena is situated under the village and it's a pay to enter type of deal. Steep price indeed." Explained the slaver. "And you, my friend, stick out like a sore thumb in these parts. There isn't a single human in this village, much less one with your description. Whispers are going around already, about you taking the poster and accepting the quest to find the missing kid by doing so."
The human nodded, rubbing his beard with his good hand.
"And the event orchestrator has a lot of financial influence over the adventurers that are regulars in this village. So, keep your head on a swivel else you might a dagger to the back." The old man warned.
"I see. Well, Vur'z, I'd best be heading now. I'd have for you and your sons to catch strays because of me. Just point me in the right direction and I'll be on my way." Solon got up, shook the man’s hand and dusted off his pants and cloak.
"They are at the Crooked Claw's inn. In the basement, that's where the underground arena is and also where the gladiators are being kept." Vur'z replied, shaking the human’s hand in return. "I wish you the best of luck."
As solon turned to leave, Kopak stopped him. "Here, take this. It's not much, but it'll be of use to you, I hope."
The slaver trader’s son handed an old hatchet to Solon. A simple bone handle with an obsidian blade. The mercenary accepted the gift and placed it on his belt, it would be of use more than just to rely on hand-to-hand combat and his metal arm. "Thanks kid. You boys don't give your old man too hard of a time. So long."
With that, the soldier headed down the street and disappeared out of sight once he rounded a corner.
***
The entire village seemed devoid of life once the sun went down. As the ringed moon illuminated the empty streets, Solon could not help but feel watched. He did not even try to confirm if the feeling was true, knowing that playing oblivious would give his stalker more window to slip up. Following directions given by Vur'z, he eventually found Crooked Claw's Inn. The place was crowded, mostly with adventurers and some village folk, though something about them seemed odd. A good number of them, including the barmaids, seemed to survey the surroundings at regular intervals, as if on the lookout for something.
Thanks to his left eye implant, Solon didn't have to risk getting too close to the windows or doors to see inside, choosing to instead survey from the roof of a small house across the street. The front door was out of the question. Solon waited for the crowd inside to slowly get drunk, before making his move. He snuck behind Inn, slipping inside through the back entrance. Even the vigilant adventurers and barmaids have dulled their senses with hours of alcohol and loud music, so Solon did not have to be too stealthy. As long as he was not in direct line of sight, he didn't have to worry too much. The two cooks he found in the kitchen, since that's the room that the back door lead directly towards, did not seem to care about him being there. One of them sat on the floor, seemingly exhausted, while the other struggled to finish the few remaining orders for the intoxicated, rowdy patrons in the main dining hall of the inn.
Hiding his metal arm under his cloak and his shining left eye under the hood, Solon put his best mute impression, mumbling and making incoherent speech that meant nothing, while waving his right hand in a fighting motion. The cook on the floor took some time to understand what the man was trying to say, before figuring out that the stranger was asking for the entrance to the underground arena. Not wanting to deal with whatever was wrong with the cloaked lunatic in front of them, the cooks simply pointed to the door furthest from them on the left. It was evident they weren't paid enough to care about anything besides cooking. Solon, still engrossed in his acting attempt, thanked them with more mumbling, before rushing to the door and opening it swiftly, disappearing into the hallway on the other side, before any alarm bells went off in the heads of the cooks.
Following the long, thin, barely lit hallway, the mercenary soon found himself in a large room, looking very similar to a prison cell block. The smell of filth and moisture wafted from every direction, assaulting his nostrils. He spat on the ground, so the smell does not linger in mouth, before proceeding to sneak through the almost pitch-black room. Groaning, sniffling and occasional cough would come from different cells, though the majority of them seemed empty. Four torches attempted to light up the cell room, but their fires were dimmed, at the bring of being put out. Not that the darkness was an issue for the soldier, the implant that was replacing his left eye allowed him to see just fine in the dark.
Most cells were occupied by bones and corpses, emaciated bodies that withered away from thirst or starvation. Those that still had living prisoners inside, were occupied by beastfolk. The majority of them being of adult age and in no shape to do anything. Even his presence didn't seem to elicit any reaction from them. What was done to them, he had no idea, but they had clearly given up on life.
"This explains the lack of guards in this area. Even if these guys weren't caged, they still wouldn't even try to escape." Solon thought to himself.
Sounds of cheering and yelling came from outside the room. Finding the door, the soldier peeked through the doorway. There it was, the gladiatorial arena Vur'z spoke about. A pit, lined with something akin to barber wire, with two combatants, clearly beast folk, engaged in bloody hand to hand combat against one another. The seats placed in rows all around the pin were filled to the brim. Solon could recognize a few faces in the crowd, some from market and others from the adventurer’s guild.
With each blow exchanged, the crowd cheered and shouted. Coins pouches were passed around as the spectators made bets who would win. Women, barely dressed, walked around the crowd either passing out drinks or collecting coin from the bettors. Behind the bleachers and the crowd, several more cells lined the walls. Solon crouched, moving slow and low as to not get spotted.
The entire gladiatorial arena had a simplistic designed, working the mercenary's favor. A single hallway with cells lining the walls on one side, filled with that night's combatants, and a wall up to hip height on the other side, allowing a partially obstructed view of the main arena in the center. A single source of light hung above the arena, being the single source of light, not counting a few dim torches on the hallway’s walls. The bleachers wrapped around the pit where gladiators fought. Since all fighters were beastfolk, a ceiling of heavy metal bars was placed where the top of the arena pit met the bottom of the bleachers, to prevent any attempts at escaping of the gladiators from the pit and attacking the audience.
The ring of bleachers served as a divide between the arena pit and the cell hallway. The majority of the guards were nearest to the pit and audience, allowing Solon to sneak through the hallway without much issue, as long as he kept low and quiet.
The battle that was taking place below, from what he could hear at least, was a brutal one. Most likely fought to the death or very close to it. Growling, squealing and cheering all mixed together into noise that perfectly portrayed the brutality of the event. He looked through the bars of each cell, using his eye to quickly scan the captives inside, looking for the kid from the poster. Several cells and still no luck.
"Solon. Pssst SO-LON!" Came an all too familiar voice from the right of him.
Solon snapped his head to towards the source of the voice. In one of the smaller cells stood Sheela. The mercenary snorted, stifling a laugh.
"The almighty Dune Queen. I did not know followers get recruited from inside locked cells." He whispered.
She made a sour face at his mocking statement, before flipping him the bird. Another thing with universal meaning between both worlds. "What are you doing here?" Sheela asked, as he snuck closer to the cell.
"I'm looking for that kid Vur'z was hauling. He's got a pretty decent price for his safe return." Solon replied, quietly pulling out the poster with the kids face on it.
"Oh, and here I thought you've become a do-gooder for the sanctity of your soul." The former genie commented, before pushing her hand through the bars of the cell and pointing down the hallway, in the direction Solon had come from. "The kids over there, he's been roughed up quite a bit, since he didn't want to quiet down. He's still too small for fights, so he's not going in the pit tonight."
Solon nodded, rolling up the missing poster and putting back in his pocket. He turned around to head over to the kid’s cell. "Thanks Sheela."
Before he could properly make even a step, two long arms grabbed him by the cloak and turned him around, gripping him by the collar and holding him still. "Solon, I swear to the 7 divines, if you don't get me out of this cell, I will strangle you to death with my bare hands, right now." Sheela looked down at the man’s smug expression, speaking fast in a single breath, trying to remain whispering despite the desire to obliterate the soldier on the spot. Her golden eyes shining from the darkness, if looks could kill, Solon would be in the great beyond already.
Thanks to his implant eye, the mercenary could see the vein popping on her forehead as she glared at him.
"Alright, alright. I'm just playing with you." The shit eating grin consumed even more of his face, as the smugness in his expression threatened to reach critical levels. The former genie let go of his cloak with an exasperated sigh.
A frown took place a smirk use to be as he examined the lock that held the cell closed. He checked Sheela, from head to toe, making sure she's not in any shape that would hinder mobility.
"What? Now's not the time to be fawning over my looks Tin man." She scoffed.
"I'm checking if you are chained to the wall or anything that could prevent you from running. I can get you out, but it'll be loud. So I'll need you to send it as soon as I open the door." Solon explained, grabbing the cell door with his left hand. He looked up at Sheela, who took a step back and nodded.
