#and it shouldn’t be used as a comparison to what Islam is

[by-inky]

Why do you put your scarabia oc in a stereotypical belly dancing outfit? And using islamic name at it too..

hi honey I don’t know if this ask was meant for me but if it is, please do you research fist <3

let’s see for comparisons together, ok? since it seems you can’t find the obvious differences by yourself

↑ this would be your stereotypical belly dancing outfit

↑ this is Amira’s usual outfit

kinda wild huh? take your time to read, don’t worry <3

[note: I only used stereotypical belly dancing costumes I found on the internet. I don’t want anyone to bark at me because I didn’t use accurate outfits. the ask talked about stereotypical stuff, I put stereotypical stuff.]

I personally think Amira’s outfit is pretty causal. it’s just a top with shorts and a coat. if you don’t think so, I literally couldn’t care less :)

and about her name, it’s not only an Islamic name. it’s a pretty common name that can also be found in countries with a Hindu or Judaism background. however, you shouldn’t focus on the religion of some place for the names, but on the culture. I gave her that name because it’s Arabic (like for Kalim and Jamil) and because I think it’s pretty

are you being influenced by someone? I’ve seen some beef online about scarabia ocs and I genuinely try to not make Amira offensive in any kind of way. if you are, please do some research by yourself or actually think about it before sending asks of this kind. what you said was 101% wrong, since I didn’t take any references from belly dancers to create her outfit, and looked for a name that could be used in other countries other than only in the ones with Islam followers, and still make sense with her backstory.

and anyways, what’s wrong with using an Islamic name? it sounds like it’s a taboo or sum. also hate to break it to you, but Kalim’s and Jamil’s names are also names used in countries with Muslims (omg!! how dare they!!/s)

if you don’t have anything smart to say, please refrain to do so :) and if Amira seems offensive to you for whatever nonsensical reason, just block me and that’s all <3 bye bye!

[aftabkaran]

Hi I’m a white westerner with a question if that’s ok please? I only heard about what is happening in Iran from tumblr, it hasn’t even shown up on my Twitter trends or from anyone I follow and the only thing I heard on the news was a brief statement that ‘Iran has erupted into protests after police brutality’ and then they moved on to something else. I’ve spent the last few hours reading things and trying to understand what’s going on and I want to be a better ally.

My question is that I have seen a few posts where people are saying ‘just because these women in Iran are protesting the hijab doesn’t mean other women in other countries don’t want to wear it’ and then people, yourself included which is why I am asking you, have said things like ‘stop making this about you’. I want to assure you I am sincere when I ask, how are comments like that making it about them? I am not a Muslim women so I don’t understand all the layers and history, but I see those comments and interpret them as someone saying don’t harass women in a hijab. I have grown up unlearning a lot of islamaphobia, so when I see people say ‘some people in the west want to wear a hijab’, based on my experiences, I feel like it’s a call to protect Muslim women because older people where I’m from will use any excuse to harass muslims. I understand I am only seeing this from my lived experiences and again I don’t understand all the layers, but I don’t see how those comments are making it above themselves? If you are comfortable may you please explain it to me?

I have learned (I think?) the situation in Iran isn’t strictly about the hijab under the current regime you are risking your life and are seemingly legally allowed to be harassed by other men and beaten up by police so taking off the hijab is protesting the mistreatment and oppression of women. And they are protesting regime not religion? Is this correct?

I’m sorry for the long message and I hope you know I am messaging with good intentions and a very limited understanding and I am not a troll. I saw your bio said it was ok to ask. Thank you and I will keep trying to learn and understand.

hello stranger. no offence taken.

A huge problem when discussing third world countries in west is that westerners only seem to grasp what our issues mean in relation to them. for example when an Iranian journalist is posting online all some westerners comment on is which western organisation she works for and that becomes her identity to them. it's a very western centric way of thinking because these people exist in a rich context that is wholly alien to westerners. It would be if I only knew Paul McCartney as that guy who visited Tehran once and nothing else. of course McCartney did visit Iran but that's far from what defines him in west.

Similarly, when discussing hijab what it means in the context of Iran is completely different from what it means in say France. when you start comparing these two-even if the comparison is valid- one side of the comparison is bound to become 1.decontextualised 2.become the less significant side of the comparison because the other side is more relevant to the western discourse. so westerners who are comparing hijab in France and Iran are inevitably mostly talking about hijab in France.

As for decontextualising the issue, it’s ironically a mistake that both sides of the “islamophobic” question in west commit. Saying “women in France choose hijab like Iranian choose not to wear it” is just as much of a decontextualised argument as “woman in France shouldn’t wear hijab because Iranians don’t want to wear it”.

