#BOTH OF WHOM ARE JEWISH THEMSELVES

[fanchonmoreau]

Night after night, I witnessed audiences grappling with the raw, unsettling reflection that “Cabaret” held up to them. Some material was simply too much for the audience to handle. “If You Could See Her,” which has the Emcee singing of his love for a gorilla — a thinly veiled commentary on antisemitic attitudes — ended with the lyric: “If you could see her through my eyes, she wouldn’t look Jewish at all.” When we first performed it, in Boston, audiences gasped and recoiled. It was too offensive, too raw, too cruel. Producers fretted and the line was changed to “She isn’t a meeskite at all,” softening the blow, yes, but also the impact. I resented the change and would often, to the chagrin of stage management, “forget” to make the swap throughout that pre-Broadway run. I’m hearing from friends in the current Broadway production of “Cabaret” that the line is once again getting an audible response, but of a different sort. On more than one occasion in the past two weeks — since the election — a small number of audience members have squealed with laughter at “She wouldn’t look Jewish at all.” In the late 1960s, we softened the line because the truth was too hard to hear. Today, it seems the line is playing exactly as the Nazi-sympathizing Emcee would have intended. My initial assessment, when word first reached me about this unusual reaction, was that these must be the triumphant laughs of the complicit, suddenly drunk on power and unafraid to let their bigotry be known. Now I find myself considering other hypotheses. Are these the hollow, uneasy laughs of an audience that has retreated into the comfort of irony and detachment? Are these vocalized signals of acceptance? Audible white flags of surrender to the state of things? A collective shrug of indifference? I honestly don’t know which of these versions I find most ominous, but all of them should serve as a glaring reminder of how dangerously easy it is to accept bigotry when we are emotionally exhausted and politically overwhelmed.

Joel Grey, originator of the role of "The Emcee" in Cabaret (source NY Times, gift link)

[jadenvargen]

free online james baldwin stories, essays, videos, and other resources

**edit

James baldwin online archive with his articles and photo archives.

---NOVELS---

Giovanni's room"When David meets the sensual Giovanni in a bohemian bar, he is swept into a passionate love affair. But his girlfriend's return to Paris destroys everything. Unable to admit to the truth, David pretends the liaison never happened - while Giovanni's life descends into tragedy. This book introduces love's fascinating possibilities and extremities."

Go Tell It On The Mountain"(...)Baldwin's first major work, a semi-autobiographical novel that has established itself as an American classic. With lyrical precision, psychological directness, resonating symbolic power, and a rage that is at once unrelenting and compassionate, Baldwin chronicles a fourteen-year-old boy's discovery of the terms of his identity as the stepson of the minister of a storefront Pentecostal church in Harlem one Saturday in March of 1935. Baldwin's rendering of his protagonist's spiritual, sexual, and moral struggle of self-invention opened new possibilities in the American language and in the way Americans understand themselves."

+bonus: film adaptation on youtube. (if you’re a giancarlo esposito fan, you’ll be delighted to see him in an early preacher role)

Another Country and Going to Meet the Man Another country: "James Baldwin's masterly story of desire, hatred and violence opens with the unforgettable character of Rufus Scott, a scavenging Harlem jazz musician adrift in New York. Self-destructive, bad and brilliant, he draws us into a Bohemian underworld pulsing with heat, music and sex, where desperate and dangerous characters betray, love and test each other to the limit." Going to meet the Man: " collection of eight short stories by American writer James Baldwin. The book, dedicated "for Beauford Delaney", covers many topics related to anti-Black racism in American society, as well as African-American–Jewish relations, childhood, the creative process, criminal justice, drug addiction, family relationships, jazz, lynching, sexuality, and white supremacy."

Just Above My Head"Here, in a monumental saga of love and rage, Baldwin goes back to Harlem, to the church of his groundbreaking novel Go Tell It on the Mountain, to the homosexual passion of Giovanni's Room, and to the political fire that enflames his nonfiction work. Here, too, the story of gospel singer Arthur Hall and his family becomes both a journey into another country of the soul and senses--and a living contemporary history of black struggle in this land."

If Beale Street Could Talk"Told through the eyes of Tish, a nineteen-year-old girl, in love with Fonny, a young sculptor who is the father of her child, Baldwin's story mixes the sweet and the sad. Tish and Fonny have pledged to get married, but Fonny is falsely accused of a terrible crime and imprisoned. Their families set out to clear his name, and as they face an uncertain future, the young lovers experience a kaleidoscope of emotions-affection, despair, and hope. In a love story that evokes the blues, where passion and sadness are inevitably intertwined, Baldwin has created two characters so alive and profoundly realized that they are unforgettably ingrained in the American psyche."

also has a film adaptation by moonlight's barry jenkins

Tell Me How Long the Train's been gone At the height of his theatrical career, the actor Leo Proudhammer is nearly felled by a heart attack. As he hovers between life and death, Baldwin shows the choices that have made him enviably famous and terrifyingly vulnerable. For between Leo's childhood on the streets of Harlem and his arrival into the intoxicating world of the theater lies a wilderness of desire and loss, shame and rage. An adored older brother vanishes into prison. There are love affairs with a white woman and a younger black man, each of whom will make irresistible claims on Leo's loyalty. 

---ESSAYS---

Baldwin essay collection. Including most famously: notes of a native son, nobody knows my name, the fire next time, no name in the street, the devil finds work- baldwin on film

--DOCUMENTARIES--

Take this hammer, a tour of san Francisco.

Meeting the man

--DEBATES:--

Debate with Malcolm x, 1963 ( on integration, the nation of islam, and other topics. )

Debate with William Buckley, 1965. ( historic debate in america. )

Heavily moderated debate with Malcolm x, Charles Eric Lincoln, and Samuel Schyle 1961. (Primarily Malcolm X's debate on behalf of the nation of islam, with Baldwin giving occassional inputs.)

----

apart from themes obvious in the book's descriptions, a general heads up for themes of incest and sexual assault throughout his works.

[opencommunion]

"Like all foreigners, the Jewish settlers sailed first to Alexandria, took a ferry to Jaffa, and were taken ashore by small boats. This mundane arrival at the shore appears in the settlers’ statements as aggressive and alien treatment: ‘Aravim Hetikifu Ottanu’ – ‘the Arabs assaulted us’ – is the phrase used to describe the simple act of Palestinian boys helping settlers to small boats on the way to Jaffa; they shouted because the waves were high and asked for baksheesh [tips] because this was how they managed to live. But in the settlers’ narrative they were assailants. Noise, presumably a normal feature of life in the Jewish townships of Eastern Europe, becomes menacing when produced by Palestinian women wailing in the traditional salute of joy to the sailors returning safely home. For the settlers this was the behaviour of savages, ‘with fiery eyes and a strange garroted language.’ Whether the topic is their language, their dress or their animals, reports back to Europe concerning the Palestinians were all about unpleasantness and weirdness. ... Again and again, Zionist settlers behaved as a people who had been insulted – either objectively in the form of a physical attack, but more often simply by the very presence of Palestinians in Palestine. ... The Zionist settlers instituted retaliation for ‘theft’, which was how they characterised the rural tradition of cultivating state land, a practice that was legal under Ottoman law. Picking fruit from roadside orchards became an act of robbery only after Zionism took over the land. The words shoded (robber) and rozeach (murderer) were flung about with ease when Palestinians involved in such acts were described. After 1948 these terms would be replaced with ‘terrorist’ and ‘saboteur’. ... Cleansing the land of its farmers and tenants was done at first through meeting in the Zionist madafa and then by force of eviction in Mandatory times. The ‘good’ Palestinians were those who came to the madafa and allowed themselves to be evicted. Those who refused were branded robbers and murderers. Even Palestinians with whom the settlers sometimes shared ownership of horses or long hours of guard duty were transformed into villains once they refused eviction. Later on, wherever Israelis would control the lives of Palestinians, such a refusal to collaborate would be the ultimate proof for Palestinian choice of the terrorist option as a way of life. ... Following the 1967 war ... both Israeli academics and Israeli media commonly used the term ‘terrorism’ when referring to any kind of Palestinian political, social and cultural activity. ‘Palestinian terrorism’ was depicted as having been present from the very beginning of the Zionist project in Palestine and still being there when academic research into it began in earnest. This characterisation was so comprehensive and airtight that it assigned almost every chapter in Palestinian history to the domain of ‘terrorism’ and absolved hardly any of the organisations and personalities that made up the Palestinian national movement from the accusation of being terrorists."