His mechanical arm whirred softly before amping up. In a single powerful pull, the old lock gave way and the cell doors loudly swung open while creaking, before hitting bars and making even more noise. Sheela, the second the door banged against the bars, took off running down the hallway in the direction Solon had come from, with the mercenary hot on her heels.
"Four cells down from the entrance door!" She said, swinging the entrance door open and disappearing behind it as Solon kept on running past it towards the cell where the kid was being held.
The audience caught wind of the noise and so did the guards, so the mercenary had to work fast. Grabbing the cell doors and fully tearing them off the hinges, Solon got inside the cell. One quick look to confirm he didn't get the wrong kid and he was got to go.
The beastfolk boy on the other hand, did not share Solon's sentiment when it came to a quick escape. Believing the mercenary to simply be another one of the guards or trainers, he flew into a rage, hissing and screaming at the man, while flailing his arms, prepubescent claws out and ready to cut.
Chanting the same sleep spell incantation, he heard from Vur'z, the soldier approached the hysterical boy. Putting the little beast to sleep with a non-effective sleeping spell and a very effective right hook, Solon tossed the knocked-out boy over his shoulder and dashed outside the cell and towards the door, stopping just long enough to throw the cell door he had previously torn off, at the approaching guards.
***
General Eirlys and her troops were already cutting it close with their planned assault. The portal gate had been open without interruption for almost half a day, with only human engineers running in and out of the portal. Observing them gave some insight at the gates themselves and how they can be used. Watching the same men go in and out multiple times, before suddenly becoming dizzy and throwing up, had Amara realizing that there is a limit to how many times one can go through a portal in a short span of time before experiencing negative effects.
The elves waited for the cover of night to launch their attack, but tension was high. No one knew what the humans were priming the portal for, but as the number of engineers reduced and the outpost seemed to finish with all necessary preparations, Eirlys understood that it all comes down to this moment.
With everyone in position, arrows at the ready, the general focused her magic. Her arrow pulled back as the head of the arrow began to glow while Eirlys chanted to herself. A sharp inhale and the arrow was let loose.
The success, entirely dependent on scout Amara's information, was evident. Striking its mark, which was one of the human motion sensor turrets, the arrow exploded, rendering the device useless.
Humans sprung to action immediately, as the elven troops rushed out the forest, getting in range to let their arrows loose. Eirlys primed a second arrow, same spell, same target, another turret down. With arrow fired, her spell casting and firing increased in speed, taking down the turrets before they could be moved or properly fortified. As the last of them went up in flames, she rushed out of cover to join her troops in storming the outpost.
The generators that powered the gate and kept the portal open were heavily fortified. Her arrows, even with explosive enchantments could not leave even a single dent on them, let alone get to what's inside. So, the second option was to storm and take over the outpost, killing anyone who tries to get in from the other side, until they figure out how to disable the machines keeping the portal opened.
Caught by surprise, humans struggled to ward off the sudden elven attack. Their over reliance on the now destroyed turrets evidently proved to be a massive flaw. However, the elves were still going up against guns, and despite having the strength in numbers and the dark night on their side, not a single one of them has yet managed to get across the defensive walls of the outpost without being gunned down immediately.
Volley after volley of arrows rained down on the outpost, pushing the humans all the way back to the portal gate. This seemed like a victory for elves at last. That was what the general wanted to believe as her troops finally broke through the defense and stormed the outpost. But they were too late.
The portal rippled, as a monstrosity of metal came through it on four legs. Looking at it, Eirlys thought it looked like a spider or a crab of sorts. Then it came, the sound nightmares were made off. The spinning of metal, faster and faster, before gunfire echoed through the night. Not single shots, not burst fire, but a continuous shower of high caliber rounds tore the elves like they were leaves.
"FALL BACK! THEY BREACHED THE PORTAL!" The general screamed, leaping back over the wall, as the second spider like machine started crossing the portal from the other side. On each side a minigun, similar to the ones the turrets had, but larger in comparison. Turrets would gun down their targets, but these would tear them to chunks. Whirring and clamoring with each step it took, the machine moved closer. The general focused her magic, firing enchanted arrow after arrow at the unholy contraption, but her attempts yielded no results.
She finally leapt back over the outpost wall and joined what remained of her troops, as they ran back to the woods for safety, without any semblance or strategy. Just a mad dash in hopes of saving their heads.
The giant metal insect followed, walking through the stone wall with ease. Once more it opened fire, this time aiming at the cover they were running towards. Bullets tore through trees with ease, crushing any hope the elves had when it came to surviving this ordeal. Eirlys stood before it, aiming her arrow at the machine, one last ditch attempt to buy her comrades time to escape.
As the second walking nightmare began breaching the portal, the general experienced overwhelming despair grip her entire being for the first time in her long life. Guns stopped firing for a moment to cool down, the heavy metal leg of the machine raised high and ready to squash her. She fired arrow after arrow, fear and helplessness sinking deeper into her heard every time an arrow would bounce off the hard shell of the machine.
"This is it." She thought.
"I hope at least some of my troops escaped."
Guns sped their rotation up again, preparing to leave only examples, not survivors. Eirlys screamed in fury as the leg of the machine began to drop down on her.
"ENOUGH!" A voice boomed through the night, shaking the ground and the general to her core.
The machine stopped, just for a second, before being hit from the side by a massive rock shaped like a cone. It toppled over, its mechanical cries of death echoing for a while longer as it spilled its black, flammable blood and desperately tried to get back up. Eirlys turned to first to her right, her heart overcome with relief as she witnessed all her troops, alive and well, kneeling on the ground in reverence.
Turning to her left, she dropped to her knees to join them.
"Your Holiness."
Night became as bright as day, while a single person slowly made its way to the outpost. Her entire presence exuding an aura of power and wisdom worth millennia. Glowing like the brightest star, the leader of the High Elves came to the general's rescue in their time of need.
Simply extending her arm and pointing at the portal gate, then clenching her fist while turning her hand, the portal closed, cutting off the second machine that was slowly getting through in half. The energy feedback made the generators explode. Still, despite such an overwhelming show of force, the remaining humans in the outpost still opened fire on her.
The High Elf was not amused in the slightest.
"Perish from my sight, vile vermin." She hissed, before a ball of fire dropped onto the outpost, swallowing everyone in alive whole.
"On your feet General. I have much to discuss with your king, take me to him." The radiant woman ordered.

***
Solon caught up with Sheela, as the pair now ran through the empty village streets with a furious mob of mercenaries, adventurers and village folk coming after them.
"What are we to do? Can't run forever." The soldier said, rounding another corner in hoped of losing their pursuers.
"To the caravan resting area, that might be our only escape." The genie said, grabbing him by the cloak and running with him down yet another alley.
"What happened to the kid?"
"He'll be fine. Just a little headache when he wakes up." Solon assured her, as the boy dangled off his shoulder like a bag of potatoes while he ran.
Finally making it to the rest area, they hopped in the first wagon that seemed empty and was actually still attached to the horse like creatures that pulled it.
"Hiyah! Mush! Move, go. Cmon!" Solon yelled, pulling and moving the reigns that controlled the animals, but none of them bothered to move.
"Ooooh fuuuck!" The mercenary looked over his shoulder at the mob approaching.
Sheela grabbed him by the shoulder and pulled him back into the wagon as she grabbed the reigns.
A deep breath, focusing as best possible to channel her magic, the feeling still foreign and alien to her.
"Ahk'Am! Akash, jan!" The forger genie shouted.
Like possessed, the animals jumped to their feet and began to move. A light jog turned into a mad gallop, kicking up a cloud of dust. Solon ducked as daggers and bricks flew past the wagon, thrown by the furious arena mob that was now left behind, as the wagon disappeared from sight, heading towards the desert.
"Where do we go now?" Solon asked.
"I don't know. We got out of there safe. As for where next, let's ask the kid when he wakes up." Sheela sighed and sat down.
***
(Hi. I'm back with another chapter. The support from all over is a true delight and really makes me want to keep this series going.
I want to thank Agro Squirrel Narrations for covering some of my work before, so more people can enjoy it. That goes for all other narration channels that have been given my permission to narrate some of my work.