As for your second question, Iran is a theocracy which means the issue of religion and politics are intertwined. Of course Iranians are very religious people but we are very much fed up with political religion(not to mention a lot of what the so-called islamic government is doing can not be justified even by the most backwards rules of Islam)

There are a lot of problems in Iran today(namely state corruption and oppression of minorities) and this has been going on for years. As with many other movements, Mahsa’s murder was the straw that broke the camels back.

hope this helped

[astranva]

(Cont’d) also you saying that you wear the hijab and it shouldn’t shock people isn’t the flex you think it is. many women wear hijab, take it off and are ostracised and treated like shit. yes you’re lucky to wear it and never regret it but acting like it’s a flex that applies to all especially with someone getting killed for the same reason many people hate it/dislike it is just so appalling and tone deaf. She didn’t have a choice. It’s not about you.

bro…when did you make this about me? have you read the ask i received in which i replied with that to? the reason why i said that is because the anon told me they don’t believe in hijab, and i said that as proof that it was never just about hijab and just about sick entitlement.

saying that i chose to wore it doesn’t mean it’s a flex and it’s sad that you think so and in no way was it a comparison. what happened to Mahsa is all about abuse of religion. nobody should be forced to put on the hijab, and it’s what Islam tells us, but, like i’ve been saying for a while now, it’s more about men and abusive cultures.

you’re mixing things up when it was as clear as day what i was trying to say.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 1, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Last night at midnight, a new law went into effect in Texas. House Bill 1927 permits people to carry handguns without a permit, unless they have been convicted of a felony or domestic violence. This measure was not popular in the state. Fifty-nine percent of Texans—including law enforcement officers—opposed it. But 56% of Republicans supported it. “I don’t know what it’s a solution to,” James McLaughlin, executive director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, said to Heidi Pérez-Moreno of the Texas Tribune when Republican governor Greg Abbott signed the bill in mid-August. “I don’t know what the problem was to start with.”

Texas Gun Rights executive director Chris McNutt had a different view. He said in a statement: “Texas is finally a pro-gun state despite years of foot-dragging, roadblocks, and excuses from the spineless political class.”

The bill had failed in 2019 after McNutt showed up at the home of the Texas House Speaker, Republican Dennis Bonnen, to demand its passage. Bonnen said McNutt’s “overzealous” visit exhibited “insanity.” "Threats and intimidation will never advance your issue. Their issue is dead," he told McNutt. McNutt told the Dallas Morning News: "If politicians like Speaker Dennis Bonnen think they can show up at the doorsteps of Second Amendment supporters and make promises to earn votes in the election season, they shouldn't be surprised when we show up in their neighborhoods to insist they simply keep their promises in the legislative session.”

That was not the only bill that went into effect at midnight last night in Texas. In May, Governor Abbott signed the strongest anti-abortion law in the country, Senate Bill 8, which went into effect on September 1. It bans abortion after 6 weeks—when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant—thus automatically stopping about 85% of abortions in Texas. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. Opponents of the bill had asked the Supreme Court to stop the law from taking effect. It declined to do so.

The law avoided the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision protecting the right to abortion before fetal viability at about 22 to 24 weeks by leaving the enforcement of the law not up to the state, but rather up to private citizens. This was deliberate. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article in Slate: “Typically, when a state restricts abortion, providers file a lawsuit in federal court against the state officials responsible for enforcing the new law. Here, however, there are no such officials: The law is enforced by individual anti-abortion activists.” With this law, there’s no one to stop from enforcing it.  

S.B. 8 puts ordinary people in charge of law enforcement. Anyone—at all—can sue any individual who “aids or abets,” or even intends to abet, an abortion in Texas after six weeks. Women seeking abortion themselves are exempt, but anyone who advises them (including a spouse), gives them a ride, provides counseling, staffs a clinic, and so on, can be sued by any random stranger. If the plaintiff wins, they pocket $10,000 plus court costs, and the clinic that provided the procedure is closed down. If the defendant doesn’t defend themselves, the court must find them guilty. And if the defendant wins, they get…nothing. Not even attorney’s fees.

So, nuisance lawsuits will ruin abortion providers, along with anyone accused of aiding and abetting—or intending to abet—an abortion. And the enforcers will be ordinary citizens.

Texas has also just passed new voting restrictions that allow partisan poll watchers to have “free movement” in polling places, enabling them to intimidate voters. Texas governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign that bill in the next few days.

Taken together with the vigilantism running wild in school board meetings and attacks on election officials, the Texas legislation is a top red flag in the red flag factory. The Republican Party is empowering vigilantes to enforce their beliefs against their neighbors.

The law, which should keep us all on a level playing field, has been abandoned by our Supreme Court. Last night, it refused to stop the new Texas abortion law from going into effect, and tonight, just before midnight, by a 5–4 vote, it issued an opinion refusing to block the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent read: “The court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

Texas’s law flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents, she points out, but the Supreme Court has looked the other way. ”The State’s gambit worked,” Sotomayor wrote. She continued:  “This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a state can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry."

The Supreme Court has essentially blessed the efforts of Texas legislators to prevent the enforcement of federal law by using citizen vigilantes to get their way. The court decided the case on its increasingly active “shadow docket,” a series of cases decided without full briefings or oral argument, often in the dead of night, without signed opinions. In the past, such emergency decisions were rare and used to issue uncontroversial decisions or address irreparable immediate harm (like the death penalty). Since the beginning of the Trump administration, they have come to make up the majority of the court’s business.

Since 2017, the court has used the shadow docket to advance right-wing goals. It has handed down brief, unsigned decisions after a party asks for emergency relief from a lower court order, siding first with Trump, and now with state Republicans, at a high rate. As University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck noted: “In less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone).” In comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications—averaging one every other Term.”

So, operating without open arguments or opinions, the Supreme Court has shown that it will not enforce federal law, leaving state legislatures to do as they will. This, after all, was the whole point of the “originalism” that Republicans embraced under President Ronald Reagan. Originalists wanted to erase the legal justification of the post–World War II years that used the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. It was that concept that protected civil rights for people of color and for women, by using the federal government to prohibit states from enforcing discriminatory laws.