Ilan Pappé, The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge (2014)

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

Been thinking about why the argument that OFMD is inherently a bad show because it's based on historical slaveowners so often feels disingenuous to me as a person of color.

HUGE disclaimer up front: if you don't wanna fuck with the show because of that premise right out the gate, that's 100% valid and I completely get that. I'm not talking about that. What I'm specifically talking about is White fandom people in particular who argue that OFMD must be "problematic" because of this, especially when they say this as some kind of virtue-signalling trying to win points in fandom wars, stuff like that.

My big thing is that the resemblance the characters in OFMD have to their real-world namesakes begins and ends with having the same name. The show feels more to me like it's playing with the vague myths around these names, not the people themselves. Can you make an argument that they should have come up with original characters instead? Sure, but let's be honest, even people who study the irl counterparts have very little knowledge of their actual lives, and the average person has all but none. To add to that, this show has absolutely zero interest in historical accuracy; the moment they cast a Jewish-Polynesian man as Blackbeard that became obvious. No one is saying the real-life Blackbeard and Stede Bonnet were good people, least of all the show itself; the point is that OFMD's versions are basically original characters already.

It always feels like an incredibly disingenuous claim to parallel the show to Hamilton, because Hamilton both did care about historical accuracy and also brought up the slave trade. Hamilton is uncomfortable for so many poc because it writes poc into the story of otherwise very faithfully portrayed racists, colonizers, and slaveowners and just handwaves the racism. In OFMD, racism exists, but the stance is always explicitly anti-racist and anti-colonialist in a way that is just so fun to see (whom among us has not wished to skin a racist with a snail fork?).

The other thing that sticks for me is...there's an appropriate amount of slavery I want to see in my romcoms, and that amount is none. I am so sick of historical fiction where Black characters are only there for trauma porn about the horrors of the slave trade. You can make a legitimate argument that OFMD is handwavey about the slave trade, but I'd argue that including discussion of the slave trade is something that should be done with such incredible care that it would leave us with a show that can't really be a comedy at all anymore. OFMD's characters of color are allowed to be nuanced, complex characters with their own emotions, and it's incredibly refreshing to see, and I'd much rather have that than yet another historical fiction show where the only characters of color are only there to make White audiences feel virtuous about how sad they feel for them.

In conclusion, I guess: every yt person who makes this argument to win points in a fandom war owes me and every other fan of color a million dollars

[selkiesstories]

As promised all the antisemitic tropes associated with the Greens in House of the Dragon because I guess when you double down on the divinely ordained Aryan as heroes you need Jewish coded villains. Please note that I am not accusing anyone including Condal or other producers of secretly sympathizing with Nazis or antisemitism if for no other reason that I suspect they are simply too ill informed to realize what their playing with. (for a better understanding about the metaphysical role Jews played in Nazism see Alon Confino's A World Without Jews: The Nazi Imagination from Persecution to Genocide)

Let's start with casting:

And Alicent is the embodiement of the Beautiful Jewess- curly dark reddish hair, and big beautiful eyes ( It's over a year since I read Höss's complaining about how his officers were susceptible to Jewish women and their "beautiful eyes" and I am still not over it.)

Moving on-

1) Alicent and by extension the Greens are portrayed as religious. This religion is implied or certainly interpreted by fans to be oppressive towards the Targaryens (Valeryians) notably by setting rules and thus bringing them to the level of mortals. Hitler considered Christianity to be a Jewish invention that was a “scar” on the German race by imposing a conscience.

2) The Hightowers and the Citadel/maesters are implied in the fandom to be running a conspiracy to bring down the Targaryens. Some fans have them poisoning Viserys and/or responsible for all the Targaryen stillbirths, and dismal maternal and infant mortality rates. The Protocols of Zion are an old debunked many times conspiracy theory about how Jews secretly work to run the world. Jewish doctors were accused of damaging Aryan women. The Doctor’s Plot is actually Soviet where Jewish doctors were accused of poisoning Stalin.

3) Heleana who coincidentally fits the Targaryen aesthetic is considered the only redeemable one so long as she supports Rhaenyra (and marries Jace- who according to Rhaenyra and therefore the show/fans is a Targaryen- and raises her children to be loyal to the true Targs). Nazis would sometimes accept a half Jewish woman if she was married to a full German and had his children whom she raised with no connection to her family/faith (sometime a man but a woman was more likely since they were seen as more passive and therefore less of a threat to the all sacred race)

4) the Greens are portrayed as both overly sexual and sexually repressed. The Nazis were obsessed with sex and variously accused Jews of being sexual predators or of being unnaturally restrained which tied in with (1).

5) Aegon is an alcoholic and Aemond is implied to have an opioid addiction. Jews were associated with drugs especially morphine (for a summary of the Nazis relationship with drugs see Norman Ohler’s Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich)

5) The men on the Greens are either dangerous predators or emasculated "simps" or "mama's boys". Jewish men were variously dangerous predators or unmanly men who were dominated by their women.

6) Alicent is either sexually repressed or a slut who sexually entices good Valyrian men to their doom. (1) and (4)

7) Alicent is an overbearing mother. She occasionally seems to overstep her designated feminine boundaries to assert her opinions over men's.

8) the Greens are either too close knit or they betray each other. Höss described Jews as both extremely attached to their families to the point where news of their death had a fatal effect and as eager to betray their families even at no benefit to themselves.

9) Alicent schemes to betray the righteous Valyrian princess and supplant her with her own sons. She is considered redeemable only when she serves Rhaenyra and places her on a pedestal even at the expense of her and her children's well being. This is the basis of many Jewish female characters in literature

10) Alicent's children are never considered to be real Targaryens. In F&B Aegon and Helaena are described as plumper and less striking than most Targaryens, Jaehaerys has extra fingers/ toes and Jaehaera as neurodivergent. Jaehaera dies and is replaced by the perfect Valyrian girl.

I'm open for asks and DMs. For context my MA was set in Nazi Germany and I took several courses on the subject.

[girlactionfigure]

Why are there Palestinian refugees?

In the months before the British abandoned its mandate & Israel declared independence, civil war raged as Arab factions tried to prevent the Jewish state from being born.

Of course, had the Arabs agreed to the UN's partition plan, they would have had yet another state & there would have been no war in 1948. 

But their goal was not another Arab state; it was to ensure there would be no Jewish state. 

Meanwhile, 5 #Arab armies amassed on the borders & waited for the British to leave so they could push the Jews into the #Mediterranean Sea.

As Secretary-General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha put it on the day of the Arab #invasion: 

"This will be a war of extermination & momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

Or as the then war #criminal & fugitive #Nazi Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini put it during the invasion:

"Murder the #Jews. Murder them all!"

But before the invasion began, & starting as early as Dec 1947, Arab officers began ordering Arab residents of specific villages to flee. 

Their reasoning? Arab citizens not involved in active fighting could only: (1) "treacherously" abide the creation of a the Jewish state &/or even become citizens of same; or (2) be in the way of Arab #military deployments & potentially get caught in the crossfire.

And so, for example, on this day (March 8) in 1948, the Arab Higher Committee ordered all Arab women, children & elderly to leave Jerusalem. The order continued, "Any opposition to this order ... is an obstacle to the holy war ... & will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.” 

In fact, the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of dozens of Arab villages between April & July of 1948 (see photo of Arab citizens fleeing below).

Meanwhile, on April 19, 1948, Jewish forces secured Tiberias, which had a population of ~6,000 #Arabs - all of whom chose to leave. In fact, they left under British military supervision.

The Jewish Community Council immediately issued a statement regarding Tiberias' Arabs: 

"We did not dispossess them; they themselves chose this course ... Let no citizen touch their property."

At around this same time, in early & mid-April of 1948, an Arab faction led by Fawzi al-Qawukji was attacking Haifa & attempting to take the city. Then, rumors spread among Haifa's Arab community that Arab air forces were about to bomb the city & ~25,000 of Haifa's Arabs fled.

As U.S. Consul-General in Haifa Aubrey Lippincott noted on April 22, 1948: "local mufti-dominated Arab leaders ... [urged] all Arabs to leave the city, & large numbers did so."

On April 23, 1948, however, #Jewish forces fought back the Arab attack & retook Haifa.

Three days later, on April 26, 1948, a British police report from Haifa noted: 

"[E]very effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."

What were some of those "efforts?"

Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, sent future Prime Minister Golda Meir to Haifa with the direct instructions to "persuade the Arabs to stay." 

Ms. Meir was unsuccessful, however, as Haifa's Arabs told her they feared that if they stayed, they would be branded "#traitors." 

And so, another ~25,000 of Haifa's Arabs fled. 