Feel free to check me out on:
Royal Road Scribble Hub Patreon
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words, I hope you enjoy reading these as much as I enjoy writing them. Have a lovely day.)

Last month, there was a great article written by Laura Snapes on the Guardian that questions if the insatiable appetite for celebrity gossip is having a detrimental effect on pop music.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/ap24/from-taylor-to-ariana-pops-overreliance-on-gossip-is-choking-the-life-out-of-it
This year, we’ve seen a number of A-list pop albums disappoint critics and fans. It makes me think that there is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t unreachable standard for pop acts: put in too much personal information and the music is weighed down, put in too little and super fans are dissatisfied. In the article, Snapes talks about how Kacey Musgraves and Dua Lipa’s latest albums lack distinct detail and are forgettable. It feels like a no-win position to be in.
What’s funny is that this article was posted on the same day as the release of Drake’s “Taylor Made Freestyle”, kicking the hornet’s nest that has led to his own public ass-beating by Kendrick Lamar. The lyrical depth in the war of words between Drake and Lamar has had the opposite effect, it has brought hip-hop back into focus after 2023’s lack of a big hip-hop single. “Not Like Us” is a record breaking #1 single due to its precision disses that delight hip-hop diehards (and, let’s face it, Mustard on the beat). Gossip resurrected hip-hop in 2024.
One last thought: in talking about autobiographical comedy, John Mulaney recently mentioned country musician Waylon Jennings. Paraphrasing something he (supposedly) heard from a fan, they said to Jennings “you guys used to sing about my life but now you guys sing about your own life”. Lyrical details on a life that was outside of anything the listener could fathom made his music unrelatable.
I think songwriting has a balance of specificity and universality. Can pop music exist in a climate where fans demand gossip, when they feel that they are entitled to it? Is this a symptom of poptimism?

TW: First of all this is going to talk about potential sexual harassment, assault and rape. If you do not want to read that is fair enough. If this is the wrong sub for this please let me know where I can find the right one. Cheers
I am using a burner account for this and I am also from England so any laws surrounding these topics I am basing off of English ones.
Ok so I’m only starting to realise some things now so I don’t know if I have been abused sexually or not and even though I know a lot about these topics because it involves me possibly being a victim I am unsure.
So I met this person at a New Year’s party found out he goes to university in the city where I mostly spend my time during my gap year in.
Before I go on he uses he/they pronouns. If anyone reading has an issue with that, this is not the post to tell me. At this moment in time I don’t care what you think about that so please keep it to yourselves. I will be using he/they pronouns for the person mentioned so I just wanted to point it out so no one is confused. Because we shared a common place we spend time in we met up a few more times in this city. I am due to start uni there in September and they are redoing the year. Also, I am a man talking about another person who was assigned male at birth so that might be relevant I don’t know.
When he asked to meet the first time I was unsure if it was a date or not but we met in a bar. It was later confirmed that if things went well then it would have been a date but if I didn’t swing that way with sexuality then it wouldn’t have been a date.
We ended up getting pretty close pretty much meeting everyday and I would stay in his accommodation a lot as I have quite a difficult home life and part of the reason I took a gap year was to regain motivation for education after 3 very exhausting years of education on top of very heavy home life situations.
This person would always hint that they found me attractive but I never really knew what to say back as I’m awkward with compliments and stuff so I just got on with it not thinking too much of it. He then eventually asked what was on the table relationship wise.
Rightly or wrongly I have been attached to a man who is a bit older than me since I was 14. This man without being cliche did a lot for me and genuinely did save my life so I really appreciate him as a person for doing what he did. Unfortunately, I am not in contact with him anymore for the foreseeable future, however I live locally to where he works so sometimes when I’m out and about I see him driving home still but apart from that we don’t have any contact. Silly little 14 year old me decided to fall in love with him for what he did for me and I’m turning 19 later in the year so it’s been a while. Rightly or wrongly because of this I have not looked for any type of romantic relationship since because I feel like I wouldn’t be emotionally invested enough and it would be unfair on the person I was with. When I like someone it is 100% effort every single day. I do this in a different type of way with some of my family members and very close friends but obviously it’s not the same way as a romantic relationship but the point is even on my bad days I can’t and won’t half arse things I will always put in 100% effort. Because I am still attached to someone who I’m unlikely to get with I told my friend at the time that I would be happy to do something like friends with benefits at the most because I didn’t see how morally I could be in a relationship with someone when I’m not 100% there.
At the time there was an understanding with this, however very shortly afterwards about 2-3 weeks we went clubbing with some friends where this person admitted they loved me. We spoke about it in the smoking area for 3 hours and I pretty much repeated myself saying how it wouldn’t be fair on him for me to date as I wouldn’t be able to put 100% in. He said that 80% would be fine for him to be happy to which I basically said but it wouldn’t be ok with me. Eventually it was left with me to make a decision.
I left this decision right until the last minute as I really was trying to work out a way morally to see if I could be in a relationship as at some point it is probably a good idea to get rid of the attachment I have to the man I mentioned before. It wasn’t working out for me working things out morally until 1 time I saw something that’s too long to explain but I decided that I would say yes to a relationship. I only really came to this decision because a lot of pressure was put on me about dating because I felt that if I said no we wouldn’t be able to carry on the friends with benefits situation and I really wanted to get some experience which was spoken about with the person. Because I left it so late I didn’t want it to be like I led them on but I felt like if I said no we wouldn’t be friends anymore and I didn’t want that to happen so I guess that was pressure? Is that enough to call it pressuring and if so is that sexual harassment or is this a stretch???? I had 1 tiny valid but small reason to say yes anyway based off the thing I saw but on its own I don’t think it would have been enough the pressure really did influence my decision.
Because I said yes I laid out my boundaries and because prior to this person I met I had no sexual experience other than one kiss I said that I wanted to take things very slow because I am not entirely comfortable in my body and it would take a lot for me to be in any bit naked because of how vulnerable it makes me feel. They understood this at first.
However, I don’t know if this makes me too sensitive or anything but the first time we kissed I ended up going back to where I was staying at the time and waiting for who I was living with to go to bed and I started to cry about the experience. I couldn’t understand why though because I really did want experience and I thought I was fine with everything. Looking back although there was kissing involved the person tried to take it further and got his dick out to show how much they were enjoying it. There was consent involved ish I guess at the time. He asked but I felt too overwhelmed to say no so I just said if you want. At this time he knew that I needed to take things slow and that wasn’t very slow of him. They tried to progress more in that situation and asked if I wanted to touch I think I said yes but I didn’t do it and instead froze up and just didn’t move my hand to touch. The person recognised this and we ended up stopping. After that situation happened right up until I had time to process it and ended up crying all I could feel was his lips on mine and I ended up slapping my lips not too hard but hard enough to try and get the feeling off. It didn’t work so I went to sleep instead to try and get it off. I don’t know if there is anything wrong in that situation or not or if I was too sensitive about the situation and just went back and cried cos I am too sensitive. At the time I couldn’t work out why I was crying because it was good experience but I don’t know if this is wrong now or not???
Moving on, as the relationship progressed they ended up buying me a sex toy for me to basically peg him with. The toy was a bit of money and I told them it was too much money and I felt bad & also that at some point I would like to try it but at the moment it makes me feel too awkward and I just don’t want to. Anyway the toy was brought. For a long time (we’re talking months) the person has pressured me and continued to ask me when I am going to top them. Every single time I have said I don’t know. We eventually agreed that I would find it easier if I was tipsy to take the edge off as it’s something I would try once but it’s quite a scary thing for me to do. So I said tipsy and actually have energy as well. We agreed on this and the time has not come yet. He still proceeded to ask over and over again when I am going to top them. I know this is pressurising but I haven’t done it yet but I might do soon. If I end up not doing it but the pressure was still there for months is that bad?
We have tried a lot of different sexual things and we have had conversations on what we can do to make each other feel good. In this conversation even though we were in a relationship they told me that if I don’t sexually satisfy them then they have a list of people waiting who they could have sex with at any time. One of the other things he said was that we’re not doing enough for him to be satisfied so basically essentially telling me he has needs and I need to fulfil them, no??? And again if I didn’t up my game he has a list of other people he could go and have sex with? I know that’s pressuring and wrong I called them out on that the second time they said it. Basically just said is that all a relationship is to you and if I can’t fulfil your needs you’ll find someone who will. Bearing in mind although we had done a lot of stuff I was still far from being completely at ease with it as it was still new to me so taking things slowly was completely disregarded.