Since the 1980s, Republicans have sought to hamstring federal power and return power to the states, which have neither the power nor the inclination to regulate businesses effectively, and which can discriminate against minorities and get away with it, so long as the federal government doesn’t enforce equal protection.

Today’s events make that a reality.

Worse, though, the mechanisms of the Texas law officially turn a discriminatory law over to state-level vigilantes to enforce. The wedge to establish this mechanism is abortion, but the door is now open for extremist state legislatures to turn to private citizens to enforce any law that takes away an individual’s legal right…like, say, the right to vote. And in Texas, now, a vigilante doesn't even have to have a permit to carry the gun that will back up his threats.

During Reconstruction, vigilantes also carried guns. They enforced state customs that reestablished white supremacy after the federal government had tried to defend equality before the law. It took only a decade for former Confederates who had tried to destroy the government to strip voting rights, and civil rights, from the southern Black men who had defended the United States government during the Civil War. For the next eighty years, the South was a one-party state where enforcement of the laws depended on your skin color, your gender, and whom you knew.

Opponents have compared those who backed the Texas anti-abortion law to the Taliban, the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan whose harsh interpretation of Islamic Sharia law strips women of virtually all rights. But the impulse behind the Texas law, the drive to replace the federal protection of civil rights with state vigilantes enforcing their will, is homegrown. It is a reflection of the position that Republicans would like women to have in our society, for sure, but it is also written in the laughing faces of Mississippi law enforcement officers Lawrence Rainey and Cecil Ray Price in 1967, certain even as they were arraigned for the 1964 murders of James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Henry Schwerner, that the system was so rigged in their favor that they would literally get away with murder.

When they were killed, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were trying to register Black people to vote.

—-

Notes:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/437665-texas-gop-leaders-drop-constitutional-carry-bill-after-gun-rights

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/16/texas-permitless-carry-gun-law/

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1033068542/texas-voting-restrictions-bill-abbott-republicans

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/texas-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade.html

Mark Joseph Stern @mjs_DCBREAKING: By a 5–4 vote, with Roberts joining the liberals, the Supreme Court REFUSES to block Texas' six-week abortion ban. Opinions here:

s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo…

3,936 Retweets5,180 Likes

September 2nd 2021

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/1/21350679/supreme-court-border-wall-trump-sierra-club-stay-stephen-breyer

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/11/21356913/supreme-court-shadow-docket-jail-asylum-covid-immigrants-sonia-sotomayor-barnes-ahlman

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mothfishing]

genuinely i haaaaaate hate hate when people pull out the “use -misia instead of -phobia to describe bigotry!” argument, for several reasons.

1 - the usage of -phobic to describe bigotry actually predates its use to describe specific phobias. the word xenophobia was coined in 1880 and from the beginning it meant a form of bigotry against foreigners. by contrast, from what i’ve seen the term “phobia” wasn’t used to describe mental health concerns until the 1920s, when it was used to describe “social phobia”/social anxiety, and its usage for specific phobias is even later than that.

2 - words can mean different things in different contexts, and just because a word exists in a mental health context does not make it ableist to use it in other contexts. someone saying they’re anxious about X or that Y gives them anxiety is not ableist for doing so, even if they don’t have an anxiety disorder and the sort of anxiety they are describing is not the sort that the word “anxiety” is used to describe when used in a mental health context. someone saying something is depressing is not making light of depression. someone saying they’re feeling antisocial today is not referencing ASPD. and so on.

this is not an argument that language can never be ableist. saying someone is bipolar, psychotic, schizophrenic, etc etc is ableist if used outside of the context of mental health, because all of these terms originate in mental health contexts and when used outside of them, everyone is referring to a mentally ill person as point of comparison. but the fact of the matter is, sometimes a word exists in the common lexicon and then a disorder is named after it. and it would be bizarre to then say the common usage must be outlawed because it now refers to a disorder as well. there is a big gulf between casually saying someone is obsessive and saying someone is soooo OCD, is what i’m trying to say.

not to mention that the suffix -phobia has been used in multiple contexts for a very, very long time. other examples are hydrophobe, a term used to describe molecules that repel water, and photophobia, which is a term used to describe light sensitivity (aka a physical symptom, not a mental one).

it’s just a fact that the usage of -phobia to denote bigotry as in homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, and so on is not something people generally confuse with specific phobias such as arachnophobia, any more than they confuse it with physical health symptoms like photophobia or chemical properties like hydrophobia.

3 - i’ve seen the argument that -misic language is “more clear” than -phobic. it, uh, absolutely is not. no one is going to know off the top of their head that -misia is the same root word as in misogyny and misanthropy, because -misia as a suffix just is not commonly used in english. if anything it frankly obscures what the criticism even is. 

furthermore, i hate the argument that takes the suffix “-phobia” so literally and says that we shouldn’t use it because oppressors are not scared of the people they oppress. this is true, but it’s also an oversimplification to say that oppressors hate the groups they oppress. it’s not as simple as either of these things, and no one takes the word “transphobia” and associates literal fear with it, any more than they think a photophobic person is literally scared of light, or a hydrophobic molecule is literally afraid of water.

