#The annihilation Agenda

[thebuhonerodazorrow]

Venom: Lethal Protector #2 (2023)

Crash course

Marvel

[daveyfvckingjacobs]

psst do you have an otto faceclaim?? 👀

i love him i cannot stop thinking about him and it is Your Fault

FUNNY STORY I ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY DO AS OF YESTERDAY BUT HES JUST SOME GUY WHO HELPED TRAILER MY CAR TO TAKE HER TO ENGLAND WITH MY DADS FRIEND AND DEFO SAW ME STARING AT HIM CAUSE HE WAS JUST EXACTLY HOW I SEE OTTO

I don’t even know his name and cause no one on here knows anything about my location I feel ok sharing this but it’s bad form to take pictures of people you don’t know folks!! slap me on the wrist for this but the autism won I needed to immortalise otto

I also have this unamed pinterest dude I used for his twitter pfp but mystery petrol head is forever otto to me know idk if I could even find a more recognisable face anymore if I tried

[liberatingreality]

The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

Garry Kasparov

[xxx-theartofsuicide-xxx]

Is there any explanation why Beatlejus was made bisexual/gay in the musical? I remember back in 2018/2019, when I first saw the trailer for the musical, I was confused by the moment where Beetlejuice kisses Adam.

This moment still repels me from watching the musical. That is, there is no reason for his sudden bisexual orientation.

There's no official reason. There's theory. I'm in the camp that Alex Brightman, and maybe a handful of silent investors, had a plot to get the cartoon rebooted starring Alex, and the problematique nature of beetlebabes fucked with that cash cow. So they needed to sanitize it for the public, and how better to do that than with LGBT pandering?

The reason I often repeat that Alex Brightman totes misogyny like a gay man is that he shat on women (beetlebabes) in order to further his own agenda, one of claimed "allyship", in essence placing the wants and needs of gay people (mostly men) ahead of the wants and needs of women/beetlebabes. In this case, women want Betelgeuse's character and they want to project onto Lydia.

Brightman with his words and actions named those women Bad & Incorrect and the gay men people who want BJ Right & Correct.

Hence the Beetlewars.

Edit: annihilating BJ's canonical devotion to Lydia also serves to pander to misogynistic heterosexual men who have contempt for romance.

[supercap2319]

"You're in the Void. Think of it as purgatory. Reed called it a metaphysical junkyard where anything useless goes before it gets annihilated forever. And where the TVA sends people that don't play nice with the rest of the Multiverse." Johnny explained as you both walk through the desert, his blue cloak swishing around him.

"How do I escape?"

Johnny chuckles and shakes his head "Escape the Void? Kid, you're already trapped in a cosmic junkyard - escaping isn't exactly on the agenda. Plus, the TVA tends to keep a pretty tight leash on misfits like us."

"I don't care. I need to get home. My friends need me," You said.

The guy who looked like Steve sighs and runs a hand through his dark hair "Listen, I get it. We all have people waiting for us out there. But trust me, I've tried everything. My powers don't work the same here and the Void has a way of... wearing you down."

"Is there someone who is in charge here?" You asked.

"Oh, there's someone in charge alright. Her name's Cassandra Nova. She's a mutant with some seriously nasty psionic powers. Nova's been running this hellhole like her own personal kingdom."

"Mutant?"

"Yeah, you know - superhuman powers, genetic mutations, that whole nine yards. Nova's got a real knack for manipulating minds and bending people to her will. She's the reason we're all stuck here, doing her bidding." Johnny's expression darkened, and he hesitated before speaking again. "So with Alioth and her running this place, escape is impossible. She's been trying to get me for a while now."

"What's your name?"

"Johnny. Johnny Storm. Member of the Fantastic Four."

[violetasteracademic]

Does Elain Archeron want to be human again?

Theory debunk ahead.

I have personally *tried* (though I am absolutely not perfect) to take a hippocratic oath with my presence on the internet and wish to do no harm. The Libra moon to my Virgo sun is always trying to approach things peacefully. The wing 2 on my type 1 ennengram is always trying to take an open hearted approach to compassion and empathy for others while still defending my views on Elain (and Azriel).

However, the take that Elain's book is going to be centered around her acting in risky, irrational, or damaging ways because she has one goal and that is to be human again, is a theory I have ZERO respect for. So, with all due respect, which is none, please feel free to self insert disrespectfully at the end of each point as I systematically debunk this theory. This is probably the longest post I'll ever make. Strap in.

So, where TF did this come from?