We also had an issue where if I would say no to sex instead of doing something else like cuddling he would just go play games on the computer for as long as up to 6 hours. He had a whole human in his room and just ignored me the whole time because I said no and played zombie or war games. I pulled them up on this and they stopped doing it but it didn’t make me feel too great ya know.
I think one of my last points is that he doesn’t drink at all and I do. I have said to them that alcohol for me would really help with sex as it would take the edge off but ONLY if I’m tipsy and not drunk if I was drunk then I don’t want to do anything as I feel like this would be too much. Even though I said this would this still be considered bad???
There was one time where I woke up and we had attempted to do something I 100% wouldn’t have done sober or even tipsy but I had said I was only tipsy and that it was ok. I was drunk and he was sober even though I said it was ok and lied and said I was tipsy is this bad? Should he have known? The whole time though he does continuously ask if it’s ok and I say yes and we have stopped when I didn’t want to anymore but if I was drunk even if I said I was tipsy a few times who’s in the wrong for that????
Any time I’ve had alcohol he’s never said no to sex. Is this wrong I don’t know and it’s really messing with my head????
There was another time where I don’t know if it’ll count but I was completely sober. We were both sleep deprived as we spent hours in A&E with a friend the previous night and really had not slept enough afterwards. I was just talking while we were laying on the bed together and we also started cuddling. As this is a single bed in a uni accommodation it’s quite easy to accidentally be falling off the bed a lot. I was talking quite a lot then in the same breath asked them to move up a bit because I was falling off the bed. He told me to shut up and kept hugging me and didn’t move. As I was halfway off the bed this put a lot of strain on my head so I wouldn’t just fall head first on the floor. After 3-5 painful minutes where I had frozen in silence because he didn’t move and told me to shut up I got up went to the toilet and calmed myself a bit. I could feel where his arms and hands were when he was hugging me and I couldn’t get that feeling off. The only way I felt I could do that was by showering however, I never got an opportunity after that to shower and ended up showing a few days after when the feeling had gone away. I went back into the room and sat on the chair. They asked to cuddle more and I said no so they asked what was wrong and I just said I don’t want to be touched right now and almost eluded to it being a potential sensory thing as I’m suspected to have ADHD. He said ok but shortly after there was a brief argument. I ended up walking out because all I could feel was his hands all over me from where we had been cuddling. If I didn’t feel that I wouldn’t have walked out as it would have been manageable without it. I stayed out all night and had to wait for the bus in the morning as there was train strikes on so couldn’t get the 5 train back to my home town. I got back to where I was staying and a day or two afterwards in the evening I let them know why I left said I was sorry but this is what was happening. They apologised and we met up again and everything was ok.
There was a time where my family at my mums was on holiday so for the weekend I asked him to stay with me in my home town for the weekend. There was non stop complaining about how boring it was. It’s a town? What do you expect? But in that weekend we had been to a party and seen my friends most of which he knew and I would say are his friends too but they’re closer to me at the moment. So we didn’t just stay inside the whole weekend. In my town it’s the people you know that make it fun. The person is from London so it was a bit shit for them to complain that much when their comparison is somewhere that obviously is going to be interesting. We spoke about this and it got quite heated and turned into other things I was in between drunk and tipsy and accidentally said the sentence when we got onto sex ‘the amount of stuff I’ve done when I didn’t want to’. I hadn’t realised I had said it until I finished saying it and I didn’t even know if I fully meant it. We both paused and he seemed shocked that that was what was happening to me. We went outside for some air while I explained what I meant by that. At the time it was mostly just if I said yes to sex he would pay attention to me but if I said no he’d play games and ignore me so if I wanted his attention I basically had to have sex regardless of if I wanted to or not as that was the only way to engage with him when we were in his accommodation. After hearing this they sobbed and apologised over and over about it because neither of us said it but I guess it’s like assault or something so he knew he fucked up but basically just said that he thought that it was ok to do everything because he didn’t realise due to autism??? I ended up feeling sorry for him and trying to hug him to make him feel better and just explain that we can do things better by trying out different kinds ways to communicate which we have only tried once because since this we have only done one thing sexually. After that night it was never mentioned again that he had been doing that to me even though I guess it’s a big thing? I don’t know if it’s assault or anything but even though he would be in the wrong for it I would’ve thought it would come up again but it didn’t. At current no friends know about this and I want to try and make it until I have accommodation in September before I break anything off but is this bad.
In any of these situations have I been harassed, assaulted or even raped? Or am I just too sensitive about this and it’s fine. I am not trying to accuse him of anything at present I’m simply just trying to understand if things are wrong here. If something has happened it’s unlikely I’ll take it further but would I tell him what he’s done? Do I tell friends? What do I do?
Also I have just written this as it’s come to my mind. The series of events mentioned are true but are not in chronological order. If there are any discrepancies this may be because of the order. If I have time I will correct anything I need to but for now if anyone’s response could help that would be good.
Thanks for any help.

Reposted with permission of the original author. Original thread is located here.
The 11th and final volume in Janny Wurts' mega epic Wars of Light and Shadow series gets an ebook and audiobook release tomorrow (at the time of posting), and yet it still seems to me that her work is criminally underread around here. So allow me to be your guide and help you explore her wonderful works.
First off, here's what to expect from every work on this list: If you're coming to any of her works expecting an easy, 'popcorn'/blockbuster style read you're probably going to bounce right off; Janny is not only a beautiful prose writer who is able to put you right into the shoes of her characters in a way that few others can, but she also often tackles pretty hefty themes in her works as well and asks the reader to engage with them on a mental level instead of explicitly spelling everything out. These are often not easy reads, and skimming is highly discouraged, however because of the higher engagement on a mental and emotional level the payoffs are more than worth it, at least in my humble opinion.
On top of that, all of her works pack a 1-2 punch of sorts, where around the halfway point of the story it seems that everything is coming to its climax - only instead, somehow, Janny is able to keep ratcheting the tension up more and more, turning the last half of any novel into an extended climax of sorts that, while thrilling, can also be emotionally exhausting if you're not prepared for or expecting it.
And best of all, none of her novels end with a cliffhanger. All of her works are, if not self-contained, then at least end with a definite sense of some closure by the last page.
Now then, with that out of the way:
If you've read Raymond E. Feist's original Riftwar trilogy: You've probably already read The Empire Trilogy co-written by both Feist and Wurts, but if you have not yet then you really owe it to yourself to do so as it's a fabulous work. Set on Kelewan during the time of Magician, the story follows Mara's rise to power as she deftly maneuvers her way up the the political ladder of the Tsuranuanni. First book is Daughter of the Empire.
If you're a fan of old-school Swords and Sorcery: Master of Whitestorm would be right up your alley. Starting off as a series of relatively stand-alone adventures, by the halfway point it turns into a character study of the character of Korendir and finding out just what, exactly, drives him to risk life and limb over and over again. Also, be prepared to cry.
If you prefer some sci-fi mixed in with your fantasy: You will probably enjoy the Cycle of Fire trilogy, which finds Jaric and his friends as they help an old wizard fight against a demon horde alien invasion. Quite possibly the most YA-esque of Janny's works, this is nonetheless a good read that Janny might plan to revisit some day (she has another work drafted out in the same world under the tentative title of Starhope). Stormwarden is the first novel in this trilogy.
If court politics with more than a little dash of romance sounds appealing to you: Give Sorcerer's Legacy a try. A standalone tale, this tale follows Elienne, the queen of a just-conquered kingdom who we first meet imprisoned as a spoil of war, her husband vanquished during said kingdom conquering when she is visited by a wizard from a far off land and present with a choice: Either stay and face certain death from her kingdom's conqueror's, or be spirited off to the far off Kingdom of Pendaire and become the bride of its Prince, with her husband's unborn child the gambit to save the Prince's fate who has been rendered sterile by the black magic of his political enemies, unable to produce an heir. It's a rip-roaring good tale of court politics, romance, time travel, and magical clashes.