4 - finally, and what personally upsets me the most about this entire debate: the earliest source calling for adoption of the term -misia rather than -phobia...was an incredibly islamophobic and homophobic right wing blog which referred to the use of the term islamophobia as a term used by those who want to avoid their “moral critics” and so on, saying at least “islamomisic” would be more accurate, “Although I admit that actually being afraid of Islam is a valid and real phenomenon – what sane person would not fear such a murderous, oppressive system?“

so yeah lol, it kind of shocks me to see people uphold that and not even see anything weird about it

[anthropologist-on-the-loose]

bitch if you think african dictators wouldn't wipe their asses with any returned ancient artefact or sell it to the Chinese and keep the money for themselves, you're out of your mind. colonial theft was a terrible thing, but giving those objects back would ensure they're destroyed and lost forever. many Western museums fund the training of archaeologists in Africa and elsewhere - that's the only reparation that makes sense.

Wow, my first anon hate! This means I’m starting to make it big, right?

So many racist assumptions here I don’t know where to begin. Let’s list them, shall we?

Colonialism is over

All of Africa is a war zone

Western-taught academia is necessary for archeology

Non-Western countries are incapable of being responsible

Non-Western countries are only interested in money and have no desire to connect with their heritage

Only the Chinese buy black market artifacts

I think I got most of them? Feel free to point out any additional racism I missed.

Now, the only reason I am not just ignoring this is because this does bring up complex, important issues that many people genuinely do not have a complete knowledge or understanding of. I did not want to get too in-depth when I made my original post, but I have decided that at this point I do not care how lengthy this ends up being. So I am going to address those issues right here and now. Namely, the belief that Western countries should hold onto objects for the sake of preserving them and how it is thinly veiled racism.

To begin, I would recommend watching Chimamanda Adichie’s TED Talk, The Dangers Of A Single Story. It’s making big waves in the academic community as it clearly articulates to a general audience how our views of the wider world are shaped by narratives we are told, rather than the lived realities people experience.

You imply that the entire continent of Africa is ruled by corruption. Firstly, it’s not. Here’s a few pictures of modern day Africa:

Nairobi, Kenya (x)

Gaborone, Botswana (x)

Porto-Novo Benin (x)

They look like real hives of scum and villainy, the lot of them.

These people have a stable government. Artifacts would be just as safe here as anywhere else.

It’s true that not all regions of Africa have political stability. But those issues are the legacy of colonialism. People in Africa (and other parts of the world) had stable societies for thousands of years before Europeans came along and destroyed any semblance of Native political structure. And yes, while societies rose and fell, and artifacts didn’t always survive, it was only 75 years ago when WWII almost caused the complete collapse of European society. Plenty of incredibly important artifacts were lost because of it, yet for some reason I don’t see anyone arguing that Western museums aren’t “safe” enough for artifacts.

Here’s a comparison: Let’s say you have a priceless family heirloom, passed down for generations. It has important cultural significance, and you could sell it for a high price to private collectors (which, according to our current laws, you would be within your right to do so). You keep it, not only because it’s valuable, but because it has a special meaning to you. Now imagine someone broke into your house and stole that heirloom and put it in a museum. You know exactly the person who stole it, and you have ample evidence of how they violated your rights. So you go the court and present your evidence and ask if you could have your heirloom back. But now the court says that no, you can’t have it back, because clearly you weren’t responsible enough to prevent it from being stolen in the first place. Plus, the court argues that it’s an important piece of art and shouldn’t be hidden away in your house. Maybe, just maybe, if you build a fancy glass case for it and allow people to come see it they will give it back. But you don’t have the money to build the case because when they broke into your house they stole all your money too. You can’t even go see your family heirloom in the museum; the entrance fee is too high. And funny enough, you might have considered donating that heirloom to the museum eventually. If the museum had waited, and asked politely, and offered to let you help tell your family’s story with that heirloom, all parties might have been happy. But I’m willing to bet that now you’re not really feeling in a charitable mood.

The point of all this is, and I can’t emphasize this enough, Western museums do not have the right to dictate what other cultures do with their artifacts. We lost that right when we took them by force.

Sometimes an Indigenous community will be the bigger person. They’ll say hey, we don’t have the resources right now to preserve our history in the way we want to, since you took all economic power from us as well. Please keep our artifacts safe until we’re able to. Sometimes, they decide to build bridges and give a museum a selection of artifacts they want to be displayed. But whether or not they do this is entirely up to them.

Oh, and lastly, if you think it’s only the Chinese who buy black market artifacts and help keep colonialism alive, check out the time when the American company Hobby Lobby helped fund Islamic extremist groups by buying black market artifacts. Or if you want something more recent, here’s a guy who stole from Native gravesites for his personal collection.

Have any other arguments? Feel free to bring them up. I’d love to discuss them with you. Try to be less defensive, it’ll help your case. And this time, try not to use anon. I can’t really take you seriously this way.

[prairie-fires]

As I am writing this post and as you are reading it, the far-right Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party of India under the leadership of Narendra Modi is continuing their efforts to commit genocide against the Muslim population of India.

For those who do not know, Modi's government is doing this with brutal efficiency. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), passed in late 2019, amended the long-standing Citizenship Act of 1955 ostensibly to provide "illegal immigrants" -- and those descended from "illegal immigrants" -- in India who are Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian a path to citizenship. I say "ostensibly" because the exclusion of Muslims from this act makes the grim intentions of the CAA, and of the BJP itself, quite clear.

This is where India's National Register of Citizens (NRC) comes into play. In August of 2019 the NRC was published for the province of Assam, with Modi's government stating a desire to extend the NRC across the country. When it was published, nearly 2,000,000 people living in the province of Assam discovered that they were not considered legal citizens, and more than half of these people are Muslims.