Stop me if you've heard this one before, but despite facts on the ground, Arab leaders at the #UN began demanding the end to a fake "#massacre." 

Specifically, #Syria's UN Ambassador Faris al-Kouri, said the Jewish victory at Haifa was a "massacre" that provided "evidence that the '#Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected."

The #British were still on the ground, however, & the British Ambassador to the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the UN the very next day both that the fighting in Haifa had only begun as a result of "continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews" & that the "reports of massacres & deportations [were] erroneous." 

Meanwhile, after Israel declared its independence & was invaded by five Arab armies, the newly established #IDF issued an Order on July 6, 1948, making it clear that non-combatant Arab civilians were not to be harassed or expelled, nor their villages touched. 

But the Arabs were being given a very different message.

#Iraqi #PrimeMinister Nuri Said announced:

"We will smash the country with our guns & obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives & children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

This used to be known. In fact, Arab leaders for years after the war had no qualms about repeating it.

For example, Syrian Prime Minister Haled al Azm later wrote:

"Since 1948, we have been demanding the return of the #refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave & our appeal to the UN to resolve on their return."

Similarly, #Jordan's King Abdullah wrote: 

"The tragedy of the #Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false & unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs & 400 million #Muslims would instantly & miraculously come to their rescue."

Similarly, Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in #London wrote: 

"This wholesale #exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic #Arabic press & the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States & the #Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter & retake possession of their country.”

Even as the war still raged on Aug 16, 1948, the Arab #Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of the Galilee told #Beirut newspaper Sada al-Janub: 

“The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, & that they would return within a week or two ... Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the ’Zionist gangs’ very quickly & that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

A few months later, on Feb 19, 1949, the Jordanian newspaper Filastin confirmed: 

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

Even many of the Palestinian Arab refugees themselves admitted their reasons for leaving.

For example, on June 8, 1951, Habib Issa admitted to #NewYork Lebanese newspaper Al Hoda:

"Azzam Pasha assured the Arab peoples that the #occupation of Palestine & #TelAviv would be ... simple ... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers & that all the millions the Jews had spent on land & economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean ... Arabs of Palestine [were told] to leave their land, homes & property & to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”

Similarly, Asmaa Jabir Balasimah recalled being told by Arab leaders to "evacuate the village & return after the battle is over," & that she & others in her village left all their possessions behind "based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours." 

Again, however (& most importantly), had the Arabs agreed to Partition or even agreed to negotiate different borders with Zionist leaders who begged Azzam Pasha to make any counteroffer instead of invading with #genocidal intent, there would never have been a single Palestinian #refugee.

[littlestpersimmon]

I really just want to fucking vomit when I see other Jews denounce us and curse our names to be forgotten, knowing that this kind of insult is reserved for literal nazis- just because we have, principles.

Yitgadal v’yitkadash sh’mei raba b’alma di-v’ra chir’utei.

I don't know, I feel like I am going insane, living my life under the fascist duterte regime, I know my own kind can be depraved, cruel and brutal. I also have lived my life as someone who was more "jew-ish" rather than "actual jew", and I've been excluded and denied for my appearance and upbringing. I know Israel banned Yiddish and Yiddish literature but when put in scrutiny then suddenly the shoah is brought up multiple times. I've known Israel to treat white converts so much better than they treat Ethiopian Jews and other Jews of color, but when a white convert was kiIled, she was not allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Ultimately, apartheid relies on Jews knowing only one monolithic and artificial identity rather than the rich and diverse cultures we have in diaspora- Israel depends on Jews being afraid and clinging to it as indoctrinated cash cows to continue to remain beneficial to the global north, whom are funding their military.

I'm in tears thinking about how Israelis have told me I had no right to wear my magen David for having the audacity to fucking weep over the ark of bodies left before the world to see. How can so many call this bastardization judaism. How can so much of jewry turn up their noses over this. I've seen Israel do literally the same things that the duterte regime has done to fellow filipinos, I've seen both deny human rights and try to get any forces that work for human rights decommissioned, I've seen bodies pile up high because their families were too much in danger to claim them and give them proper burials, and I've seen both filipinos and israeli jews say "where is the proof that this brutality is happening" or "not nearly enough have died.", n the fact that people who have literally argued with holocaust deniers still have the audacity to say "hm! This sounds like a conspiracy! It must be fake!" When human rights watch themsleves have confirmed that idf forces left literal babies to melt into their mattresses, when the American government themselves bragged about sending exploding meat grinders to Israel, when random journalists keep having to find someone else from Gaza to be interviewed because the one they were supposed to talk with died from carpet bombing or whatever else. And so much more. Your own can do depraved and immoral things, and judaism says that you cannot stand for this cruelty. You must not!! Judaism is and will always be the antithesis of inaction!!

I know people from Egypt and people from Lebanon feel complicit just from not being able to do enough, how can so many Jews say nothing to a genocide literally being done in our names, by an ethnostate that ultimately will not care about us. Why HaShem, why is this happening!!

Y’hei sh’lama raba min sh’maya, v’hayim, aleinu v’al koi yisrael, v’imru amen.

[cursecuelebre]

Ancestral Veneration and Why it’s Important

This is going to be a post about a topic that people seem to forget or deem unimportant even fearful about with either good reasons or just never thought about it. I just wanted to mention YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WORK WITH ANCESTORS IN YOUR PRACTICE this blog is mostly for those who are interested in it and not sure what ancestral veneration is.

I’m a pagan and a witch that practices Ancestral veneration in my practice, not around it but it’s definitely a big part of why I practice certain paths. I’ll go in beginner tips, what to expect and the myths, the offerings and the recommendations. But let me go a bit into the importance of Ancestral Veneration and worship in human history since it’s still prevalent today.

Historical importance of Ancestral Worship

Ancestral worship and veneration has been at least one of the oldest religions that humans have ever believed in. Archaeological evidence shows the early humans taking care of their dead and burying them for respect and dignity maybe even courtesy to the deceased. It became sacred to them, imagine back then without fully understanding about the world someone that you spoke and saw now gone, it’s a profound moment one’s life that they must believe that their spirit lives on and they themselves wanted a peaceful resting place. It’s a cycle, many cultures and religions believe that life is a cycle, death is never the “end” rather an end of a journey to a new part of one’s life.

To this day people honor their deceased loved ones, visiting their graves, offering them gifts at their resting places, speaking to them, having their picture on a table surrounded by their favorite flowers, etc. Honoring the dead and respecting the dead is a very revered part of human life and something that we all would like to expect when we’re gone from our living family. Spirits also related or not, the dead as well should be treated with outmost respect and dignity like our ancestors did.

Some cultures like the Romans believed that if the spirits especially ancestral spirits (Lares) weren’t appeased they become angry if worshipped improperly or their will have not be been fulfilled. In Ancient Greek tradition they would place a coin in the mouth for the deceased to make sure their spirits would go into the afterlife safely and less traumatic. Each culture and society had a different way of how the ancestors would live in the afterlife.

Even in the Christian Bible shows the significance of ancestors, there is a reason why genealogies are included in the Bible. How Jewish people revere Abraham as their founding father since he is the first Hebrew patriarch which is very important to them and their religion. How even Jesus is related to David on both sides. Even immediate family is important like Jesus’s mother Holy Mary. In Norse Paganism it’s said that the kings were descend from gods like the Swedish Royal family related to Freyr. In Shintoism it is said that the First Emperor of Japan is related to the Sun Goddess Amaterasu. Japan and other many East Asian countries have a strong relationship and traditions regrading Ancestors.

Why Ancestral Veneration?

Ancestral Veneration is generally taken outside of paganism and witchcraft a very sacred thing for families, they can heal, they can come together, grieve together, reminisce together especially if they knew that person in life. But also asking the deceased loved ones for guidance and protection, to help their family in life whom they love the most. Plus this can help especially if you are into past life regression, we reincarnated with our ancestors many times and they have been able to see us in their time and now. It can be really insightful to understand of who we were in those lives.

Whatever legacy they left behind that you admired from them is continued for generations to come as well as heirlooms, a mother passing down her sentimental items to daughters or their children alike it’s a remembrance of what they were known by as well.

“Cows die, family die, you will die the same way . I know only one thing that never dies: the reputation of the one who’s died.” Havamal, Stanza 77.

If you’re going into paganism or witchcraft or both that are related to your ancestry. Your ancestors are the best teachers and mentors especially if they also have been in these specific practices and traditions. If you want to learn Seidr for instance a magical practice rooted within Scandinavian traditions and you have said Scandinavian roots you can contact a ancestor that practiced it in life and willing to help and teach you. What’s unfortunate about ancestral veneration looking down upon for many centuries making people turn away and against the practice is that it’s said that spirits can become lost if they aren’t being honored or remembered that makes them fade and lost.