If you enjoy lush prose and want to read about thrilling chases, yet more political intrigue, and the best damn horses I've ever seen in a fantasy novel: Pick up To Ride Hell's Chasm and you won't be disappointed. As the princess Anja of Sessalie goes missing on the day of her wedding to secure an alliance with a neighboring kingdom, the capital city erupts into chaos as the task of finding her falls to two people: Taskin, the stern-but-fair Commander of the Royal Guard who guards the royal family, and Mykkael, the foreign born Commander of the City Garrison, who must also battle bigotry and racist prejudice as he searches for any clue on what happened to the Princess. Courtly intrigue gives way to one of the longest chase scenes I've seen in fantasy as the second half of the novel consists of the titular ride through the rather aptly named Hell's Chasm. Plus: absolutely beautiful prose, heavy themes tackled such as the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, and the fantasy version of gun-kata in the form of barqui'ino.
If you're not feeling up to the commitment of a full novel just yet: You're in luck, as Janny has a collection of short stories by the name of That Way Lies Camelot. Ranging from fantasy to sci-fi, everyone is sure to find something to love in these 15 tales from Mrs. Wurts.
Finally, if you feel you're ready to dive off the deep end in terms of prose, scope, and complexity: The Wars of Light and Shadow tackles many themes throughout its run, but the seed idea of the series is that history is written by the victor, and so strives to offer us an unbiased look at events and invites us to "determine the good and the evil" for ourselves from the very first page.
In addition, in this series what happens is of equal, if not lesser, importance to why it happens, what drives the characters and the factions, how do they think and what are their goals. Janny often says that WoLaS doesn't sprawl, rather, it deepens, and this is the crux of that statement: Instead of having a cast that expands exponentially with each new volume, spawning more and more sub-plots that need page time of their own and gunking up the works, with each subsequent volume we instead find out more about not only the manageable handful of characters and the various factions that drive the story, but also about the world itself and its history that completely recontextualize prior events. And it's this moving of the markers, over and over and over again as more and more facets are unveiled, that really gives the series its depth.
Moreover, the series is designed to be reread and reread, with the insight from future volumes adding tons of new dimensions with each read as you're able to see more and more between the lines and view what was hidden in plain sight all along. Moreover, it's designed to play with whatever preconceptions that you have going into the story and the assumptions about it that you'll make along the way only to completely flip everything you thought you knew on its head over and over again. This is also where, IMO, Janny's prose shines the brightest, as her word choice is very deliberate and precise, and it's only on a reread that you get to see just exactly how she hid everything in plain sight only for said preconceptions and assumptions to blind you to the details that were there all along.
It's a series that's definitely not for everyone, but if you are willing to engage with it on the level that it asks for then you are going to be in for one hell of a fantastic experience.
I could go on and on about this series, but I'll finish off with an explanation of the series structure: The series is subdivided into 5 story arcs, and each one has its own purpose and function: Arc 1 (Curse of the Mistwraith) sets the stage and introduces everything, Arc 2 (Ships of Merior + Warhost of Vastmark) not only deepens the characters but also escalates the main conflict of the series, with Arc 3 (Fugitive Prince through Stormed Fortress) expanding the scope of the series to "world view" and going really in depth with not only the characters but the various factions in play and what drives them, with Arc 4 (Initiate's Trial + Destiny's Conflict) giving us a deeper look into the ethereal mysteries of the planet Athera and sets up the pure climax of a finale that will be Arc 5 (the forthcoming Song of the Mysteries). Moreover, not only does each book feature the 1-2 extended climax punch that is characteristic of Janny's work, but each arc as well as the series as a whole has this characteristic as well, with the middle of the series (Peril's Gate) being the tipping point where the rest of the series just breaknecks faster and faster towards conclusion. And if the start of an arc seems to slow down, fear not, it's only gearing back in pace to lay down the necessary foundation needed for the finale of the arc the pack the punch that it needs; there's no sprawl here, and if you've read Janny's other works before this then you'd know to trust that everything she's doing is necessary in service of the story, world, and the characters.
The traditional start of the series is Curse of the Mistwraith, but you might have an easier introduction by reading the short story Child of Prophecy and/or the novella The Gallant beforehand, both can be safely read before starting the series proper and will shed light on what the politics in play are like as the series opens and a character that has a small but important part to play throughout the series, respectively.
There's also a few other short stories as well. The Decoy and Reins of Destiny can be safely read anytime after Curse of the Mistwraith, but hold off on reading The Sundering Star until after Warhost of Vastmark, and don't even think of touching Black Bargain until after you've finished Stormed Fortress. All six WoLaS short works can be purchased in ebook form on Janny Wurts' website.
Finally, she's also on here as a fellow redditor as u/JannyWurts, and always gives excellent book recommendations, with many of my recent favorite and often overlooked gems coming to my attention only because of a plug from her. If you're ever looking for a good rec and you see her chime in, know that it's always going to be a read worth your time if it's coming from her.

On the 24th of Mid Year, in the 203rd year of the Fourth Era, an event of immense spiritual significance across Tamriel occurred. A group of priests atop the Umbral Tower, in the city of Dusk, performed a powerful ritual involving the use of an Elder Scroll they looted from the White-Gold Tower in the First Great War, and a portion of Dragon blood from Skyrim, among other implements. The aim of this ritual was to erase the very spirit of Talos from the face of history. The three moons orbiting Nirn aligned for eight hours: the longest eclipse on record. Dusk was almost entirely destroyed by a burst of arcane energy. Various other calamities are said to have occurred on this momentous day, though few can agree which are true. Emperor Albertius Mede cited the incident as a casus belli, though his hawkish allies on the Elder Council such as Amaund Motierre and Voragiel Caro had been pushing for war with the Dominion for some time. Below are some of the stories and theories from across Tamriel of that day. - Adaria Corax, University of Cheydinhal
\***
Claudius Nilus, Assistant Secretary to the Sagacious Potentate Hlaalu Helseth, Cheydinhal
That was a dark time for Tamriel, literally and figuratively. Inefficient governance in both states allowed religious zealotry to drive them into madness and war. Let us be grateful that we now live in an age of tolerance, that we can see both heads of the Dragon-Saint as equally deserving of veneration. The modern Potentate would never stoop to such violent lows as our predecessors, but instead welcome open debate and disagreement. Within reason, of course.
Marcus Permean, Theurgist, Arcane University
The Thalmor had hoped to excise Talos from the Divine, but they failed. Instead, a wondrous miracle occurred: the moons and the sun aligned and a message was issued from Heaven that all the Divine are now of Unitary Spirit, and that Tiber, Celestial Emperor, was a representative to Man. One of many! The modern Archiocese is founded upon this Eternal Truth. Glory to Akatosh! Glory to Lorkhan! (but I repeat myself), glory to Magnus! (but I repeat myself), glory to Tiber! (but I repeat myself).
Elthyrd Mooring, Diviner, Alcaire
It is true: Talos is no more. The Thalmor sacrificed thousands of their own people to shoot him down from the sky with an Aetherial Bow, Elder Scroll recording the event as permanent and backdated. Sky-Mother Kynareth mourned his passing, and a great blizzard covered the entirety of Tiber’s homeland in the middle of summer. A dreadful time for all of us. Now Tibedetha is a day of sorrow rather than celebration here.
Torvald of Bruma, priest of Ysmir, Bruma
Talos may be gone, but the Thalmor failed. It will take more than a cabal of desperate elves to remove the spirit of humanity. And make no mistake, desperate is what they were - but they killed the wrong face. All they did was make sure that the true Dragonborn God would ascend - Ysmir, who walked the world and rose to his true divinity in a day of darkness and roaring, snow-throated winter.
Ingtar, Dragon Monk, Bleak Falls Monastery
The Thalmor misunderstood, and paid for their misunderstanding. Talos is but a face of Ysmir, and Ysmir is eternal. To slay the man, one must also slay the dragon - for the man and dragon are the same, are they not? Perhaps one day the elves will understand the truth of many faces, for all faces are one.
Chaplain Desnia Pinethorn, Archbishop of Auri-El, Kvatch
I remember the Day of Darkness. The Thalmor attempted to wage war on the Heavens. All they “proved” is that we mortals desperately need Divine guidance to maintain order and stability. Auri-El the King, Magnus the Architect, Merid-Nunda the Keeper. They want only what is best for us, to follow the Divine Mandate and lead a life of proper discipline. That is why the Archdiocese is founded upon false and heretical thought, and should come back into the true fold. “Oneness” deludes mortals into believing that they, too, could one day become Gods. Just as the Thalmor believed. The ending will be just as destructive.