For those who were of practically any religion or religious descent other than Islamic, the CAA provided a way for them to be granted citizenship. Those who could not prove citizenship or gain it through the CAA, regardless of whether or not they were born there or lived there for decades, are now facing the reality of being rounded up and held in one of the many """detention centers""" that are either already in operation or being rapidly built across the country to hold non-citizens until they can be deported to their country of origin.

The most important part of what I wrote above was "regardless of whether or not they were born [in India]." Because if you're a Muslim who was born there but can't prove citizenship and aren't eligible to gain it through the CAA... Where exactly are you going to be deported to? You cannot become an Indian citizen, nor are you a citizen of any other country, so you face being held in one of these "detention centers" indefinitely. The same can be said of Muslims who have lived in India for decades after they fled their country of origin due to persecution. They cannot become Indian citizens, but it's also not as if they're about to enthusiastically declare their citizenship of countries that they fled from because they were, and still would be, in danger. And so, their reality is now shaping up to be indefinite detention in concentration camps. And nothing I've said so far has mentioned the other aspects of social and political ostracization faced by Muslims under Modi's government, nor have I mentioned the many violent assaults and outright murders of Indian Muslims at the hands of extremist Hindu nationalists such as those in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, literal translation being "National Volunteer Organisation"). All of this amounts to what is undeniably genocide in motion.

When I used the words "brutal efficiency" above, I meant them. When the fascists in Germany gradually ostracized Jewish people from society, and eventually stripped them of their citizenship, it would still be some time before the camps came. The fascists in India, however, are doing all of this at the same time, with horrifying speed. I do not use this comparison lightly, nor am I using it for simple shock value. It is apt and relevant not only because of what is happening to the Muslim population of India, but because of the global attitude towards Muslims in general. In 1939, around 900 Jewish refugees aboard the M.S. St. Louis were denied asylum by the United States and Canada, and they had no other choice but to return to Europe. Why? Because they were Jewish, and many of the people in North America were either passively or aggressively antisemitic regardless of their own class or social status. Tell me, if a ship carrying hundreds if not thousands of Muslims seeking asylum from persecution in India were to show up on the shores of the United States or Canada, would these governments open their doors with warmth and let them in? Under the Trump administration certainly not, but neither is there a certainty of acceptance by any other American or Canadian administration. Furthermore, arguably more important than the question of government response is the question of whether or not we, the people of Canada and the United States, would embrace these refugees with open arms. Your compassion and optimism likely encourages you to say that we would, but the reality is that studies conducted with regards to Syrian refugees have shown that the average U.S. and Canadian citizen are even more hostile to the idea of accepting Muslim refugees now than they were of accepting Jewish refugees in the 1930's, but you shouldn't need these sorts of studies to see the violent racism faced daily by Muslims in Canada and the United States.

Of the nearly 900 Jewish passengers who had to return to Europe, more than half of them ended up in concentration camps, and a third of them died in the Holocaust.

Marx remarks somewhere that "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." But it is, as Engels said, a rotten farce. Rotten, because it is never performed by itself, nor does it occur only twice. It is tragedy after tragedy after tragedy, farce after farce after farce, time and time again, taking place not only on the stage, but amongst the audience as well. All that we may find farcical is in the audience, in ourselves. For those who sit idly by are not doing so on a stage, we are sitting on a slaughter-bench. It is a slaughter-bench upon which sits all of our virtues, all of our accumulated knowledge, all of our wisdom, and we ourselves.

“But even regarding History as the slaughter-bench at which the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of States, and the virtue of individuals have been victimized -- the question involuntarily arises -- to what principle, to what final aim these enormous sacrifices have been offered." - Hegel

To what final aim indeed.

[amygsburne-blog]

Jobs in Dubai

Many people know drones as sophisticated weapons to be used only in war zones. But this is not the case anymore. The use of drones from military purposes has expanded. Drones are now extensively used for commercial as well as personal purposes. Some drone users have taken it to the next level. These fun loving drone users use their drones to race each other. They have made it a matter of pride and a way to check who owns the better drone. This has resulted in the arrangement of dedicated tournaments related to drones with high prize money. Usually drones are equipped with 4 motors and usually of the configuration of "X" or "+", but in this particular case, the configuration which is being implemented is of the form of alphabet "H" so as to accomplish forward movement not the upward thrust as in the case of delivery or photography drones.

The main aim of this type of racing is to provide high speed to the drone and use the speed and maneuvering skills to outpace the other drones. In future, it is predicted that drone racing would very much be as popular as formula racing. Big companies will be vying to sponsor such events. In general, FPV or first person view is preferred that means the participant whose drone is racing will be able to see only what the drone's front camera can see. To achieve this, the camera is placed on the nose of the drone or on its front and is used to transmit high radio wave signals to the Jobs in Dubai  participant and hence further commands are being supplied by the user. This way drone racing becomes a very exciting race including the mental co-ordination of participant along with high end skills used in making the drone.

The first person view (FPV) lets the viewer experience flying with great speed and maneuverability, passing the hurdles in between. It increases the level of difficulty to a much higher level as compared to the normally used third person view.

Although this racing was first invented in Australia now it is getting popular in other countries too where people are getting familiar with this prestigious technology. The selection of drone material and the motor is as such to meet the requirement of high speed and to overcome crashes which are quite inevitable during the race. There are many organizations which organize these kinds of events such as DRL (Drone Racing League), U.S. National Drone Racing Championship and many others. These organizations provide their own drone materials in order to level the playing field and verify the skills of pilots across a large number of participants. Drone racing provides excitement not only through pure speed and agility, but also though the robustness in the design of these drones. Nowadays it is quite common to use the materials having high strength to weight ratio for making drones lightweight. This technology can be very expensive. Even though this kind of racing has thrilled many, connectivity and data transfer rates for FPV video provides a hindrance behind the success of this sport.