On my tiktok, I addressed the fact that the rumor that there is going to be a betrayer in the Night Court ranks has zero grounds. We should collectively start to work to realize this is as accurate as Sarah having an announcement on May 1st, but alas it is a losing battle. However, I received a comment that said they also agreed that it was fake UNTIL they saw someone use text to support it. Apparently, one of the human queens insinuated there is a traitor in the Inner Circle. This is why, even though Sarah NEVER said this, people are now continuing to push this "Elain will be a traitor" agenda. Even accidentally or unintentionally out of her desire to be human. I made a whole video on this, but for context, here is the quote being used to fuel this:

Briallyn and Nesta are in a game of chicken with Briallyn trying to force Nesta to get the Trove by threatening she'll have Cassian kill her, and he'll never recover. When Nesta calls her on her bluff and says Briallyn won't kill her, Briallyn responds that there are other court members as delusional as Nesta (she is referring to her love for Cassian making her weak, delusional, and vulnerable) and she can just keep threatening members of the Night Court's loved ones until someone gets her what she wants. However, she put in *quite* a bit of time and effort on trapping Nesta first, didn't she?

My friends. Where does Briallyn say "there is a traitor among the Inner Circle's ranks?" Where does it say there is a mole? It doesn't. Yes, Briallyn has spies. As do all courts and kingdoms. But to suggest Briallyn said there is already a traitor in the Inner Circle specifically because of these quotes is unhinged and beyond willful distortion of the text to serve an invented narrative based on an unfounded rumor. I don't have time or energy to recap the whole vid, but moving on from this for now. Disrespectfully.

The next layer of the conversation is this: They think Briallyn is probably still foreshadowing Elain because Elain wants to be human so badly she'll unintentionally harm the Night Court and betray them, somehow, because of this quote and the conversation with Amren on Solstice. To which I said, there is way too much evidence in ACOSF that Elain is healthy, adjusted, and has friends and purpose in Velaris. The response to that was, well that's Nesta's perception and we can't trust her.

While the convo on tiktok was, I felt, respectful discourse and we agreed to disagree, the parasite in my brain went into full annihilation mode over this theory after thinking on it.

Because by this logic- if we aren't allowed to trust Nesta's or Cassian's perceptions that Elain is healthy and well and adjusted, or glowing with good health and finding purpose and friends, then we ALSO aren't allowed to trust Amren's assumption that Elain was curious about her choosing her Fae form because Elain wants to be human again. Elain never actually said that. Amren assumed it:

(yes I'm bringing so many receipts I exceeded the photo limit and had to start combining pages.)

At no point does Elain say anything about wanting to be human. In fact, this entire conversation is about Elain's curiosity over why Amren chose the form that she did, why she selected the gender, ect. It's honestly an interesting conversation, and when Amren makes assumptions about Elain having ulterior motives for asking the interesting question, *Elain's brow furrows in confusion.*

Elain straightens and becomes cold at Amren's assumption Elain still wants to be human. One could read this as Elain feeling embarrassed for being called out, but the pure fact is that it isn't the only explanation. In fact, Elain has spent all day cooking for everyone, spent the week shopping for Solstice presents and waxing poetic about the importance of honoring Solstice traditions (more on that later) and participating in the Fae customs, fussing over her appearance for the dinner she prepped for, ECT. It's equally as likely that she is hurt over being misunderstood by the new friends and family she has spent the day trying to making a perfect Solstice meal for and shop for everyone. Which is, if I'm not mistaken, Elain's whole damn theme. Her loved ones don't really see or understand her, while she observed and understands everything. Far more than they give her credit for.

Or maybe Elain has a fucking BEAST FORM. And is curious about what her powers can do with changing form.

The point is, it is all theory and assumption from another character. So, the dinner conversation at Solstice is now off the table using the very logic enforcing the Elain betrayal plotline by suggesting Nesta's perceptions of her are untrustworthy. So are Amren's. What's next? Disrespectfully.

There's only one other item people can use, from ACOFAS, which is Feyre's perception that Elain still wants Grayson. Which again, by this logic, is off the table now.

Feyre is the one who says Elain wants a human man. Elain didn't. So this can no longer be used as evidence.

All Elain says is Lucien is not entitled to her time and affections, and it's impossible for Lucien to care for her because he does not know her. Hmm. Someone thinking they know and care for Elain without actually knowing her. Theme, anyone? I thought I heard a theme bell chime.

Alright. So Nesta is wrong about Elain. Amren is wrong about Elain. Feyre is wrong about Elain.

So where are the grounds that Elain still wants to be human based on the text?

They don't exist.

But oh, that's not even the fun part! NOW is the fun part.

By eliminating others perceptions of Elain from the conversation as they are unreliable, what does that leave us?

Perhaps with Elain's own words and actions and nothing else?

You guys, I felt like a kid in a candy story with this one. Let's see what Elain told us about her thoughts regarding the human lands, starting with the most recent publication ACOSF:

Elain describes in great detail how she was bullied by other girls when she was younger. It's interesting, because Nesta previously said that Elain used to love balls and parties. And yet here, we find out that Elain wasn't treated well by the other girls in her own words speaking on her own experience. She goes on to *shudder in distaste* that in the human lands, it would have been perfectly suitable for Nesta to have been married off and "reserved" until she was old enough to reproduce. A thought that made Rhysand, a Fae, choke on his wine. And then of course, those same girls that tormented her delighted in her downfall.