Five Myths about Ancestral Veneration and what to expect. This is not going to be sugarcoated, I’m being honest and this what I’ve experienced in my own practice and how many others have experienced as well. I would add on if I forgot anything but these are most common misconceptions I have heard. The red are the myths if you are wondering.

Myth #1: All ancestors on the other side have my best interest and support all what I’m doing This is a common misbelief, now there is ancestors that will support you no matter what and your actions. But if you’re a pagan and a witch there is going to be Christian ancestors who won’t support you at all. Their human spirits with still human functions and beliefs. Not to say you can’t communicate but set your intentions and boundaries before meeting them, some will tolerate and some will make their opinions and beliefs known possibly even try to convince you. I know it sounds like fear mongering but it’s to what you would expect. This doesn’t mean you cannot make contact or venerate them because of it. It’s a choice that is a two way street, even spirits in the other side have freewill just like we do.

Myth #2: All Ancestors are well in spirit No, not exactly, when humans on earth do horrible things or experience horrible things it will take affect in the spirit world no matter what. Keep in mind time works very differently in the other world that it will take centuries for those who are healing to fully recover and those to actually realize their problems, messed up life on earth if they choose to recognize it. Again as I said just humans in the physical world human spirits also have free will and choices.

Myth #3: Only Human spirits are ancestors Nope commonly yes when we think of Ancestors we think of human beings that lived either with us or before us. But this isn’t the case, pets for instance that became our beloved family members and part of our inner circle are our ancestors. My cat that recently passed I had him since I was nine years old, I always thought and treated him like family because of that he merged into my family circle. Also animals can symbols of family, like a bear, an owl, an elephant, etc. that they can be represented as your ancestors as a whole.

Myth #4 : Ancestors are limited to just blood family Also a misconception, close friends and even adopted family members are considered to be close family. Some people won’t have blood relatives in life and find their found family which is just as valid and meaningful like a blood family is. This also goes to if you’re a person that likes to write you might venerate your favorite author, if you like to draw or paint you can venerate an artist that you admired a lot. Your family might have patron saints, deities, or local heroes and spirits that have been part of your family for generations. That’s why it’s nice to know where your family originated from what country, village, city, etc.

Myth #5: No Ancestors of mine did anything wrong Everyone’s ancestors did something horribly wrong in their lifetime, some were messed up people. But there are good ones that aren’t like that anymore, if you want to venerate them that’s up to you and your practice. I personally don’t do it because especially if they did something wrong and have no remorse for it I ain’t venerating none of them.

There is no reason to be afraid.

I know I seemed to be fear mongering in the previous part that’s because I don’t want to sugarcoated of which is most likely to be expected.

The Bottom line when contacting (if you want to have contact with them) and venerating your ancestors is that their no different from a human person in this physical realm. They will have personalities, likes, dislikes, opinions, beliefs like any other human being BUT from my experience a lot of my ancestors are very wise, humorous, kind, and non-judgmental. My advice if you really want to contact someone who is going to be supportive and helpful in your paganism and witchcraft, ask specifically for that person I usually ask for ancient ancestors pre Christian wise but there many folk witches and pagan ancestors that are more modern and recent that can most definitely help you! Speak to them like any other human interaction would be as if you’re talking to a living friend, family member or complete stranger you’re meeting for the first time.

How to Communicate with your ancestors

I have mention “contacting” your ancestors you can speak with them it’s not impossible.

1. Meditation and dream work: Most common and effective way to really get them to communicate you and send signs is through dreams. Meditation for a clear and close connection with them.

2. Tarot: Very common and just as effective, my most recommended first step when communicating with your ancestors. Using a tarot deck can help with putting your foot through the door. There is a great book which will recommend at the of the blog that does ancestral and tarot together.

3. Pendulum and a spirit board: This is more in depth but it has been very effective for me and many others to really connect and communicate with my ancestors. It’s good to state your intentions and boundaries before doing any of said above, but this is where you really need to set it. Before starting grab the pendulum over the board don’t let it swing and say, “I ask of the good and supporting ancestors that have me in good intent and support of my path and practice, I would like to meet you”. Of course you get specific like “I would like to meet an ancient Roman ancestor” that’s just an example of how it would go safely and respectfully.

4. Just talking to them. Yep sounds easy enough, you would just get something that represents ancestors or even a specific ancestor. For instance your grandmother’s rosary and just talk to them or pray to them. It’s a very simple and comforting way to bond with your family.

Offerings

This is going to be a “it depends on the ancestors” but there has been a universal notion of what ancestors do really like. From items, food, drink, etc.

Rosaries for catholic ancestors or the cross for Christian ancestors generally speaking

Pagan symbols for your pagan ancestors

Statues of ancestral gods or saints or other important entities

Sweets: Cookies and cakes are very popular

Alcohol: my Germanic ancestors love it when I offer beer, mead, ale. But also wine and other alcoholic beverages for others.

Regular libations like water, coffee, tea. juice, etc. good substitute if you cannot use alcohol.

Their meals from their home country, my Italian ancestors, recent and ancient love it when I make them pasta.

Incense some cultures call it the food for spirits

Heirlooms

Family photographs

Candles

Coins

Book of the dead, if you meet an ancestor you can record them down into a book that is solely for your family and to be passed down on and on. It’s a memorial service to them that someone knows their name and who they were.

Specific traditions that your ancestors came from for instance libations of wine for your Greek ancestors.

Good ancestral veneration books that personally helped me a lot and I know a lot of others to get started.

Ancestral Tarot by Nancy Hendrickson she helps how to contact and connect with your ancestors and ancestry using tarot

Ancestral Grimoire by Nancy Hendrickson like Ancestral Tarot she goes how to connect with your ancestors but this time how to really work with them. One of the exercises is to work with an ancestor for a month and a different for the next one.

Honoring your Ancestors by Mallorie Vaudoise she gives good information on different ways to connect with your ancestors, the different types of ancestors, she does have a Southern European and Catholic folk magic take to it which is fine but it’s not the sole focus of it but she does put good information in the book to help someone get started. 

Badass Ancestors by Patti Wigington also good beginners guide to ancestral veneration and how to connect through meditations and develop relationships with them even how to deal with problematic ancestors. She goes into how to research your genealogy and useful tips!

[too-antigonish]

Endeavour and Fascism

There's a thread of history running through Endeavour that's been on my mind a lot recently. It's a somewhat unified arc that runs through 3 episodes: Coda, Colours, and Raga. I was curious to learn more and did some research.

It's probably nothing new for folks in the UK, but for most of us in the US, it's not something we learned about in school.

So here goes...long post...

S3E4: Coda

We get the first glimpse in in Coda when Thursday comforts Trewlove with the offer of a cigarette as she copes with the murder of a fellow officer:

THURSDAY: All right? TREWLOVE: They just shot him. Like it was nothing. THURSDAY: Here. For the nerves. Keep the pack. Stick 'em behind your notebook and nobody'll know. TREWLOVE: Thanks. THURSDAY: Tip my old governor gave me. Sergeant Vimes. Cable Street. “No Pasarán!” All right? Let’s have that jacket buttoned up, then. TREWLOVE: Sir.

It's such a little exchange, but it delights me in so many ways. There's the sweetness of the interaction between Thursday and Trewlove. There's the irony in hindsight of his "thoughtfulness" in helpfully encouraging her to smoke. There's the nod to Terry Pratchett's Discworld with the references to both "Sergeant Vimes" and "Cable Street." And finally there's the nod with “No Pasarán!”  to the actual Battle of Cable Street that occurred in the East End of London in 1936.

A nostalgic reference to “No Pasarán!” is actually a bit ironic coming from a former Met officer. As the unfortunate party charged with keeping the two opposing sides "peaceful," the Met faced some of the worst violence on that day. However, Fred Thursday would not have experienced it as a police officer.

We know from the episode Home that he didn't join the police until two years later, in 1938. We find out in Cartouche though, that he did grow up near Shadwell Basin—about a ten minute walk from where the main showdown in the Battle of Cable Street occurred—so there's a good chance that Thursday would have witnessed the events of that day and maybe even participated.

Here's my understanding of what happened: The British Union of Fascists—a group openly aspiring to create a British  state in the style of Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy—attempted to stage a march through the middle of London's East End. Their leader was Oswald Mosley, a horrible but charismatic minor aristocrat with a Hitler-wannabe-mustache, his own cadre of paramilitary "Blackshirts," and—unbeknownst to him—a major problem in his ranks with deep infiltration by Special Branch. 