The main motive of participants, aside from the love of the sport is the high amount of cash prizes at some of these events. Following is further insight in the world of drone racing and prize money.

World Drone Prix:

Just last week, a 15 years old was able to take $250,000 home after winning the World Drone Prix in Dubai. This was first of a kind tournament in Dubai. The total prize money of the tournament was 1 million dollars with the winner getting 25% of the total prize money. The participants raced by wearing goggles. Those goggles were connected to the camera which was mounted on the drone of each racer. The kid beat one hundred and fifty amateurs and professionals to win the title. About two thousand spectators converged to watch the spectacular tournament on Sunday afternoon. The race was organized by the crown prince of Dubai. He is also the head of the city's Sports Council. This was the first ever race and Dubai plans to make it an annual event just like the Formula 1 race. You won't have to worry too much about being a foreign worker in a strange land, anxious about standing out since most of Dubai's workforce is composed of expats anyway. Do you want in a hotel in Dubai? Then consider the following tips to improve your chances.

- Do your research. Read up on which hotels or resorts have job vacancies by searching the Internet or hotel industry-related magazines. Classified ads usually describe what the job involves, so you don't have to waste time trying to figure out whether you'll be right for a certain position. You can submit your CV or resume to hotel websites or to job agencies. However, make sure that the recruitment agency you are doing business with is a legitimate, licensed company or organization. There are so many scammers out there who will charge you a placement fee and then disappear once you give them your money.

- Broaden your horizons. If you have past experience as a valet, why not consider something slightly different, like being part of the front desk reception staff? But don't get carried away; you can't expect to be considered for the position of executive chef if your background in the hotel industry is in housekeeping. If you want a higher-paying hotel job, make sure you have the necessary qualifications for your application to be considered seriously.

- Remain open-minded about job positions. Did you know that members of a hotel's service staff make a lot of money even if they aren't paid large salaries? This is because they receive plenty of tips from guests, or enjoy a share of a hotel's service charge. These extras add up to a sizable amount, so much so that their wages seem insignificant in comparison. If a management position is your ultimate goal, then you can always work your way up.

- Learn the ins and outs of living and working in Dubai. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you can act in any way you see fit in any given situation. For all its modernity and cosmopolitan feel, Dubai is still an Islamic nation (though perhaps one of the least rigorous), and there are rules and procedures concerning behavior that should be observed and followed. You shouldn't be ignorant about local customs and etiquette; it might breed ill will and cost you your job. One of the best things you can do is to read about the experiences of expats who are already living and working in Dubai. Learn from their insights about what life is like for a foreigner there.

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: Basic Islamic Phrases: Part 4

Islamic Terms

Hijra: To migrate. This term refers firstly to the great migration of the Muslims in the year 622 from the hostile city of Mecca, which was controlled by idol-worshippers, to the safer city of Madinah (then called Yathrib) where Islam could exist freely. The Islamic calendar begins with the Hijra as the first year.

'Ibadah: This term is often translated as “worship” but it is not a correct translation. The word worship in English just means praying and bowing, like worshipping in a church. But the term 'Ibadah literally means “service” and it comes from the root word, “to serve.” When we say that Islam considers all life to be 'Ibadah, we mean that our whole life should be lived in the service of Allah. We are here to serve Allah. In Islam, any good deed, action or thought, even just holding a steady job or smiling at someone is considered doing 'Ibadah for Allah.


Iblees: Satan

Iftar: The meal you eat after sunset in Ramadan. Suhoor is the light breakfast before first light in the morning during Ramadan.


Ilm: Knowledge

Imam: Literally: leader. Although most Muslims take this term in the sense of a leader of the prayers, it does apply to the group leader outside of prayer as well. An Imam must be elected by the Muslims or at least accepted by them if he is appointed from outside. If the community rejects him, then he cannot be the Imam.

Eman: (Eemaan) Belief or faith. The root word of Eman is Amuna. It implies three meanings: 1) to believe, 2) to confirm that belief in your heart, and 3) to feel safe. Eman is what makes a person a Muslim. Often spelled “Iman”.

Ihsaan: Usually translated as “goodness”. The Prophet (p) defined it as knowing that Allah is watching you even though you don’t see Him.

Injeel: The Gospel of Prophet 'Esa (Jesus). The New Testament of the Bible is not the Gospel of Jesus. The New Testament was written by a lot of different authors well after Jesus went up to the heavens, and it contains stories about Prophet 'Esa, but it is not 'Esa’s message. The present New Testament was assembled three hundred years after the time of Prophet 'Esa by a group of white men on a Greek Island who voted on what their “holy” book should contain. Most of the votes were hotly debated! The Roman emperor who ordered them to do it then told all Christians to accept this new compilation of writings. All other Christian writings were ordered to be destroyed. The New Testament contains four books called Gospels: (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Hundreds more “Gospels” from other authors were burned. A few such as the Gospel of Barnabas and Thomas have survived. The Gospel of Jesus was never written down and is lost.

Insha'llah: If Allah wills something to happen only then will it happen.

Iqamah: The second call to prayer just before the actual prayer begins.