When Elain speaks for herself instead of others speaking for her, it doesn't seem like she thinks very highly of the human lands, their customs, or their behavior, or the balls she attended does it? She certainly doesn't have any friends or anyone she misses. Everyone turned their backs on the sisters when they lost their money. And Elain witnessed this with Grayson as well, who turned his back on her the second her circumstances changed against her will again.

So uh, no. I don't think Elain is desperate to go back there.

And if course we have this ACOMAF banger:

So.... yeah. In Elain's own words, sharing her thoughts and beliefs, this is what she thinks about the rulers of the mortal lands. By the way, these same queens had her kidnapped and risked her life and took everything from her so they could test out whether mortals could survive being thrown in the Cauldron. But please, tell me more how Elain misses her human life so much that she'll screw over her friends and family to get it back. Disrespectfully.

Alternatively, in A Court and Frost and Starlight, here are the lovely thoughts Elain had about Fae culture:

Here's Elain working with her friends to bake Feyre's birthday cake, a representation of the three sisters:

Here's Elain surprising Nesta and Azriel with presents her very first Solstice, after chatting with local vendors and working with the Night Court's trusted healer:

Here is what Elain, Elain and no one else, has to say about being a member of the night court and ready to use her powers to serve it:

This is what happens when you cherry pick context. You create a new set of rules, which people like me are more than willing to follow. And if the rule is: Elain's thoughts and feelings are the only pieces of evidence allowed and not anyone else's thoughts or perceptions of her, it actually only proves the theory that Elain is going to betray the night court because she wants to be mortal again and return to the mortal lands even more wrong. Considering the theme once again, of how misunderstood and unseen Elain has been, the unbelievably ironic meta-ness of it all is overwhelming. Please, unplug yourself from the Matrix. Pay attention to Elain. It's in your best interest to at least attempt to see and understand her if you plan to read her book, or you are going to be very lost and confused.

Disrespectfully.

[amorphousbl0b]

Arcane does a fun thing with its narrative Darkest Hour.

Or: yet another post about how insanely smart this show is and how absolutely genius its writers are (and how jealous of them I am).

For the uninitiated, the Darkest Hour is the moment just before the climax in which the heroes are at their lowest point. When the Avengers are scattered and Loki opens the portal in NYC, when the Falcon has escaped the Death Star but lost Obi-Wan, when the Fire Nation is set to annihilate the Earth Kingdom, when Frodo fails to destroy the Ring at the Crack of Doom. The heroes must confront their flaws and change for the better for a happy ending.

Arcane’s darkest hour is, of course, in Act 3. One might place it at the very end of episode 9, and that’s certainly where the story is at its most hopeless. But I’d contend it starts as early as the end of episode 8 and carries on through the entirety of episode 9.

After all, that’s when Caitlyn and Vi have separated, lost all hope, and Cait is kidnapped by Jinx. Jinx’s mind is fully gone and throughout the episode everything falls apart around her. Silco is losing control of his chembarons and may well have lost his daughter, the thing most precious to him, and is only barely keeping his powerful façade in line. Zaun has realized how ridiculously outmatched they are in a war with Piltover and the revolutionary cause has become almost impossible. Viktor has manslaughtered his assistant and may never be cured. Jayce has manslaughtered a child and finally realizes how quickly he’s losing his morals. Mel and her mother are fully separating and she is struggling with her warlike destiny. Sevika gets the absolute snot beat out of her and limps to an empty office without a boss.

So yeah. Lot of personal Darkest Hours going on.

“But what’s the interesting thing?” I hear you ask in my ear. I don’t know why I hear you. Shut up. I’m writing. Are you even real?

Excuse me.

Arcane’s interesting twist on the Darkest Hour lies in part of the trope that I didn’t mention. That’s in the villain.

Most stories with a clear-cut villain have a plot structure something like this:

Whether things are going well for one side is inversely proportional to the other. During the Darkest Hour, when the hero is at their weakest, the villain is at their most dominant.

Wait… isn’t Silco the villain of Arcane? Not to be too blunt, but he’s having a shit time. Things are falling apart for him just as badly as for everyone else.

That's the trick. Caitlyn and Vi are suffering. Jinx is suffering. Silco is suffering. Jayce is suffering. Viktor is suffering. Zaun as a whole is suffering. There is only one party in the whole story that isn't suffering, that actually is benefitting from this horrid state of affairs...

EKKO AND HEIMERDINGER

Kidding. They're not really a part of this dance. A big part of Arcane's theming is that acting to help people without an agenda is simply more virtuous than fighting for any invariably-flawed nation that innately perpetuates the cycle of violence.