Why the East End? It was the poorest area of the city and thus home to the most recent immigrants—in particular, the UK's largest Jewish population—many of whom had escaped rising persecution elsewhere in Europe. At the same time, the East End was also home to the Londoners hit hardest by the rising unemployment of the 1930s.

Mosley's rhetoric had finally become openly and unapologetically anti-Semitic in 1935 and the idea that Jewish immigrants were the ones responsible for stealing jobs from the "native" British was a simplistic explanation offered by the BUF that unfortunately resonated with many East Enders. So ultimately, the East End was home to both the main target and the BUF and some of its biggest supporters.

In October of 1936, Mosley planned for his Blackshirts and their supporters to march through the heart of the East End. Determined to both defend themselves from threats of violence and stop the march from passing through their community, Jewish leaders and others mobilized, successfully recruiting thousands of their East End neighbors and others allies to assist.

© Jewish East End Celebration Society

On the day of the march, despite a massive police escort, the BUF was turned back repeatedly. The slogan of the day, borrowed from the Republican fighters in the Spanish Civil War was, "They shall not pass" or "No Pasarán!” 

Eventually, things came to a head at the junction of Cable Street and Christian Street. Multiple barricades were erected and the BUF marchers were pelted with rotted vegetables and the contents of chamber pots. It became a pitched battle at one point. Unable to break through the East End, Mosley was finally forced to relocate his followers to Hyde Park.

© Copyright Jim Osley Detail from a mural painted on the side of the former St George's vestry hall

S5E4: Colours

The Battle of Cable Street was a humiliation for the fascists and for Mosley, a victory for the Jewish community and their allies. Sadly, the happiness was very short-lived. Mosley was able to frame Cable Street in the press as an attack by the left on his right to free speech.

There was an immediate increase in support for the BUF in the greater London area, particularly in the East End, and an increase of violence against Jewish people in the UK.  Oswald Mosley himself travelled  to Germany only two days after Cable Street. There he married socialite Diana Mitford in a secret ceremony at the home of Joseph Goebbels with Hitler attending as the guest of honor. 

Mosley and Mitford CC-BY-2.0

However, the increase in support that occurred right after Cable Street was brief in itself. As the threat of Nazi Germany became more apparent in the UK, the popularity of the BUF declined. Once the war began, the Mosleys were interned under a provision that applied to active Nazi sympathizers.

Post-war, Mosley attempted to once more find a place in politics but fortunately never moved beyond the fringe. He and his wife became prime movers in advancing various Holocaust denial theories and later espoused rather unpleasant opinions on topics such as the forced repatriation of immigrants and mixed-race marriages.

If this all sounds familiar, it's because it all crops up in the storyline of Colours where the character of Charity Mudford, Lady Bayswater is a stand-in for Diana Mitford.  RL's dialogue very much captures the sheer banality of the real Diana Mitford's  evil:

BAYSWATER: I can't change the past. If Winston hadn't been so eager for office, all the unpleasantness might have been avoided. My husband had Hitler's ear. We could have persuaded him. Softened his resolve. He wasn't immune to reason.  THURSDAY: Charming conversationalist, no doubt. BAYSWATER: Actually, he was a very good mimic. Terribly witty. MORSE: Sir, is it time for that telephone call? To the station? I can take it from here. THURSDAY: The unpleasantness, as you call it, cost me six years of my life, and untold millions a great deal more.

S7E2: Raga

But we're not quite done yet. The BUF had a successor. The National Front was founded by a former member of the BUF who then joined forces with John Tyndall, the leader of the Greater Britain movement which had a big anti-immigration focus.

As with Jewish immigration a generation earlier, heavy South Asian migration to Britain in the 1970s made it an easy target for those seeking to pin all of the nation's economic and social problems on "outsiders."

The National Front eventually came out with an agenda that called for the revocation of citizenship for all non-whites in Britain and forcible repatriation to their "native" countries. NF rallies were frequently accompanied by violence whipped up by the kind of rhetoric we hear in Raga where the character of Gorman serves as a stand-in for Tyndall and his ilk:

THURSDAY: Well, we're very concerned about young Pakistani lads getting knifed on the street. GORMAN: Terrible. But I can't say that I'm surprised. You cram all of these incompatible cultures together on one small island, of course it's gonna lead to blood. And worse. MORSE: Sounds like a threat, Mr. Gorman. GORMAN: It's just an observation. If the police can't keep the streets safe and defend the indigenous population against outsiders, well, no wonder people take it into their own hands. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a seat to win.

If anyone sees anything that I've gotten wrong here, please let me know. This was my first time reading through any source material on this whole topic and it's complicated (and depressing as hell).

I haven't got any pithy, final point to make except to say that there are certain ideas that seem to cycle back with horrible regularity every time certain conditions are in place. They're wrong. They're simplistic. They're hateful. And they need to be stopped every time.

[kosher-martian]

I'm making this post with full recognition that it might result in a bunch of hateful comments or asks, but I think it has to be said.

This morning I saw two completely unrelated posts (one on reddit and one on tumblr) that referred to Jews as "Jews of Conscience / Jewish People of Conscience" so as to draw contrast between the Jews being discussed and other Jews, based solely on their beliefs and attitudes concerning the Israel-Hamas War.

We really are just doing the whole "one of the good ones" schtick aren't we?

Why do we have to make these performative declarations of our beliefs to remain in the good graces of the self-appointed "good people"? What does that say about the "good people" and their "good politics"? And what does it say about us if we seek their approval?

This is the inevitable outcome of both purity politics and hyper-regimented discourse, which themselves are the consequence of deriving the entirety of one's political litmus test from maximalist sloganeering echo chambers.

This method of forming "good politics" reduces the complexity of the human experience into a simple "us vs them" dynamic, where the dividing line between the two is whether you upvoted or downvoted a screenshot of a pithy tweet.

It frames the world as one with "good people" and "bad people", where those on the side of "good" are scene as virtuous and well-intentioned whereas those on the side of "bad" are at best misinformed and at worst malevolent, sinful monsters. As someone whose virtue has not yet been determined, one who has not declared their affiliation is to be distrusted until they either:

Profess the beliefs of the "good people" without exemption, adopting them whole cloth and never questioning by whom those beliefs were made or whom those beliefs serve.

"Out" yourself as a "bad person".

I want to specifically call attention to that second option. It is always framed as a revelation. Not a sudden change of heart. Not a slow alienation. Not changing material conditions that alter the way someone perceives the world. All "good people" are actually "bad people" (except you, the only true "good person") and it's only a matter of time until someone "reveals who they really are". Everyone is lying about what they actually believe. It's a low-trust environment where every alliance (social, political, etc.) is one of convenience, to be continued until your ally inevitably betrays you for the other side.

To me, the only thing being revealed is the intellectual dishonesty of it all. It's no wonder that you suspect everyone else of lying, because it's exactly what you do. If the only reason you believe something is for the treats and status that believing it gains you, you don't actually believe it. The thing you actually believe is saying whatever is necessary for the treat dispensing machine to dispense your treats.

And so we circle back to the phrase "Jews of Conscience" and what that really means: It means (for the Nth time in Jewish History) Jews are not to be trusted until we "prove" our allegiance to the "good side" or "reveal" our allegiance the "bad side".

[callimara]

Important PSA

Criticizing Israel is NOT antisemetism or an attack on Jewish people because

ISRAEL =/= ALL JEWS

And while I am not saying that there is no antisemitism because there is plenty of that too, this is not a case of that. But grouping all Jews together as Israeli and presenting them as a monolith erases their individuality and identity. It's like calling all Asian people Chinese, and that if you criticize China, then you hate all Asian people. It doesn't make sense.

I am so frustrated seeing people who are trying to raise awareness about Palestine be called antisemetic and disgusting by people who cannot perceive Jews and Muslims as anything but a monolith. That's the reason why so many people are having trouble distinguishing between Hamas and Palestinian civilians, because to them, they're all the same.

And that's why they don't see an issue with collective punishment.

And you know what? Palestine is NOT just the Jewish holy land. It is also the Christian holy land, and the Muslim holy land. Palestine wasn't even the first choice for a Jewish homeland because it was heavily contested by Jewish rabbis at the time.

Turning Palestine (I say Palestine because the entirety of what is now Israel used to be Palestine) as an exclusively Jewish ethno-state means that people of Christian and Muslim faith all over the world are stripped of their holy land. The oldest church in the world, dating back to the times of Christ is located in Gaza, and who are the ones protecting it? Palestinians.