Islam: A submission to God. To surrender to Allah and find peace. To submit oneself TOTALLY to the lord.

Jahannam: Hell.

Jam'a: Together, in a group.

Jannah: Paradise, Heaven. It literally means “the Garden.”

Jibra'il: The angel that brought Allah’s revelation to the Prophet. Allah is so powerful and majestic that it is beneath him to reveal Himself to humans. We are like an ant next to a star in comparison to Allah. He sends the angels to do these small jobs, though He doesn’t need them. In English his name is Gabriel.


Jihad: A struggle

Jinn: These are another type of creature Allah created. They are invisible to us but they can see us. They were made from fire elements and thus are pure energy. They are not like ghosts or weird monsters. They can influence your thoughts, encourage you to do wrong, and whisper fears into your mind. They can be good or bad. The good jinn leave us alone. The bad ones, who are also called Shayateen, or Devils, want to destroy you. Astrologers and fortune tellers get their “predictions” and “readings"from them. Jinn spy on the Angels and learn secrets about the future, then they whisper it into the minds of the fortune tellers. Jinn live, die and have families like us but they exist on another plane altogether. The Prophets could control the Jinn but none of us ordinary people can. Although we believe Jinn can possess a human body, Islam teaches that it’s not very common. Don’t believe every “Jinn story” Muslim immigrants will tell you about their aunt or second cousin’s brother. Most of it will be superstitious stories that are culturally based.

Jumu'ah: The Friday Prayer in which all Muslims gather to hear a sermon called a Khutba. It’s time is in place of the Zuhr Salah, usually somewhere between 12 pm and 2 pm. It is mandatory on all men to attend. It is optional for women. The Prophet said if you miss three Jumu'ahs in a row then hypocrisy will start to enter your heart.


Kafir: People who conceal the Truth and actively plot against Islam. Usually we say the easier English word “unbeliever.” The plural is Kuffar. (Unbelievers.) The noun (unbelief) is Kufr.

Khalifah: This word means Steward, Manager or Care-taker. Allah made humans to be the Khalifah of the earth. In other words, we were given the earth as a trust to take care of. We shouldn’t ruin it or pollute it. The head of the Muslim Ummah is also called a Khalifah because he is to take care of the Muslim community. Muslims are supposed to elect a Khalifah, but there hasn’t been a world-wide Khalifah for a long time.

Khatib: The person who gives the Khutbah, or Friday sermon. The preacher during Friday services.

Kitabullah: The Book of Allah. (The Qur'an.) The word Kitab means book.

Mahr: The money (or whatever else) that the man has to give to a woman in order to marry her. It is called the marriage-gift and a woman can ask for whatever she wants. If it is money, it can be deferred and paid gradually over time. The husband can never take it away for any reason.

Malik ul Mawt: The Angel of Death.

Masjid: Literally means, “the place of bowing.” This is the name for a Muslim prayer hall or commonly known as Mosque.

Madhhab: This means, “School of Thought.” In Islam we have the Qur'an, the example of the Prophet and the sayings and guidance of the Prophet’s companions. Through the centuries, various Muslim scholars have tried to make those teachings easier for Muslims to live by through organizing them, talking about them and trying to use those tools to find answers to questions where those first three sources are quiet.

Of course different opinions developed between different scholars and some people chose to follow one scholar or the other. Those differences in ideas about how to follow Islamic rules are called “Schools of Thought.” There are 4 main schools today. Some people say you have to “follow” one of those schools to be a Muslim, but this is not true. You have to follow Islamic teachings but you don’t have to put some label on yourself. Each of the four schools is named after the scholar who founded or inspired it. The four are: Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, Shaf'i. The books and writings of the schools are a good source of information about the particulars of Islam, but our real label is, “I am a Muslim, and only a Muslim.” The Hanafi and Shaf'i schools are considered the easiest school and the Hanbali is considered the hardest in terms of social and personal rules.But they are all right in their own way and it is recommended to follow one in order to safe guard ones self from following ones own desires although it is not obligatory it is recommended.

Mecca: (Also spelled Makkah). A city in Arabia founded thousands of years ago by Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham). At that time it was called “Becca.” Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was born there in the year 570.

Medina: (Also spelled Madinah). A city about 200 miles north of Mecca. The Prophet established the Islamic community there. He passed away there and is buried there.

Mu'adhan: The person who does the call for prayer.

Mujahid: A person who does Jihad or holy war.

Mu'min: A person with Iman(faith). A true believer.

Mus-haf: The Arabic text of the Qur'an. “Brother, hand me a Mus-haf.” (Qur'an with the Arabic in it).

Mushrik: A person who commits Shirk (making partners with Allah). Usually an idol-worshipper. A Hindu would be considered a Mushrik because they bow down to many idols and statues.

Muslim: A person who surrendered to Allah and is working at finding peace.

Nabi: This term means Prophet.

Nafs: This is often translated as “soul” but it really means “the self,” i.e. “You and only you.”

Naar: The fire (of Hell).

Nikkah: The Islamic wedding ceremony.


Niyyah: Intention

[quranreadalong]

#165, Surah 33

THE QURAN READ-ALONG: DAY 165

We will get to Mohammed’s sexual adventures today, but first: more whining about the cowardly fake Muslims. Some of them, 33:20 informs us, would rather be in the desert with the Bedouin clans than have to serve under Mohammed in battle (this is making me sympathize with them tbh). They should remember that Allah has sent Mohammed as an excellent example, a paragon of virtue, and therefore everyone must pattern their behavior on his own. (For someone who loved to declare his religion free of saint nonsense and such, Mo sure did a fine-ass job of turning himself into a pure holy man eh?) Therefore, real believers weren’t afraid of the siege, because Mohammed wasn’t afraid of it. Real Muslims simply believed that “Allah and His messenger are true”.

