like. these are not neutral historians. these are not unbiased narrators. these are men who wake up every morning and choose manipulation as a lifestyle.

and yet people hear palpatine whispering into anakin’s ear like “the jedi are hiding things from you… they don’t trust you…” and go. wow. compelling. source: dude in a hood who has never told the truth once in his life.

HELLO???

of course he’s going to say that. what else is he supposed to do. sit anakin down and go “hi yes i am actively trying to emotionally isolate you from your support system so i can turn you into my apprentice and ruin your life” like be serious 😭

same with maul going “you’ve been indoctrinated by the jedi” as if HE wasn’t raised in a sith pipeline since childhood. sir. that is not a revelation.

and dooku. walking around like a philosophy professor going “the republic is corrupt” yeah okay, we know, and your solution is… fascism with extra lightning???

people who are straight: yeah I’m straight

I had a thought, that what if because the Jedi keep their younglins so close and secure in the Temple, that when they first get released into the world as padawans... they are the creepiest lil fuckers you will ever meet.

Cause Imagine growing up in the Jedi Temple, there probably weren't many bounderies between people. You have highly empathetic telepathic babies and children all congregated in a smallish space. The Creche Masters must be constantly stepping and helping with a child's shielding. hell telepathic communication of emotions is probably a first languange to Jedi children. Able to communicate and understand just through the emotions the other lets out into the Force.

Then you have on the more physical side of things, especially if you fall into the group that hc the Jedi younglings would sleep in little creche piles. But even outside of that, touch is a very grounding thing. And being grounded in the moment is very important when dealing with children that may experience visions, or overstimulation with all the extra sensery input the force may feed em. Big, secure, tight hugs that encompased the child like a massive pressure stim was probably a regulare occurance.

And then you take these children, who probably have not been outside the temple hardly ever, who are used to a society of contact and connection, and you toss em into universe with 1 (one) perental figure to teach them the ways of normal society.

(And depending on the Master the Padawan would get, would greatly impact their views on what "normal societal interactions" look like)

But before the Master can start to socialize the kid, just imagine how off putting they would be. They are just constantly staring, watching. and they always just know things. "I'm sorry about your father" "how did you know he died?" "You feel sad". These kids are sneaking up on everyone, they just appear suddenly. they'll just turn to you and deadpan tell you that you will die in the next month. and they are all so freaking adorable but that doesn't take away the fact that everytime you make eyecontact you have to abort a flinch and the raw power in the too knowing eyes.

I’m a Palpatine fan. Not because I think he’s "misunderstood" or because the Jedi deserved what happened, but because he is unapologetically, deliberately evil—and he is terrifyingly good at it. I’m tired of people attributing his wins to everyone except him. It’s time we stop nerfing Darth Sidious just to vilify the Jedi.

The "Anakin Fell Because of the Jedi" Let’s be clear: The Jedi didn’t push Anakin away. Palpatine pulled him. He didn't just wait for the Jedi to mess up; he identified a traumatized kid and spent fourteen years grooming him. He inserted himself as the only "affirming" authority figure in Anakin’s life, slowly warping his worldview until he reached a breaking point. Then, Palpatine stepped in and offered him exactly what he wanted to hear. If the Jedi had somehow magically done everything perfectly to counteract a Sith Master's influence, would Anakin have stayed in the Light? Yeah, probably. But that doesn’t change the fact that Palpatine did it. Just because the Jedi didn't manage to counter everything perfectly—when they didn't even know they had an opponent until the final hour—doesn't mean they deserve the credit for Palpatine's hard work. Stop crediting the Jedi for Anakin’s fall; that’s Palpatine’s masterpiece.

The Propaganda Machine People act like the Jedi just stumbled into being hated through "arrogance." No. Palpatine made them hated. He orchestrated a galactic war where he controlled both sides, then maneuvered the Jedi into military roles that fundamentally broke their image as neutral peacekeepers. He allowed the public to get used to seeing them as armed generals rather than spiritual guardians. That wasn't an accidental optics shift; it was a masterpiece PR assassination.

The "If They Just Didn't Fight" Fallacy I hear this all the time: "If the Jedi hadn't fought in the Clone Wars, they wouldn't have died! Clearly, the Jedi fell because they had lost their way as peacekeepers." …do you seriously think Palpatine wouldn't have found a way to turn that situation to his advantage? If the Jedi had refused to fight, Palpatine wouldn't have just packed up and gone home. He would have weaponized their neutrality. Imagine the Holonet headlines: "Jedi Elitists Refuse to Defend Republic Against Former Member Count Dooku." He would have branded them as cowards, conspirators, or traitors who abandoned the galaxy in its darkest hour. The Clone Wars would have still happened, except the Jedi would be hunted by both the Separists and the Republic. The Purge would still have happened anyway; only the "why"(and "how") would have changed.

'He won because everyone played exactly like his script-' Things didn't go 100% to palpatine's plans in the prequels, he just was really good at adapting Naboo: The Trade Federation fumbled the occupation. Palpatine didn't panic; he still used it to seize the Chancellorship. Maul: His apprentice got cut in half. Palpatine just traded up for Dooku to fuel the Separatist movement. Mustafar: Anakin was supposed to be the perfect specimen, not a mutilated man in a life-support suit. Palpatine simply recalibrated and turned the "broken" remains into Vader.

Inspo meme below the cut!

“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)

Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quick to conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”

This is not so.

Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.

“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.” 

“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment is a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.

Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”

The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.

In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com:

is a take that fundamentally misunderstands both Luke as a character and the entire point behind Star Wars and the Jedi religion.

Luke didn't act out of attachment. If he did he would have killed Palpatine and Vader in a desperate attempt to save his friends.

Let's actually compare this to mister attachment aka Anakin, shall we.

If Anakin was in a position where some guy (for example Dooku) was responsible for Padmé, Obi-Wan, Ahsoka, Rex etc. being in current life threatening danger, he would have killed that man and anyone who stood in his way. If there was another guy claiming to be his father that might have thrown him off for a bit but in pure rage and terror of what might happen to the people he loves he would have 10000% killed him, father or not (he literally tries to kill his surrogate father / brother out of attachment and greed and later succeeds IN THE MOVIES).

Luke however chooses AGAINST acting out of attachment. He doesn't let his fear for his loved ones control him. The literal moment he crashes out and eventually almost kills Vader is when Vader mentions Leia. His attachment to her led him to react with rage in a desperate attempt to protect her but then he realizes that that's WRONG. That he's playing into Palpatine's hands and giving himself over to the dark side, so he stops. He chooses not to become what Anakin let himself be turned into.

Luke's motivation for saving Vader is not attachment - it's compassion.

Attachment is to act on behalf of yourself. Attachment is choosing your own feelings over what the people you love would want. Attachment is sacrificing everything your wife stood for, choking her to unconsciousness because she doesn't react the way you want her to and trying to kill your own brother out of greed and jealousy. Attachment is selfish love - love that is about YOU and not the people around you.

Compassion is SELFESS love. Compassion is choosing others over yourself. Compassion is valuing the ideals and wants of the people you love - not just wanting to keep them by your side at all cost. Compassion is tossing away your lightsaber and letting yourself get tortured and almost killed because you REFUSE to act out of attachment and let anyone be hurt but yourself. Compassion is also to sacrifice yourself to save your child even though it gains you neither a better future nor him staying in your life.