And you know who bombed it? Even though it had 500 refugees of both Muslim and Christian faith inside? Israel.

Even the slogan used for the founding of Israel itself, "A land without people for a people without a land." Is blatantly revisionist and erases the existence of Palestinians already living there. It erases all the historic religious sites that stand there and are frequented regularly by their respective devotees. Or worse, does not consider the Palestinians as 'people.'

Some people tend to forget that religious belief is NOT the same as race, and so you CANNOT claim indigeneity just because you are a certain religion. I am an Indonesian Muslim. Born Muslim, raised Muslim, and every generation of my family have been Muslim. That doesn't mean I can say I'm indigenous to Saudi Arabia. Let alone that Saudi Arabian land is my birthright.

If a white American woman born and raised in Seattle decides to convert to Hinduism, can she then say she is now indigenous to India? Or if she has a child, and that child had a child, and they were all raised as a Hindu, but have always lived in the US all their lives, can they claim that they are indigenous to India?

No.

And the fact is, the first Jewish settlers during The First Aliyah (great Jewish migration to Palestine) came from Eastern Europe and are genetically closer to Russians and other Slavs than they are to the Jews who remained in the Middle Eastern region after their exile (and I guess some people forget that you can convert into Judaism even if you didn't come from "The Promised Land." Like for marriages and stuff.) That's why they feel the need to distinguish themselves from the word "Arab."

Granted, there were also Yemeni Jews that migrated with them (whom I would say have stronger claims to indigeneity), but even in the transition camps, there was a clear divide between the European Ashkenazi Jews and the Yemeni Jews, who literally had their kids taken from them to give to the Ashkenazi Jews.

And let's not forget that when Jewish migrants from Ethiopia came, they were given contraceptives without consent to make sure they didn't impact the "desired" population.

Wake up. This isn't a religious war. This is European colonization.

[liminalweirdo]

The lack of coverage of this issue in the media “plays into the larger minimization of the pandemic and ongoing impacts of Covid,” Tran added. “Mask bans stigmatize mask wearing.” Health exemptions are very vague and narrow, and “they put too much power into authorities who are likely to abuse that,” he added. It will “lead to criminalization and further marginalization of impacted communities.”

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, echoed Tran’s concerns. In terms of immunocompromised people, she said (via email), “As we continue to grapple with COVID-19, a mask ban might well make subways more dangerous, exile people at high risk from public spaces, and open up people trying to protect themselves to harassment.”

Finally, there is a thoughtful, open letter from Jews for Mask Rights, in response to Hochul claiming the bans are being “demanded” by Jewish leaders in response to rising antisemitism, signed by more than 1,030 Jews, of whom 140+ are leaders. They summarize:

"Jewish tradition prioritizes the sanctity and protection of life, above all else. Jews are not permitted to endanger our own or others’ lives or behave in ways likely to spread illness or cause death. We have an obligation to protect the life and health of others. The principle of pikuach nefesh – ‘saving a life’ – prioritizes preserving human life over virtually all else. ...Wearing a mask is a mitzvah [good deed]. Forbidding it puts Jews at odds with our tradition, violating both our religious freedom and physical safety."

[still-searching-for-something]

First off, I limit this discussion to being modern antizionism--pre-state antizionism could have more leeway, as Israel was an entirely theoretical discussion, and antizionism would not have involved destroying a state, but that's a different conversation altogether.

I hold that there are two, and only two instances where antizionism in the modern day is not antisemitic.

1. You're an anarchist who believes in no states, including Palestine, and including Israel. This comes with the caveat, though, that you have to be condemning all states equally--if you're theoretically in favor of all states being destroyed, but in practice only talk about Israel's destruction, you're antisemitic. And anyway, anarchism is childish, naive, extreme and dangerous--especially in the 'destroy all states immediately' kind of way, so you're a fool at minimum, even if you aren't antisemitic.

2. You're a religiously frum Jew who believes the state of Israel is premature and can only be inaugurated with the coming of Moshiach. This too comes with caveats, however, and I think a good way to demonstrate this is by comparing Satmar and JVP/Neturei Karta.

For those not familiar (I imagine 99% of Jews are familiar with these groups, but any goyim who see this may not be) Satmar is an extremely observant Haredi Orthodox Jewish group, for whom antizionism is an important part of their theology and practice. Jewish Voices for Peace are a hate group which is about as Jewish as a swastika, and Neturei Karta are a cult of self hating Haredi Jews who eagerly tokenize themselves.

Now, I disagree with Satmar in a variety of areas, including how they treat women, how they interpret the Torah and the role of Jews in modern society, and a whole lot more, including their antizionism. BUT, they are one of the few antizionists whom I would argue are not antisemitic, because —this is the key—they push back against any attempt by left wing antizionists to tokenize them or use their antizionist views as “proof” that to be a “good Jew” you need to disavow Zionism and Israel. Satmar also makes no claim to representing a majority Jewish view, and make no effort to dismantle, demonize, or discredit Israel—they just stay away from its government and refuse to interact with it or benefit from it. I guess you could argue this isn't even antizionism as much as it is non-zionism, but I digress.

This stands in stark contrast to JVP and NK, who both consistently support extremist views about Israel, post false accusations and propaganda against it, and portray themselves as the “Jews of conscience”, the REAL Jews and that anyone who disagrees with them is a (((Zionist))) colonizer and genocidal maniac. Satmar was horrified by October 7th. JVP and NK celebrated and then denied it. Satmar distances themselves from the antisemites who point to Satmar as an example of “good antizionist Jews”. Neturei Karta and JVP embrace that role.

Notice how, in my long list of non-antisemitic antizionists (which consisted of two instances), "white progressive goy who wants to see Israel destroyed" was not on it. Nor was Soviet antizionism. Nor is the Tumblrina who whines about Palestinian "genocide" and Israel being an apartheid state. Nor is the Islamist who jerks off the idea of a massive caliphate.

Wow, it's almost like outside of very limited circumstances, antizionism is a cheap cover for antisemitism! Crazy, right?

[apeekintothepantry]

Meet Violet Fielding, my original historical character from 1918 Boston!

I've been doing some workshopping with my custom historical characters because I've been a little bored with AG's historical offerings of late, and because it's a fun excuse to dig into moments in time that interest me personally, but AG probably wouldn't produce a similar character themselves. (I say that, but my 1940's Hawaii character predates Nanea, so who knows! Maybe I'm manifesting some future stuff I can borrow for my gals.)

Violet is the youngest of three siblings. Her older sister Alice is in her early 20's and either a nurse or a Hello Girl, leaning towards nursing because I'm not sure I want her to go overseas and she could work at a hospital in Boston during the war. Her older brother James is 19 and enlists in the Marines once the US enters World War I. I think by Violet Saves the Day, he's returned home dealing with quite a bit of "shellshock" and that becomes a somewhat major theme.

Her parents are pretty wealthy, and the family lives in a brownstone on Beacon Hill in Boston. Her dad is a doctor and mom is a suffragist who also gets involved in causes supporting the war effort. Both parents are very supportive of their kids following their passions and getting themselves out there in this still relatively new century, which is why Alice has been allowed to go to school instead of immediately marrying some wealthy guy.

Vi herself is a precocious and creative kid. I think she likes to draw and paint and generally be crafty and creative, which comes in handy when brainstorming ways she can support her brother overseas and the war effort more broadly. While she's not afraid to get her hands dirty, she does like typically girly things like having teatime and looking at catalogs filled with new dresses. Her book series would theoretically cover 1917 through 1919 or so, and touch on the war, Women's Suffrage, the Spanish Flu, shellshock, and possibly the Boston Molasses Disaster.

Currently I'm trying to come up with a best friend character for her, as she really needs a Nellie or Ruthie in her life with the age difference and both siblings being off doing exciting and scary things without her. There are a lot of different directions I could go in with said friend - fellow wealthy-ish kid feels boring, Boston had a lot of new immigrant communities in the 1910's, some of whom did live in a specific part of Beacon Hill, Boston historically struggles with insidious covert racism but was still a city with a number of prominent Black and Jewish communities - and nothing's quite clicked as perfect just yet.

Violet is a Marie-Grace doll with a Nanea wig. Someone was selling her on a Facebook group a few years ago and I immediately felt like she was a Violet and needed to join my crew. Her last name was inspired by Lady Dorothie Fielding, a British woman who drove an ambulance during WWI and received several awards for bravery and service. Fielding's letters home were published after her death and are a really fascinating look at what it was like on the front lines doing this incredibly dangerous and important work. I used it as a major primary source for an educational interactive I helped develop in one of my previous jobs.