No, the side that is doing fine is the other that is conspicuously absent from my two prior lists. While the characters that make up its leadership are experiencing personal Darkest Hours, the organization itself is essentially on top of the world, having just scored a huge victory and getting set to bring the war to an end before it even begins. I mentioned how poor the situation for the Undercity looks, but not its counterpart.

Piltover.

Wasn't it so that Piltover started this whole mess? Didn't their oppression cause the revolt that orphaned Vi and Powder's parents? Isn't it their actions that drive Silco to ever greater extremes? Isn't it their normalized political backstabbing that causes Jayce to sacrifice his principles because that's the only way to get ahead? Isn't it their corrupt police force that lets Silco operate his drug empire with impunity?

Silco might look the part. He might be the most personally evil character, might be the one who causes the most misery for our main protagonists Vi and Powder.

But structurally, the shining city of Piltover, its political machine, and its Enforcers are the actual villains of Arcane.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Settler colonialism generates conflict between the colonist usurpers and the Indigenous population. No population is willingly displaced. But if a conflict involves two or more “sides” fighting over differing interests or agendas, then a colonial struggle is not a “conflict.” Colonialism is unilateral. One powerful actor invades another people’s territory to either exploit it or take it over. There is no symmetry of power or responsibility. The Natives did not choose the fight. They had no bone to pick with the settlers before they arrived. The Indigenous were not organized or equipped for such a struggle, and they had little chance of winning, of pushing the settlers out of their country. The Natives are the victims, not the other “side.” Nor, to be honest, are they a “side” at all in the eyes of their conquerors. At best they are irrelevant, a nuisance on the path of the settler’s seizure of their country, an expendable population, one that must be “eliminated,” if not physically annihilated then at least reduced to marginal presence in which they are unable to conduct a national life and thus threaten the settler enterprise. Such a process of unilateral, asymmetrical invasion that provokes resistance on the part of Native peoples threatened with displacement and worse can hardly be called a “conflict.” Rather than the “Israeli/Palestinian/Arab Conflict,” we must speak of Zionist settler colonialism.

Jeff Halper, Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State

[mossadspypigeon]

so, other than calling people antisemites, do you have any actual arguments against palestine? do you have any mercy for the people killed? or is bombing schools antiterrorism?

the antisemitism expressed by palestinians isn’t enough lmao?

also bombing wchools? bitch, school hasn’t been in session in a YEAR. hamas was operating out of a fucking school. no students were killed. hamas leaders and members were.

hamas can turn former schools into military bases, can ONLY target women and children, can kidnap and murder jews, can turn children’s bedrooms into rocket launching pads and build tunnels under kids’s beds and LIE ABOUT THE DEATH COUNT LMAO and they are still above reproach to you idiots.

hamas’ entire agenda can be ACTUAL GENOCIDE of jews and they can take the protocols of the elders of zion as fact:

ever read hamas’ charter? lmao

but antisemitism is okay to all of you right? wanting jews annihilated is a perfectly okay goal to you?

you realize hamas’ goal is to reinstate the caliphate system, but expand it all over the world?

like lmao you don’t even know who you’re shilling for. this is basic colonization.

you all infantilize arabs, especially palestinians, because the “poor lil muslims must be violent and want death” and excuse them of any bad behavior. it’s disgusting and orientalist. they can kill and rape whoever they want and you still defend them. they can express all the nazi views in the world and you still think they’re great.

pathetic honestly.

like the antisemitism and jew hate expressed by them aren’t enough for you to go “oh wait, maybe they aren’t the good guys.” 😂🤦🏽‍♀️

[thebuhonerodazorrow]

Venom: Lethal Protector #4 (2023)

By dark reason

Marvel

[hellosweetart]

Can I hear some headcanons for Lilith and Drugia? :>

I'll do my best to explain my headcanons. Quick heads up- I might say something that doesn't make any sense so I apologize in advance 😵‍💫

Drugia

She and her soul-eater husband are one of the first occupants of the Astral Circle building. While she doesn't have any personal hatred towards humans, she likes to mess them up by invading into their dreams and create their worst nightmares for own twisted pleasure. She control the magic orbs that allows her to spy on the victims' activities and once she identified what fears them the most, she will take every opportunity to make their nightmares as hellish as possible. Drugia is part of Yog's circle of allies. He often asked for her alliance in case he needs more blood to consume and more pets/brides to abduct. The vampire pays her with human souls in exchange, much to her husband's delight.