Salethiarani, Ahemmusa Wise Woman, Rotheron
Thalmor? They had nothing to do with it. The alignment of the Moons and the shaking of Red Mountain was a sign from Azura: that all Resdayn must unite or be cast aside. Sul-Gandra of the Urshilaku, under the advice of his wise women, formed an alliance with the other tribes and was made Gah-Khan. When the Argonians invaded again from the south, just as the farseers had heard from the ancestors, the Gah-Khan made alliance with the Hortator of the House Dunmer. The reptiles took much of the south, but they were stopped at Narsis. One day Lady Azura will send us another champion, like the Dragonborn or the Nerevarine, to free the rest of our ancestral homelands. And that includes the lands still being plundered by the Empire. Or is it the Potentate? The name matters not, the spirit is the same.
Thaggia, Welkynar, King’s Haven
Ha, that was somethin’ alright. Damned Thalmor thought they could kill a god. Instead they blew up a whole damned city! Dusk’s still a sad vestige of its former self. It kick-started the revolution, though, so it worked out for us in the end. Spread themselves too thin in the war, and we kicked their pompous asses right out of the Eton Nir! By the Eleven Forces, I get excited just thinking about it! Let me tell you some of my grandpap’s old war stories. Next round of golden ale on me.
Halnach the Wolf-Voice, Vateshran, Markarth
The Day of Darkness is remembered with holy feasts here in the Reach. The World of Spirit and the World of Flesh became as one on that day, and the Druadach trembled from the union. The Tricky Hunter changed the skin of some of our bravest warriors, and they slew the Nords and the Bretons and the Imperials in their forts. The Forsworn had been fighting for our freedom for many an age, it is true, but that day was when the war of liberation began in earnest.
Vasha, Mother Navigator, Gottlesfont
Of course that was an awful day, the story was passed down to me from my foremothers. The Dark Moon turning day into night for so long? It caused quite the panic in Dunei, but that is another story. A dust storm kicked up from Sentinel to Gilane, and for my ancestors it was a sign from Tava herself that a great change was coming. They began to walk new roads farther and farther from the Alik’r, and made contact with the cat-mothers from the south. When the Plague hit, our trade kept all of Tamriel united, and the mothers prospered from it. And when the mothers prosper, everyone prospers. Now Tava and Khenarthi are as one, and the Mother Navigators can make a special trip, just for you. Same low price.
Kallo Tallhorn, Green Prophet, Bloodtoil Valley
Foolishness. That is what it was. Do not believe things you cannot see with your own eyes, hear with your own ears, or smell with your own snout. This Talos… can you see him or taste him? No? Then he was never real in the first place. Tiber was just a man. If he was a good man, he would have become One with the Green. But he didn’t, because the greed of gold corrupted his soul and led him astray of the true path. What a shame, what a shame.
Henri Derre, Priest of the Eight, Northpoint
I will not bore you with the obvious symbolism of the eclipse lasting eight hours for the Eight Divines, as the skeptics would deny that as a coincidence anyway. Instead I will emphasize that the Talos Mistake was, indeed, a mistake. A break with sacred tradition which had horrendous consequences for us all. For millennia, from the rise of Empress Alessia to the reign of Tiber Septim himself, the Imperial Church recognized only Eight Divines. That is not to say other spirits of great power such as Magnus or Shezarr never existed, but instead that the Eight Aedra which orbit the Mundus, who sacrificed themselves to make the world, who represent the Eight Virtues, who are found in almost every culture in Tamriel, are indeed the supreme Gods of the Mundus and the Gods most worthy of centralized worship. Tiber Septim’s haphazard addition to the pantheon was a lapse in judgment, one of the most grievous errors of the otherwise glorious Septim Empire. He was a great man, a Saint and an Apostle, but he was not a god. The Thalmor did not “succeed” because there was no god to kill in the first place.
Tumindil, Archbishop of Julianos, Skingrad
Do they still teach such nonsense in Nibenay? The so-called “Tibedetha Incident” was nothing more than a set of coincidences and cheap magic tricks. An eclipse that long is indeed rare, but if you come visit the Orrery we just had installed here in Skingrad, I can show you how it might occur as a result of focused chronomancy and increased varliant activity. The Thalmor had done a similar trick before in the Void Nights. The reports of earthquakes and blizzards and sandstorms that occurred around that date indeed happened, but are falsely remembered as all occurring all on the same day due to the spiritual significance retroactively ascribed to that time period. After all, war and plague would go on to topple both of the largest political powers in Tamriel. In hindsight that day seems a good spot for mystics to claim as “the beginning of the end.” Serious historical analysis, on the other hand, will demonstrate that the fall of the Empire and the Dominion were purely mundane in causation.
The arcane overload brought about from the Thalmor tampering with an Elder Scroll undeniably had very real consequences for the people of Dusk, and that was a tragedy, but the larger metaphysical consequences are purely imagined by the Temple Zero ideologues gaining uncomfortable levels of influence within the Archdiocese. I do hope the Archbishop of the One will finally repudiate such superstition.
Morlia of Skywatch, Sapiarch, Shimmerene
Failed? You think they failed? Look at the Seat of Sundered Kings. The Wheel within the Wheel lies dormant, save for a handful of maggot-priests writhing in the Empire’s corpse and preaching a long-dead doctrine invented by an ape. Talos is dead, no one worships him anymore. Not the way they used to. Dragon cultists call him “many-faced” now because even they cannot deny that the oversoul of that Mannish upstart has been shattered. The Aldmeris Dominion is gone, and good riddance, but a new phoenix shall rise from its ashes. We are not done with you, child of the Niben. Once the Blessed Isles are united once more, we will carry the Divine Revolution to every shore, breaking your kings and jarls and hortators and potentates upon the stone of Anu’s Glory. Then we shall know peace everlasting. Then we shall know the New Era. Then you shall know the truth of Tiber Septim's failure.
.....
(Additional Nordic perspectives written by HitSquadOfGod).

Greetings Reddit. I’m looking for some clarity and level headed perspective regarding a very challenging time in my relationship right now. It is deep and complex, but I will do my best to contain this novel.
A little background about us:
I (33M) and my fiancé (33F) have been together since 2015. We are from the east coast. In 2016 we moved to the west coast together and began a new life. The two of us share a lot of interests, beliefs and values, but it cannot be overstated how different we are. Not strictly personality wise, but our upbringing, life experiences, socioeconomic background, etc. Complete and total opposite of each other. Which is for the most part great, because we can offer each other different perspectives. However, it’s when real life happens that our differences really take a toll on us.
I come from a very tight knit family both on my dad’s side and my mom’s side. I was raised on the typical “family is everything” mantra.
That being said, when my fiancé and I first started dating in 2015, my family immediately welcomed her with open arms, because that’s just what we do. They have treated all my girlfriends this way my entire life. However, my mom and Grandma took a strong liking to her pretty quickly and they began spending time together and started spending time together for that year prior to us moving to the west coast. So my mom really left a maternal impression on my fiancé as well. Without us even being together for a year, they were building a mother daughter relationship of their own.
Now, let’s pause for a second and switch sides over to my finance’s family. Walking into her family situation in 2015, the dysfunction was immediately apparent. Her parents, while they lived in the same house, only really spoke to each other unless absolutely necessary. Her father is an immigrant and very closed off, kind of awkward individual. But definitely a good guy. He’s in his 70s. For the most part it seems like he just wants to be left alone and will occasionally be social. Her mother on the other hand is a different story entirely. Very outspoken, tough exterior, mean and confrontational. Chronic health issues (weight / diabetes), suffered serious mental health problems and just an all around terrible attitude towards life in general. This woman had no friends and nobody (including her own family) really wanted to deal with her. To be fair, she never really had a shot at a decent life. She comes from poverty and was abused as a child. She was essentially doomed from the beginning, and while she loved her children, she had no idea how to show it; ergo a dysfunctional family unit.