[edenfenixblogs]

Hi, I have a question and you seem like a really balanced person, so here goes: I want to join a drag king collective, and I’m so excited about it, but the king leading it has some Interesting views. It’s the kind of thing where it’s constant “fuck Zionists” and what feels like extremely performative activism (Palestinian flag in bio but no actual fundraising/peace efforts, posting misinformation/irresponsible rhetoric etc.) I’m scared that if I join it I’ll be treated different, and even more scared that my friends will think the antisemitism justified (they aren’t great at understanding what antisemitism looks like these days). Idk what to do about the fear of someone being antisemitic because I don’t want it to stop me from doing what I want, but I also know it’ll devastate me if it does happen. If you can offer any insight I’ll be very grateful.

Hi friend!

I'm really glad you reached out to me. Not because I pretend to know all the answers, but because I love that we can all rely on each other during this time.

Unfortunately, whether you sign up for this is ultimately a matter of your own personal priorities and how you are prone to handle confrontation.

Personally, if it was me, I would join. I'm not afraid of defending myself (but I very much used to be, so no shame if you're not there yet). If I wanted to explore my gender identity through performance (if indeed that is what you are doing. I've never been personally drawn to perform drag, so I cannot pretend to know exactly why one might start. But I don't think I'm out of line to assume that it involves some kind of exploration or critique of gender both personally and societally) I certainly wouldn't let antisemites be the reasons I didn't go for it.

If the Anti-Zionist jerk starts coming at you, you can simply say "OK, great. Real quick question: What's a Zionist?" And watch him squirm to say anything real or substantive other than "a Jew." He might say, "They're basically Nazis!" or "They're people who want Palestinians to suffer!" or some other confidently incorrect hyperbolic statement. If he does so, you can say, "Oh! Well, then that's definitely not what I am," and move on.

If he says something slightly more substantive, like, "They're people who think Jews should get to take land from Arabs/Palestinians in order to have a Jewish ethnostate!" You can use the same response as above. But you can also say, "Oh, weird. That's definitely not what I thought it was. Which Zionist Jews have said this, exactly? Cuz I heard it was something completely different." Remember, their goal isn't actually to educate you or help anyone or even to provide limited but factual information. The goal is to shame you into aligning with their self-righteous point of view. That is not an effective tactic when you respond with QUESTIONS instead of outright CORRECTIONS. Making people explain themselves is a great way to defang a bad faith accusation like that.

Finally, they might say, "It's someone who supports Israel." In this case, either of the above methods will work. Or you could question even further. Here's an example of a chat:

You: Supports Israel how?

Jerkface: They want Biden to use our tax dollars to fund a genocide!

You: Oh, well then I'm definitely not a Zionist.

Jerkface: No, you don't understand! It's people who think that Jews can only be safe in a settler colonial apartheid ethnostate that justified its existence by crying about the Holocaust.

You: Well then I'm still not a Zionist. I don't know why you're assuming these things about me. But people should generally cry about the Holocaust. It was really bad thing that people did to Jews. Do you not think the Holocaust is a big deal?

Jerkface: Of course I think it was a big deal. That's why we all have to condemn THIS genocide. The Jews are the Nazis now.

You: I don't know. I don't think that' show Nazism works. But I definitely don't like genocide. If liking genocide makes a Zionist, then I'm definitely not whatever you're accusing me of.

Jerkface: No! I'm just saying that Zionists don't want a ceasefire. They're trying to kill all the Palestinians.

You: I don't know what to tell you then. Because that's still not me. Of course I want Hamas and Israel to both stop bombing each other.

Jerkface: No, Palestine is JUSTIFIED in bombing Israelis because of the oppression.

You: I think its weird that you're conflating Palestinians with Hamas. Are you saying that Palestinian civilians are bombing Israel as as a protest tactic? I thought for sure that Hamas, a terrorist organization, was the group responsible for Anti-Israeli violence. Personally, I've always though that most Palestinians just want to live in peace and don't support terrorism and violence. I don't know why it would harm Palestinians to suggest that both Israel and Hamas should end this conflict diplomatically rather than with violence.

Jerkface: Right! That's why we need to tell Biden to call for a ceaseefire!

You: OK, but I still don't know if you're saying Israel should just stop firing or that Israel and Hamas should stop bombing. I definitely want everyone to stop bombing each other. But I'm not really sure why Hamas would care about what Biden says.

etc...

I call this the "Rabbi method," because when you go to a rabbi, they never really give you an answer to your question. They answer with other questions designed to get them to see their own answer.

Either Hamas is a terrorist group unfairly targeting Israeli civilians and launching bombs into civilian territories--something that is clearly bad and which makes average Palestinian civilians innocent victims (this is the truth btw) that require both Hamas and Israel too lay down their arms. OR Palestinians and Hamas are interchangeable terms and the ongoing oppression of Palestinians have driven them to violent, offensive, armed resistance--which you may or may not agree with as a revolutionary tactic (To be clear, this is NOT TRUE OF PALESTINIANS. PALESTINIANS ARE NOT TERRORISTS AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE BOMBED). Palestine IS NOT HAMAS. Hamas is bombing Israeli civilians.

Israel is retaliating with extreme force and prejudice against a terrorist organization in a way that is devastating the lives and futures of Palestinian Civilians, who very much deserve for all sides to lay down their weapons and address their mutual grievances diplomatically and responsibly. What is occurring right now is a messy, ugly, brutal war that is killing and traumatizing all civilians in the Levant. And a one-sided ceasefire leaves the side that ceases firing dead. A ceasefire means that EVERYONE must cease firing.

Unless Jerkface has a plan for how to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians from Hamas that also includes Israeli safety from Hamas, asking for Israelis to simply lay down all their weapons without any guarantee of safety is asking for a nation of mostly Jews to die without putting up a fight. And wanting Arab Israelis and also Jews not to die is not what Zionism means. It's not even what pro-Israel means. That's just called not being violently antisemitic, actually.

Israelis aren't mindless Zionist Nazi Monsters who get off on killing Palestinian babies. Palestinians aren't Noble Savages who have never done anything wrong as individual people and who are inherently morally superior to every single Israeli because they were born Palestinian. Both Israelis and Palestinians are complex, global micro-minorities who have both perpetrated tremendous harm to one another over the course of several decades, and neither group is going anywhere. Neither group deserves for its people to die. Neither group is only "worth helping" if western onlookers categorize them as "innocent" and "good." If someone's activism isn't geared toward respecting the inherent dignity of Palestinians and Israelis regardless of either group's history, then that person is not engaging in activism. If someone is asking you to support that cause because their chosen cause involves perfect cinnamon rolls being targeted by pure evil enemies, then they are not asking you to join them in activism. They are not even asking you to join them in a political reality. What they are asking is for you to join their toxic fandom.

And reducing this conflict down to simplistic fandom rhetoric is not going to help anyone and is frankly offensive to all Jews, Israelis, and Palestinians--all of whom deserve to be seen for the traumatized, suffering, imperfect people they are.

People don't earn support by being good. They inherently deserve support, because they are people.

All that said, maybe it's not emotionally useful for you to engage in this group. Maybe this type of conflict is too much for you. That's OK, too.

And while I would never let antisemitism take away an opportunity for me to fulfill a dream, I will say that my experience of Antisemitism during this time is 100000000% responsible for making me realize that the dreams I had before this experience need to evolve. I no longer wish to be in the town where I live. I wish to be home with my family closeby, because when the chips are down, that's who matters. The idea of moving back to my home state was unthinkable to me before October. Now? I cannot get out of here fast enough. There's nothing I want that is exclusive to my current location anymore. The community I thought I'd built for myself is gone. And while antisemitism didn't take them from me, it sure as fuck showed me that I never had it in thee first place.

If you're going to join this collective, be sure its worth the fight. And if it's not worth the fight, then look for a place that is. Exploring your gender identity freely should not come at the cost of living your ethnic and religious identities openly. Ever.

Don't trade one closet for another. You deserve more than that. We all do.

hope that helps @kit-chaos-doodle

[dchan87]

The incendiary political climate surrounding Israel/Palestine since October 7th, 2023 needs no introduction. For the better part of a year, the war in Gaza has dominated the discourse and maintained a fever pitch of emotional intensity like few issues in recent memory. Amid the blistering outrage of the war’s most vocal critics, one of the world’s most intractable and longstanding conflicts gets reduced to a bumper sticker. The Western, pro-Palestinian left takes a complex history spanning over 75 years and more than a dozen wars and armed conflicts and collapses it into a simplistic moral binary in which Israel is the evil, oppressive empire and Palestine is the helpless, oppressed victim. Indeed, the loudest voices on the front lines of the pro-Palestine movement see themselves as kindred spirits of the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars, the resistance fighters from The Hunger Games, and the Fremen from Dune. This is the level of sophistication they bring to the issue.