Lilith

She and her twin sister's natural beauty are frequently compared to Yan Luo's but their powers are as level as the common ritualists in Astral Circle markets, so they're not as popular as the Princess of Death. She has practiced witchcraft all her life by making enchanted potions, and any type of incantations. (She charges her clients per one magic spell) Lilith is good friends with most of the ritualists, and has maintained a healthy rivalry with them, (mainly Zoth) and seeks mentorship when needed. While her human counterpart is more of an extrovert, Lilith is the opposite. She prefers to work by herself and is not fond of showing off her talent. She is also more of a neutral one towards humans.

Here is a bonus one:

Teutates

Teutates (or Teu, as he's called by some of his peers) is one of the newest occupants in Astral Circle building. Because of his cold and ruthless demeanor, he earned the title of becoming one of the most feared beings in all of Astral Circle. While he does not hesitate to annihilate any humans (regardless of their race and gender), he does not find any enjoyment of any kind of torture, and prefers to finish the job quickly. (He can commit merciful killing the handicapped if needed.) He is professionally trained both in gun and knife combat, much like his human counterpart Steven, but he is more of an assassin rather than a soldier. Like Drugia, he is also part of Yog's circle of allies. He may have done something controversial that causes Yog to lose his trust towards him, but they've eventually made an agreement to not bring up their personal agenda into their work moving forward.

Do you guys like these type of headcanons? Feel free to leave a comment 🙂

[dragoneyes618]

The Left in the West is also almost uniformly hostile to Jews and Judaism, and the further Left one is on the political spectrum the more intense is the antisemitism. In the United States, for example, the Socialist Workers Party argued that "the major task confronting American revolutionaries [as regards the Middle East] remains that of educating the radicalizing youth...for destruction of the state of Israel. In 1972, the party's paper, the Militant, criticized the Palestinian terrorists' murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, but only on the grounds that it made "the criminal look like the victim." The Communist Party USA differed from the Socialist Workers Party in that it conceded Israel's right to exist. But typical of its view of Zionism is this statement in the party's journal by Hyman Lumer, the party's theoretician on the Middle East: "Zionism is...in its very essence a racist ideology. It sets the Jewish people apart as a special people, a 'chosen' people - if you will, a superior people. In Israel, the Zionist rulers have created a racist state."

Similar denunciations of Jewish nationalism were made by other Communist parties in the West. Individuals on the revolutionary Left were even more aggressive. Vanessa Redgrave, for example, the Academy Award-winning actress and a member of the Central Committee of the British Workers' Revolutionary Party (a Trotskyite Communist organization) made a propaganda film for the PLO in the late 1970s, at a time when the PLO was officially committed to Israel's destruction. In it, Redgrave performed a sensuous dance with a PLO machine gun. Under the guise of only attacking Zionists and Zionism (the film uses the Arabic word for Jew, Yahud, but the English subtitles speak of "Zionists"), the movie utilizes some classic Jew-hating images. In one scene Redgrave asks a young Arab girl, "What would you do if he [a Jewish soldier] tried to kill you?" Marie Syrkin, in a critique of the film, wrote: "At this point my mind wandered to the prioress of The Canterbury Tales who devoutly recounts a medieval tale of a Christian child murdered by the Jews. the killing of children: the hoariest of antisemitic libels."

The non-Communist far Left was similarly single-minded in its attacks on Israel and the Jews who identify with it. For example, during the 1970s the left-wing National Lawyers Guild sent a delegation to only one country in the world to examine human rights - Israel. The delegation met with PLO representatives, heard their story, and returned with a report denouncing Israel. A Jewish lawyer in the group wrote a dissenting report, but the National Lawyers Guild suppressed it.

At the Harvard Law School in 1979, leftist Third World students sponsored a conference on "Human Rights in the Third World." Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz reported that, "At that time, there were massacres in the Central African Republic, the blood of people killed by Idi Amin was still fresh in people's minds, and the atrocious record of Libya on human rights could well have been discussed. But only one item concerning human rights as placed on the agenda: 'The So-Called Nation of Israel's Terrorism and Genocide.'"

The title of the Harvard leftists' program on Israel exemplifies two characteristics of contemporary left-wing antisemitism: (1) the denial of Jewish nationhood, hence the appellation "the so-called nation of Israel," and (2) the constant accusation of genocide against the Jewish state. The charges are related in an Orwellian manner. The denial of Jewish nationhood legitimates all efforts at annihilating the Jewish state and Zionists, what may truly be called genocide. But this genocidal attempt against Israel is then inverted and projected from the enemies of Israel onto Israel itself.

Thus it is not coincidental that on one issue, the annihilation of Israel, the far Left, and neo-Nazis agree. On April 14, 1970, the New York Times reported that the radical Black power leader Stokely Carmichael declared, "I have never admired a White man, but the greatest of them, to my mind, was Hitler." In Chicago in October 1970, a speech by Israel's foreign minister, Abba Eban, was picketed by the far Left Youth Against War and Fascism and by the American Nazi Party.