My fiancé and her mom were always very very close. She had her first daughter as a teenager and she unfortunately passed away as an infant. She then went on to have 4 boys. Then, her last child was my fiancé, her second chance at having a daughter, so their bond was very very very very very (x 100) tight. An emotional codependency at its finest.
Now I came into my fiancé’s life at an interesting time. She had just gotten her first apartment on her own and was really focused on being a little more independent. She had been babied her whole life and her parents didn’t give her any real responsibility, they just wanted her to focus on excelling academically, which she definitely did. But it came at a great cost. Anyway, we meet and start hanging out at her apartment. Remember I mentioned the emotional codependency? Well my fiancé getting her own place was really a slap in the face to her mom and this is where their drama begins. Her mom is notorious for leaving long and nasty voicemails when she’s angry with someone. my fiancé would play these voicemails for me and I would just cringe. Then before I knew it, I too started getting mentioned in these voicemails. She would say all sorts of nasty things about me, call me names, you name it. Mind you, this is within the first 1-2 months of us dating and she does not know me at all. All she knows is I’m her daughter’s new boyfriend. So, while my fiancé got to enjoy building a relationship with my mom, I was never extended the same opportunity. She hated me from jump street.
Matters only got worse when my fiancé decided she wanted to move to the west coast with me ( I had decided I wanted to move before we met). My fiancé always talks about how good their relationship was before she moved out of her parent’s house, and it was only downhill from there.
When the time came for us to move out west, her mom refused to come to the airport and see us off. My parents were out of town so it was just my brother and her dad and a couple of my friends. The toxicity only worsened as time went on. Again my fiancé was sheltered her entire life, now she’s on the complete other side of the country, having new life experiences, meeting new people and broadening her horizons. Trying to share new and positive experiences with her mom usually just led to an agreement between the two of them. One time, we went on a hike. It was my fiancés first real hike in her life. She called her mom to tell her about it and her mom got so mad she didn’t talk to her for months. And she would do that often. Just cut my fiancé off for weeks or months, maybe leaving the occasional nasty voicemail. Then they would repair, then relapse, repair, then relapse. Like clock work. We could be having a wonderful day. Her mom would call, and next thing I know I’m picking her up off the floor in tears. My fiancé felt so beaten up about it one day that she got in touch with a life coach to ask for advice. At the end of their conversation, the life coach told my fiancé they she needs to let go and love her mom from a distance. This was 2017.
As for me, the second we moved away together was toast for good. I would always be the guy the stole her daughter away and took her far far away.
Go ahead and take a bathroom break because we’re just getting started.
Aside from the increasingly abusive relationship with her mom, we were really loving our new life out west.
Then, one day In April of 2019 my mother unexpectedly passed away and it devastated my entire family. Both my mom’s side and dads side. My mom and I were really tight, and she was also just one of those people who people really looked up to and admired. I’m not just talking her up because she’s my mom. It was really one of those losses that had people feeling like “God ANYBODY but her” because so many people depended on her. She was 51 years old. In the initial wake of her death, my fiancé did everything a partner is supposed to do in that situation. She booked our plane tickets, stuck by my side and sat with me through two funerals in two different states. It was tough. And then when we got back home to the west coast, she gave me her full blessing to take as much time off of work as I needed and said she would cover us financially. That only lastly like a week because I quickly saw how depressing it is to sit at home all day and just thinking about the horrible thing that has happened. So I shortly returned back to work. But she had my back either way. Her and I were good, and if anything the death of my mom brought us closer.
Fast forward about two years, pandemic blah blah blah: Our daughter is born. Our daughter favors me a lot. But because she’s a girl, she is a SPITTING IMAGE of my mother. It is eerie. This is when the real grieving process began for me as I never imaged I would go through fatherhood without my mom. Whenever anyone in my family would pop out a child, my mom was always there to babysit, etc. she loved babies. Now I have my baby, her first grandchild and she is not here to witness or be apart of it. It was hard for not just me, but my grandma (my mom’s mom) and my mom’s only sister (my aunt). We felt it was like my mom’s spirit came back to us, so my daughter was just instantly and very very special baby to a lot of people.
When my daughter was just two years old, we went down south (where my mom and her family are from) so they could meet our daughter. The trip was a disaster. The way my grandma and aunt immediately took to our daughter, made my fiancé (who was dealing with severe postpartum depression) extremely uncomfortable and she began to emotionally withdraw from everyone including me. The biggest thing for her was my aunt and grandma kissing our daughter. She felt it wasn’t safe. Please keep in mind that this was the week of the two year anniversary of my mother’s passing so emotions are very high. I did talk to my aunt and grandma. My aunt backed off but my grandma wasn’t hearing it. Which only made matters worse. The anniversary day came and tensions were high. We were supposed to go to my mom’s grave site for a small family get together. My fiancé left my aunts house where we were staying and got a hotel. In anger, I went to the hotel and we had a huge blow up. It was one of the darkest days of our relationship, one that I regret and it tools us years to recover from. Not to mention the heartache it caused my family, which only made me more angry. She was not wrong to be upset, but like most scenarios it was how she chose to handle it that took things to the next level. Maybe I’m the asshole, I would have preferred for her to play nice for the sake of an extremely sensitive and sacred occurrence, and then curse me out all to hell when we got back home, gone on a sex strike for a year, whatever. But no.
Matters only got worse from there. again my mom, aunt and grandma are very hands on family members especially when it comes to babies. However my fiancé felt so scorned from our experience down south, she drew a hard line in the sand and kept her distance. She wouldn’t answer their calls and things would get very tense in our home whenever they would call me to see the baby. This dragged on for what felt like an eternity. 2021, 2022, and 2023 I am caught in this war between my mom’s family and my fiancé. Remember, my fiancé is a product of her mother. She has been able to define herself a lot more since living on the west coast but certain traits were deeply instilled in her. One of which is the inability to forgive / healthily resolve family conflict. She was raised on a very hostile mindset where if you had a conflict with someone, it was pretty much fuck them forever. This is essentially the way she handled things with my aunt and grandma, who prior to that incident, she had a very positive relationship with. My aunt remained patient and forgiving, essentially backing off until things were cool. My grandma (still giving her child aka my mom) wasn’t so quick to back down, which then strained my relationship with my grandma because she wasn’t making it any easier. Never mind the fact that while it fiancé and grandma were really good friends, their friendship mutated into a stereotypical boomemillennial relationship where they couldn’t see eye to eye on anything, and virtually everything my grandma would do or say was deeply offensive to it fiancé, making the healing process virtually impossible. And I’m stuck in the middle, heartbroken still processing my mom’s death and the shitshow that I’m watching unfold.
It wasn’t until October of 2023 that I gave my fiancé an ultimatum. Either find it in your heart to forgive me and my family for how you’ve been offended and made to feel, or let’s just go our separate ways. I can’t keep doing this. She agreed to put it to bed and move forward. It took a lot to get to that point and a lot of damage had been done. I had to forgive her just as she had to forgive me. It was hard, and we still had hiccups from time to time, but we did it.
Fast forward to April of 2024, after years of refusing to see a doctor to get her weight and diabetes under control, my fiancé’s mom unfortunately passed away. Almost 5 years to the day of my mom passing. Now, there are two reasons why her death happened at the absolute worst time (I understand there is no ideal time to pass away, just bear with me).

1. Her mom was doing that thing I mentioned earlier where she was refusing to talk to my fiancé for a very petty reason. For the last two months of her life, she would not pick up my finance’s calls and wouldn’t talk to her if she was on the phone with one of her siblings who happen to be in the same room.
   
2. We were paying far below the market rate for rent at our apartment, so our landlord paid us to move out. Which was perfect because we had decided we wanted to move back east anyway for our daughter’s sake. However, my finances mom passed away 1 week before we legally needed to vacate our apartment or the deal was off.
   

My fiancé, me and our daughter were chilling in a hotel when we got the call, trying to get mentally ready for the final push out of our apartment over the next 7 days. Before she died, she was put into a medically induced coma so it wasn’t an immediate death sentence. I did what I felt was my only option. I put the girls on a plane back to the east coast so she could be by her mother’s side. While I stayed out west to pack up and move our apartment *single handedly*
Her mom passed away 48 hours later. They had no choice but to take her off life support. She was a wreck. I felt terrible because I wanted to be there for her in that moment, but I’m stuck thousands of miles away working day in and day out on this bloody move. Every day, my day consisted of moving, and talking to my fiancé on the phone letting her go through the emotions of pain, anger, guilt, you name it. She would tell me how bad she needed me there with her, but also that she understand the importance of what I was doing and that she was appreciative of me handling the move so she could handle family business in the wake of her moms passing.