None of this should be especially surprising given that the core of the Western Palestine movement is driven by young people. They believe a fictional version of history in which Israel is a white European colonial project, never mind the fact that half of Israeli Jews are Middle Eastern Mizrahis or that 18 percent of Israelis are Muslim. They don’t know which “river” or “sea” they’re chanting about. They don’t know that the Palestinians rejected a chance at a state of their own on no less than five occasions, each time preferring war to peace. But The Hunger Games — that they know. And so they engage in the most loathsome behaviors, trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, harassing random Jews, and rolling their eyes at rape victims without regard for principles or decency. The worst part is, none of this is even about Palestine.

You can tell a lot about what people actually believe by looking not at what they say, but at what they do. And just like pro-life “family values” congressmen who secretly get abortions for their mistresses, we can see by the actions of pro-Palestine protesters that they don’t really care about the cause to which they profess. They may think they do, but their actions do not reflect a sincere desire for lasting peace. The movement is not just immature and profoundly unserious — its atrocious behavior and lack of clear goals actively works against the interests of the Palestinian people.

I used to think that anti-Zionism was separate from anti-Semitism, but October 7th changed that. After seeing the naked anti-Semitism of the pro-Palestine movement spring to life on October 8th, before Israel had even responded to Hamas’s attacks, I began to question my priors. I saw actual swastikas on display. I saw demonstrators justifying the slaughter at the Nova Music Festival. I saw protesters throwing Hitler salutes. I saw Holocaust memorials defaced, holocaust ceremonies picketed, and Jewish businesses attacked despite no apparent ties to Israel. At a certain point, it became impossible to deny: a virulent hatred of both Israel and Jews is rampant in the pro-Palestine movement.

Whenever these blatantly anti-Semitic actions are called out, we hear the familiar chorus of “anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Semitism.” But with every heil Hitler shouted at a protest, it becomes less and less credible. If this overwhelmingly leftist movement was consistent with its own purported anti-fascist values, such anti-Semitism would be swiftly shut down and forcefully kicked out of the movement, not downplayed or denied. Years ago, there seemed to have been some daylight between anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. Right now, the Venn diagram between the two is fast approaching a perfect circle. For all the valid criticisms that could be levied at the Israeli government, it has sadly become rational for Israelis and American Jews (91 percent of whom are Zionists) to feel that anti-Zionists are simply anti-Semites.

The fact that the pro-Palestine movement is fine harboring racists isn’t just a moral problem — it works against their own stated goals. When the most vocal and visible advocates are the worst people imaginable — tearing down hostage posters, blocking traffic, telling Jews to “go back to Germany”, and protesting an exhibit for massacred partygoers — any sane observer will be turned off. Viewed from the perspective of wanting Palestinians to have a real shot at peace and an independent state of their own, the movement’s repellent antics and lack of realistic and achievable goals make no sense.

If, however, we view the Western pro-Palestine movement not as a serious campaign for justice, but rather as a masturbatory exercise in virtue exhibitionism, the pieces begin to click into place. Evaluated by their behavior, the real goal of the protesters is not to affect change, but to be seen among their peers as a Good Person™ who is opposed to all the Bad Things™ — colonialism, fascism, capitalism, you name it. The war in Gaza is just the latest convenient excuse to take to the streets and call for revolution — or in this case, intifada.

This is by no means a new phenomenon. The activist left has always been a haven for the rudderless children of the upper-middle class with a penchant for role-playing. Whether it’s burning cities and decapitating pigs to defund the police, or defacing the Mona Lisa and Stonehenge to stop fossil fuels, the point isn’t to find a realistic path to change. The point is to gorge on what Aldous Huxley once described as “the most delicious of moral treats”:

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people that they will have a chance of maltreating someone. [...] To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ���righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”

What makes Israel/Palestine unique is the combination of issues it weaves together in the minds of young leftists. Pro-Palestine activism ties the war in Gaza to Western imperialism, Islamophobia, US-style racial identity politics, and anti-Americanism. Israel, in this view, is an apartheid state, a settler colonial regime as bad as the Nazis, genocide and all. That European colonialism never once involved a land where the colonists had cultural and religious ties dating back thousands of years, not to mention a continuous presence, or that imperialism is in no way specific to white European countries, is lost in the shuffle. As is the fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict is more geopolitical than religious (Israel has normalized relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both deeply religious Muslim nations).

The accusation of apartheid likewise falls flat upon considering that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. As for the absurd charge of genocide, much has been made of the case brought against Israel by South Africa in the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ), as though the mere accusation of genocide was ironclad evidence. But far from proving these serious allegations, the president of the ICJ who presided over the case clarified that it “didn't decide the claim of genocide was plausible.”

What illustrates the anti-Israel fetish on the Western left is the near total apathy for the world’s many other — and often far worse — humanitarian crises. Where is the outcry over the Yemeni Civil War, a war involving slave-owning terrorists that has seen 377,000 dead? Where are the protests over the Syrian Civil War, which saw a staggering 617,000 dead? Or the ongoing oppression of the Uyghur Muslims in China? Or the Sudanese Civil War? Not a peep. None of this is meant as a whataboutism. 600,000 dead in some other war doesn’t give Israel carte blanche to kill civilians. But to have activists so passionate about one conflict that they’re literally setting themselves on fire while completely ignoring all others is eye opening. It’s hard to see the Palestine movement as a principled opposition to oppression and civilian casualties rather than an unhealthy fixation on the world’s only Jewish state.

For all that the pro-Palestine movement calls for “peace” and “ceasefire”, they have little to say about Hamas’s role in the violence. Imagine if Hamas laid down its arms in surrender instead of trading Palestinian civilian lives for anti-Israeli PR. Imagine a Gandhi-like peaceful Palestinian resistance. The international pressure behind them would be overwhelming. Israel would lose all justification and have no choice but to back down. But Hamas would rather continue seeing their own people butchered in the crossfire of urban warfare, because Hamas doesn’t want peace or coexistence — they want the complete eradication of Israel and the Jewish people. And the Western leftists who support them don’t want a negotiated peace — they want Israel abolished, with no thought for what would happen to the Jews living there now. The pro-Palestine movement does not want a Mandela-like figure building reconciliation. They want a Robespierre-style revolutionary to burn the entire system to the ground.

Consider, by contrast, Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. Although fiercely controversial at the time, King’s activism and the broader protest movement of which he was a part ultimately paved the way for reforms that ended Jim Crow. How? Because King had a brilliant strategy with a clearly defined, achievable vision. With a principled commitment to non-violence, protesters forced the authorities to make the first aggressive move and thus traded their own suffering to change hearts and minds and create political pressure. It was brave, intelligent, and most importantly, effective, because the movement had concrete goals and a realistic method for getting there. None of this ethos is present in the pro-Palestine protests. They would much rather chant “there is only one solution” or pointlessly occupy a university building and then demand the administrators feed them. There’s a reason why the protesting intensified the moment the weather got warm and finals were around the corner. It’s all so endlessly sophomoric.

In a saner world, I would be a moderate on Israel. I oppose the settlements in the West Bank and think that Israel’s far-right Likud party and its obstinate leader Benjamin Netanyahu have been obstacles to peace. I believe in a two-state solution, and acknowledge that in this long and bloody conflict, neither side’s hands are clean. But because the far left would rather engage in apologia for terrorists than learn the most basic nuances of the conflict, I come across as a pro-Israel hawk, which is a sign of how unhealthy the discourse has become. Israel is stuck in an impossible situation, surrounded by hostile actors and under constant bombardment by terrorists. That doesn’t justify the loss of civilian life in Gaza, but I have yet to see a single pragmatic solution to the war coming from the left that doesn’t amount to Israel willingly exposing its throat to those who would gladly cut it.

If I thought that Hamas would honor a ceasefire, I would call for one too. But as the world saw on October 7th when Hamas broke the previous ceasefire, they are not a party that can be reasoned with — they must be defeated. And their Western supporters, who couldn’t discredit the Palestinian cause more if they were Mossad agent provocateurs, are only making that fate more likely. 

Every principled supporter of Palestine should look to the comrades at their side and ask, with friends like these, who needs enemies?