Leftist antisemitism has also deeply infected left-wing Christians. Among Protestant groups, the World Council of Churches and affiliates such as teh (US) National Council of Churches were among the ajor advocates of recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization, even though at the time the PLO was committed to the destruction of Israel and was the world's leading supporter of terrorism against Western democracies. Siilar support was offered by the American JFriends Services Committe, which represents American Quakers.

In 1976, the Christian Science Monitor was the only one of the fifty major newspapers in the United States to condemn Israel's raid on Entebbe, Uganda's main airport, where PLO terrorists were preparing to murder Jewish passengers on a hijacked plane.

The same situation holds for the Catholic Church, wherein Leftist theologians, clergy, and lay leaders with Third World Orientations have combined traditional church resentment of the "old Israel" with the Left's resentment of the new Israel. One such leader was Archbishop Hilarian Capucci, formerly of Jerusalem. On August 18, 1974, Israeli police caught Capucci, smuggling weapons and explosives for terrorists to kill Israeli civilians. Though Israel sentences him to twelve years in prison, it released him after fewer than three years at the personal request of Pope Paul VI.

Upon his release, Capuci declared, "Jesus Christ was the first fedayeen [Arab freedom fighter]. I am just following his example." A short time thereafter, he celebrated a Mass "in protest against the genocide perpetrated against the Arab people." A Catholic journal, Resumen, responded to Capucci's activities with a denunciation of his "propaganda pamphlets which revive the myths which make Capucci a Jesus and the Israelis deicidal mercenaries." In January 1979 Archbishop Capucci attended meetings in Damascus of the Palestine National Council, the supreme authority of the PLO, which had earlier made him an honorary member. Twenty-three years later, in 2002, Capucci repeatedly and publicly spoke up in favor of Palestinian suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians.

Whereas in the past, Christian attitudes toward Jews were almost uniformly hostile, today such hostility emanates almost exclusively from Christianity's far Right and Left. On the other hand, moderate and conservative Christians in the United States are among the most aggressive supporters of Jewry and Israel's right to exist.

The Left has opposed Jews both for their religion and for their nationality. The Jewish fusion of religion and nationality is anathema to both the secularism and the universalism of the Left. This partially explains why the Left, though so hospitable and supportive of the national liberation movements of almost all other peoples, is so antagonistic to the nationalism of the Jews. It was regarding this Leftist hatred of the Jews that Social Democrat Irving Howe wrote, "In the warmest of hearts there is a cold spot for the Jews."

From Marx and the French socialists to to the Soviets, the Third World, and Western leftists today, an intense Jew-hatred has prevailed. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Antisemitism has become a unifying global ideology of the totalitarian Left." And many on the nontotalitarian Left have been compromised by their "no enemies on the Left" attitude. Thus a movement founded, established, and supported in large part by Jews has come to constitute, along with the Arab/Muslim world, the Jews' greatest enemy at this time.

- Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, pages 133-136

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Dion J. Pierre Harvard University has awarded most of the degrees it withheld from pro-Hamas protesters as punishment for their participating in an unlawful demonstration at Harvard Yard, further feeding an impression that its tough talk about discipline and restoring order was contrived to temper negative publicity prompted by its alleged refusal to address antisemitism on the campus. According to The Washington Free Beacon, which first reported the story, Harvard conferred degrees to 11 of the 13 protesters whose behavior during the final weeks of the semester prompted several warnings from the university. Responding to the university’s amnestying him and other protesters, one graduate reviled Harvard on social media anyway, denouncing the institution as cynical and rapacious. “What does it mean to be conferred a degree from a university that holds millions of investments in illegal occupation, bankrolls the annihilation of Palestinians, and mistreats its students for a political agenda,” Asmer Asrar Safi said in comments quoted by the Free Beacon. “While we know our fellow organizers … will continue to mobilize, please remember that every student, faculty, and staff member at the university has a responsibility to challenge the status quo.” Harvard later said in statements to the Free Beacon and The Harvard Crimson, the school’s official campus newspaper, that nothing about its decision is amiss. “Consistent with its May 22 statement, the Harvard Corporation has voted to confer degrees to 11 eligible candidates who have been restored to good standing following the completion of Faculty of Arts and Sciences processes,” a university spokesman said. “The university continues to work to strengthen and improve disciplinary processes, such as the recently announced procedures to enable the work of the University Committee on Rights and Responsibilities to enhance the consistency of investigation and factfinding [sic] processes in cases involving more than one school.” This latest news follows earlier reporting that Harvard “downgraded” disciplinary sanctions it levied against several pro-Hamas demonstrators who participated in occupying Harvard Yard. The shocking development likely erased the good will Harvard regained by appearing to embrace an approach to discipline that would deter future unruly behavior as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate incidents the protesters perpetrated throughout the school year, which damaged the reputation of the institution and prompted a slew of lawsuits and federal investigations.