Here is where the issues between me and my fiancé begin: a bad joke.
Because her mom hated me, I never felt comfortable going to her parents house when we were in town. There was no written rule that said I couldn’t come over, but I never felt welcomed. Because I wasn’t.
So one day my fiancé and I are on the phone. This a few days after her mom passed away. I was out west still moving, and she’s out east. And I said in the most loving and lighthearted way possible “Well babe look at the bright side, at least I can come over for dinner now”. (Because that always bothered the both of us I wasn’t welcomed). She kind of chuckled and said “Too soon babe too soon”. We laughed it off and I apologized, and ensured her I was just trying to offer some comedic relief. We continued our convo and before we got off the phone, she reiterated that she doesn’t want to hear jokes like that. And I said no problem.
A day or two later, she calls me. We’re talking about any and everything as always. Then she said to me: you wanna laugh? I said yeah. She told me about a conversation her and her brother had in which her brother jokingly said “Man we should have had (me) come visit my at the hospital, that would have snapped her out of it real quick” the joke being her disdain for me is so strong that my presence would have woken her up out of her coma”. My fiancé laughed when she told me about the convo, and I laughed. But in also couldn’t help but ask why his joke was funny but not mine. Her response was that I wasn’t in the position to make jokes due to the animosity between me and her mother. I said cool. No problem. If it’s really just inside family humor, why call and share it with me? She agreed and we left it alone. But my initial joke really hurt her and she can’t really let it go (not saying she should). But it’s like she cannot believe I would have the audacity to say what said and doesn’t understand how I thought it was funny in the first place, while she thought what her brother said was hilarious. Where we are struggling is whether or not I should have known to make such a joke. I said “you let me know it made you uncomfortable, I apologized and it won’t happen again”. She said “I shouldn’t have had to tell you it made me uncomfortable, it’s just something you don’t do”. While she has a right to feel offended and upset with me, I don’t like the notion that this is just a blanket general rule that all humans abide by by default.
My best friend died of a drug overdose 5 months ago. We grew up together in a small town. My friend was an interesting character. And due to his substance abuse problems coupled with just who he was as a person, he left a lot of ammo for dark comedy his family and friends. He was a dark but humorous guy. My fiancé came with me to my friends dads house when I got the call about his death. I pointed out the fact that she was there to witness his me, friends and his family engage in dark humor about his life and his antics. Not as a means to disrespect him, but as a way to remember him and conjure up funny stories. I told her it was from this same place I made the joke that I did. Not to disrespect her mom. But because of who her mom was as a person, the only humor she left behind for her loved ones to exchange, is dark humor.
However, I feel that my fiancé is not going to forgive me for my joke for a long time.
Anyway By the grace of God, i managed to completely vacate our apartment by May 1. The timing was impeccable. Like if any of those days I decided to sleep an extra hour, or traffic held me up, or I slowed down for any reason, it would have been catastrophic. But I made it. i literally landed back on the east coast the day of her mom’s funeral service. I took a quick nap, woke up put on my suit and attended the service. My body was absolutely depleted and I was walking with a limp. But all things considered I was just happy to be home and be back with my girls.
If you’re reading this, I’m sure you know what it’s like especially the week a loved one dies. It’s hectic. So much logistics, emotions, phone calls, arrangements, you name it. It’s just a wave of everything. I knew I needed to be there for her, and I was. Even though my body is telling me, it’s time to chill out. I didn’t listen. After about 1 week, my body went on strike. I fell very ill. I don’t know if it was Covid, the flu or what. But all my energy was gone, I had toxic waste green mucus, a crippling headache, you name it. I needed to be on bed rest. But I knew I couldn’t. So every day I would still get up get dressed and just be there for my fiancé and my family however I could. Grocery store runs, cooking, emotional support. Whatever I could do. I felt like shit, operating at 50% capacity but I was doing my best. Which in itself is a problem because that is not how you restore your health. As my health got worse, and I was keeping my fiancé and daughter at a distance (you know, not wanting to get them sick), it made my fiancé feel very abandoned and alone. Our daughter is 3 now so she can definitely be a handful. This made her kind of turn on me and become very resentful. I tried explaining to her I’m doing my best and I’m just trying to get back on my feet. Her response is essentially “well what if you were a single dad? You’d have to figure it out” - what she means is find a way to help her with our child. (There is a history of her kind of delegitimizing me whenever I fall ill, like the focus isn’t the fact that I’m sick, but how it makes life harder for her).
During a recent argument she said I should have called on my brother or sister to help with our daughter. I told her that that was a good idea and I would have been happy to call on them for help but 1. Due to how sick I have been I have not been thinking clearly at all. Point blank period. And 2. Because I’m sick, i told my brother and sister I would catch up with them when I was back on my feet, not wanting to pass whatever I had to them. My fiancé’s response to that was that I am careless. Mind you, I have been running around all over town for one reason or another since I landed. Our daughter started soccer and has had 4 or 5 practices since. I haven’t missed one. This is a guy who should absolutely be on bed rest, still operating as a normal person.
So my fiancé is holding a lot of resentment towards me because I didn’t think to call my sister or brother to help her with our daughter. And she is holding a lot of resentment towards me because of the joke I made. And she keeps saying that I’m not there for her in this tough time the way she thought I would be. I say to her I understand and I’m sorry. Please understand I’m doing my best and practice compassion. She essentially rolls her eyes.
I had to then remind her that while she was there for me in the initial aftermath of my moms passing, she was not there for me when I needed it most, at the height of my grief and held a grudge against me and my moms side of the family through 2021, 2022 and 2023. Everybody has a part to play in that conflict. But again my fiancé does not know how to handle hurt or conflict, and her immaturity made a sticky family situation into a 2.5 year drawn out war because she refused to turn the other cheek and let bygones be bygones. She wanted to make my family feel as terrible as she did. And yet I stayed patient and forgave because I knew at the end of the day, she was not taught to do what I was begging and pleading with her to do which is to forgive. She even admitted one day that in her entire life she’s never had a situation where her and friend fell out and then were able to reconcile (something I’ve done plenty of times my whole life). Once she wasn’t cool with someone it stayed like that.
I’m trying to get her to understand that while I definitely am not my best self right now, to blatantly says I’m flat out not there for her is not only ridiculous, but dangerous. Remember I lost my mom 5 years before she did and went through the grieving process, finally finding acceptance just last summer. So I say her attitude is dangerous because she is constructing this internal narrative that I wasn’t there for her when her mom died, I’m careless and didn’t ask my siblings for help, and that as someone who already has trouble resolving trivial conflicts, our relationship will never be able to withstand her believing in her heart I wasn’t there for her in her darkest moment. And as the grief intensified as life goes on, she’s going to really need a shoulder. But she’s steady alienating me in the short term. I personally believe she is looking for enemies (common response to grief)
Since her mom passed away, she has consistently told me that she now understands what I was going through when my mom passed and feels like she understands me better. She even apologized for how she handled the situation with my mom’s family.
And yet I cannot get her to see that the reason we survived that situation is because of the compassion and grace i extended to her, when all I felt was rage. I said please extend me the same latitude I extended you when you were unable/refused to show up the way i needed you to. The difference being her feelings were hurt and she responded vindictively and destructively. Versus, me who is physically ill and not at full capacity or thinking clearly. There is no situation in life that excuses you for being patient and understanding with your partner.
But guys she is too blinded by the grief and shock of losing her mom. The fact she hadn’t spoken to her in her final months. Her mom’s story is a dark and sad one and she’s is processing all of it at once.
My official ask of you guys is: what do I do from here? I am a big proponent of not making major life decisions under pressure or under emotional duress. Do I just file this under the heat of the moment and wait it out? Or is this the dawn of another war wrapped in grief? Am I the asshole who has a lot of making up to do?
I’m just exhausted.
tl:dr - my fiancé and I lost our moms 5 years apart and are dealing with it completely differently.