Look for more Harvard campus pogroms this next school year, thanks to Harvard administration's obvious disdain for their Jewish students. Campus (and off-campus) Hamas supporters will take advantage.

[donnapalude]

Okay, I want talk about the scene in Fullmetal Alchemist were Mustang almost kills Envy, because I think a lot of people see it as a weak, needlessly moralistic scene and they are so wrong. I think it's actually one of the most important scenes in the manga, as it effectively develops previous themes about political leadership, violence, and military power, as well as providing a nice piece of character work.

I have seen some misunderstandings surrounding this scene and I believe they are tightly linked with misunderstandings about Mustang's personality flaws and character arc. A lot of people seem to think that this scene is about stopping Mustang from committing a terrible act that would somehow corrupt his character. Simplistically, they think that the narrative that FMA is pushing is the following: in the past Mustang has killed a lot of people for the wrong reasons. Killing for revenge is wrong. If he kills Envy he will show that he is still someone that kills for the wrong reasons and that he cannot be trusted not to commit future atrocities.

Because they read things this way, they think the scene does not make much sense. After all, is killing someone in revenge for the death of a friend really a wrong thing to do? Even if we decide it is, killing only one person in vengeance is completely different in gravity and scale from committing state-sanctioned genocide: if he could morally pivot from the latter and set to a better path, a little slip on something comparatively minor should cause no major issues in his life and in his ascension to head of the country. At the very least it should not warrant the extremely worried reaction it gets from other characters.

What I think people miss in this analyis, however, is that the main problem Mustang has as a character is not that he committed very heinous acts in Ishval. That's the (terrible) result of his personality and choices, but it's not, in itself, something that indicates he is predisposed to mindless killing. He is not Kimbly, the issue here is not that his friends see him as someone drawn to cruelty, on the edge of a slippery slope everytime he indulges.

The actual main problem he has is that, at his core, he is someone that one day declared he wanted to help people and make the country a better place and, in order to do that, he proceeded to (1) find and learn the most destructive alchemy he could get his hands on, and (2) enter and support an organization (the military) that would give him the power over others to realize his vision of justice, through every extreme mean possible. He could have done literally anything else, but these were his choices. He did not believe in the cause of the Ishvalan genocide, but he did believe becoming a human bomb for the military under a military dictatorship was genuinely the most morally correct way to help his country.

This tells us a couple of things about the person Mustang is before Ishval.

First, he is someone that believes he has a very good grasp on what's right and what's wrong, and his views on that are fairly black and white.

Second, he will not stand for the existence of which is outside his idea of justice, rather he will pursue its annihilation. Maybe that's not how he see things consciously, but there is little other logical consequence to becoming an atomic-bomb army officer under idealistic notions that you are going set the world right.

Third, it is not sufficient for him to pursue his agenda on an individual basis: he wants and thinks he should be given the control over others that an institutionalised setting can provide. Moreover, he has no problem envisioning a military dictatorship as that setting. He initally sees it as a more than acceptable form of government, one which, in fact, he would very much like to join.

This is Mustang before Ishval. The thing is that, by and large, this is also Mustang after Ishval. Fundamentally, he still believes he has a very good grasp of what is morally the most correct thing to do and he still sees it as a fairly black and white issue. He has clearly decided genocide is not in line with his beliefs about the good of the country, but he still brings the same approach to said beliefs: he is uncompromising, he will go to extreme extents to realise his vision of justice, and he believes he should be put in a position of power to do so. If anything, his newfound mistrust for the people in charge has lead him to believe that actually, by just becoming a part of the military, he has not gone far enough.

He needs to be in charge.

So, what we see, is that in reality only two aspects of his personality get profoundly challenged in Ishval and they go on to become the fulcrums of his character arc: (1) his trust in the military as an institution, and (2) his willingness to annihilate the enemy through very extreme violence. And, as already mentioned, by the start of FMA they have only been challenged. There's still an open question on both these issues.

Initally, he mistrusts the brass, but not Amestris's form of government itself. His plan is to become Führer, apparently by going through promotions. The decision to coup comes only with the discovery of the government conspiracy. Realising that the system needs to change is fundamental in setting up his actions as adequate to the proposed aim of making up for Ishval. However, that is not relevant for the Envy scene.

What the Envy scene is trying to highlight, is the second line of self-doubt that Mustang is facing, that is his misgivings about the level of distruction he is able and willing to enact to support his moral intransigence. The reason Hawkeye and Ed (Scar's motivations are a bit more mixed imo, other post may follow) don't want him to kill Envy is not because of a bland message of "vengeance is bad". It's not even that they believe this act will make Mustang a monster. First of all, he is already a monster and second they obviously don't believe this will trigger some sort of moral devolution that will turn him into a serial killer. That's not the problem here.

The problem is that he is asking people to trust a man that responds to perceived enemies with total and violent annihilation with the leadership of a country, and (granted, when he is at his worse) he thinks his judgment in deciding who is an enemy deserving said annihilation is unimpeachable and unquestionable. That's what they are dealing with. It's not about saving Mustang's little soul from the sin of vengeance, catholic-style. It's about a pattern of behaviour he has demonstrated that sees him disinclined to both accept nuances in morality when his core beliefs are attacked and enact nuanced reactions to slights against said beliefs. These are very dangerous character flaws for someone that wants to be the leader of a free country. In fact, they are pretty much antithetical to political freedom itself.

That's why Mustang cannot kill Envy. Because doing so would mean he has taken a decision as judge, jury and executioner and he is ready to deliver punishment. Killing other homunculi because they were trying to destroy him/his friends/the country was different in that (1) it was more in line with self-defense that anything else, and not even pre-emptive; (2) it was the only possible proportionate reaction given that they are immortal monsters that no prison can hold (although everyone still gets rightly unnerved by how brutal Roy's methods are). If someone else killed Envy, even out of vengeance, that would still not pose the same problems. For someone who does not have the same history of perceived righteous violence, this would be an isolated issue brought on by the situation. For someone that does not wish to be Führer, this would be a merely personal decision. Because Mustang is Mustang, the personal must become political. Because Mustang is Mustang, he needs to prove that he has changed and he does not believe anymore that the way for a better world is to crush anyone against him. It's not that he cannot be trusted to do a wrong thing and come back. It's that he cannot be trusted to do a right thing and come back. The fact we perceive his position as sympathetic is exactly the point. Roy's story is exactly about someone that did a lot of evil firmly believing they were going to do a lot of good.

By giving up his self-righteous kill he shows that he is able to at least question his own vision of justice and that he can allow the existence in this universe of things that don't align with that vision. In this scene, Hawkeye lowers the gun at his back both physically and simbolically. Of course we can expect there will be other moments of doubts in the future, but for the purposes of this manga this scene concludes the thematic arc which questions whether a man with Roy's powers, past, and personality can ever be trusted to lead a country and bring freedom to it.

TL;DR: In the manga FMA, the scene where Mustang tries to kill Envy is misunderstood as a moment of misguided moralistic messaging against revenge-killing, which inadequately compares this kill to his previous war crimes by implying other characters want to stop him in order to save him from the corruption caused by killing again for the wrong reasons. Actually, the scene effectively develops previous themes and Mustang's character by showing that in order to be trusted as a leader he needs to prove he is capable of accepting some form of moral relativism and that he renounces complete destruction of enemies as the only/best way to achieve good in the world.

[commiepinkofag]

[Genocide Joe] Biden: 'I Am a Zionist'

From 2021, but worth a read, from Truthout:

Christian Zionism must be challenged as a powerful threat to a larger progressive agenda. Because Christian Zionism is predicated on Christian salvation coinciding with the end of the world and annihilation of non-Christians, Christian Zionism is at its core anti-Muslim and antisemitic. — Jonathan Brenneman & Aidan Orly | Truthout | May 20, 2021

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Wajahat Ali at The Left Hook Substack:

Donald Trump is apparently strong, fit, vigorous and a self-proclaimed “very stable genius.”

So, it’s odd to learn that he knows nothing about Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump Administration, which his own super PAC has referred to as “Trump’s Project 2025.” It is also supported by the most influential conservative think tanks and donors. Perhaps Trump, a 78-year-old man, has lost several steps due to his old age and this explains his sudden amnesia, alongside his numerous gaffes and brain farts. It’s troubling that a man running to be the President of the United States allegedly knows “nothing” about an expansive document created by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank that lays out in detail exactly what will happen on the first day of Trump’s second Administration. Trump adds, “I disagree with some of things they’re saying and some of things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”  Well, what does he disagree with exactly?

Does he disagree with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts who made headlines this week when he said America is in the process of a “second American revolution” and warned the majority it would be bloodless only “if the left allows it to be?” Does Trump, as stated, “wish them luck” with this Project 2025 endeavor, which by the way Kevin Roberts says Trump gets “full credit” for creating?  Or does Trump agree with Project 2025’s full agenda, which includes gutting the administrative state, purging the government and installing MAGA loyalists, attacking women’s rights, weakening Social Security, annihilating the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, suspending immigration to the United States, and cutting disability pay for veterans by $160 billion? (Max Burns has a solid Twitter thread which outlines other horrific aspects of the plan.) 

[...] Hang Project 2025 around their necks, and let them succumb under all its rancid, oppressive weight. 

Wajahat Ali has a simple strategy regarding Project 2025 and the GOP: “Hang Project 2025 around their necks, and let them succumb under all its rancid, oppressive weight.”

See Also:

Robert Reich's Substack: Beware: Trump is Project 2025