Good Muslims are the ones who stood with Mohammed in battle (or rather ready for battle), bad ones are the hypocrites who were afraid and wanted to turn tail and run. Maybe Allah will forgive them, maybe he won’t. Well, fair enough. Neutral so far. We’ll finish up this particular topic with a recap of the events:

Allah repulsed the disbelievers in their wrath; they gained no good. Allah averted their attack from the believers. Allah is ever Strong, Mighty. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.

Those last two ayat are in reference to the poor Banu Qurayza, of course. Allah tells us that their brutal end was his doing, which is bad. Hey, at least the bloodiness of the massacre meant that they made it into the Quran! Most of the Bedouin clans Mo & Crew raided never even got a mention.

At any rate, we are now going to start talking about Mohammed’s wives. This entire section is in fact personally addressed to them. It begins in 33:28, in which Mohammed says that if his wives prefer “the world's life and its adornment”, then they should leave him. But if they stay with him and are good, they will be rewarded (in heaven). I guess that qualifies as a good-Muslims-go-to-heaven ayah and is good? Whatever. Moving on to the meaty part.

O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision. O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech. And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His messenger. 

Oh lord. Let’s break this down.

The first ayah is talking about sexual immorality (fahisha). Previously, in the fourth surah, we saw that slave women get half the punishment as free women for such things--interpreted in the ahadith as subjecting them to flogging but not screaming at them. Mohammed’s wives, on the other hand, deserve to be punished twice as much as typical free woman for sexual immorality. What that means, exactly, we don’t know. Twice as many lashings? The death penalty, but extra spicy? None of them were ever found guilty of adultery (that one “slander” of Aisha was the closest they ever came to that), so it’s unclear.

Regardless, the second ayah tells them to be submissive to Mohammed (oh, “and Allah”) to get their heavenly reward. Telling women that they have to be submissive to their husband is bad and no, “doeth right” does not make up for it. The third ayah is a bit strangely translated, but you probably get the idea: Mohammed’s wives shouldn’t flatter men or speak to them in flowery language, in case it makes the men feel like they’re flirting with them. They should just speak plainly and should not use any language that could be interpreted in more than one way. Policing how your wives talk to other men seems pretty bad, tbh, but in comparison to the line before and after this, I guess it’s neutral...

Finally, 33:33, which literally instructs Mo’s wives to “stay in your houses” (which is bad). It means exactly what it sounds like: they had to stay in their houses unless they had some pressing issue requiring them to leave. Men could talk to them in their homes, but (as we will see later in this surah) they could not look at them--they had to address them from behind a curtain. This is the literal meaning of the word hijab. Some “Muslim feminist” types claim that the tradition of female seclusion only entered Islam after it absorbed Persian culture or some such bullshit. But as you can see, it was a codified part of the religion the whole time. Yes, this verse is addressed to Mo’s wives, specifically. But Mo’s wives were supposed to be role models for other women.

Also, in case you were wondering what “bedizen” or tabbaraj means, Ibn Kathir offers various opinions:

“Women used to go out walking in front of men, and this was the Tabarruj (flaunting) of Jahiliyyah.”

“[It means] When they go out of their homes walking in a shameless and flirtatious manner, and Allah, may He be exalted, forbade that.'' 

"Tabarruj is when a woman puts a Khimar on her head but does not tie it properly.'' So her necklaces, earrings and neck, and all of that can be seen.”

So... Mo’s wives can’t walk in front of men, can’t walk like it’s for sale and the rent is due tonight, and/or can’t leave their headscarves hanging straight down so their necks are uncovered. Take your pick, but all options are shitty.

One last curious note here. The last ayah above, 33:33, concludes:

Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing.

As it happens, this sentence is a bit of an odd duck. Despite being stuck to the verses commanding Mohammed’s wives to seclude themselves, a hadith says it’s about a completely different thing:

'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said:  Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

Hasan and Hussein were Fatima and Ali’s sons, with Fatima being Mohammed’s daughter. So “people of the household”, or ahl al-bayt, evidently just means Mo’s family members. Ibn Kathir notes this hadith, but then notes a dissenting opinion:

[Ikrimah, a slave/student of Mohammed’s cousin, said] "This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah:  "It was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.'' `Ikrimah said: "Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet, I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.'' So they alone were the reason for revelation, but others may be included by way of generalization.

Hmm. Ibn Kathir tries to make sense of the dissent here by saying that this “people of the household” verse applied to Mohammed’s wives and Fatima and her family, thus why it’s included in a section directed at his wives. That makes sense, I suppose, though clearly some people like Ikrimah here believed it solely applied to his wives and that the story about how it related to Fatima, Ali, et al was false.

For the record, there are other versions of the story about Mohammed wrapping Fatima’s kids with his cloak, and not all of them have this verse affixed to it. So it may be an improper conflation (or it may be a legitimate one! Who knows!). The fact that it directly follows a list of demands for Mo’s wives indicates to me that it was at least partially directed at them, in the sense that doing all these things will make them “pure”. It doesn’t really make sense otherwise.

But anyway. This section concludes with Mo telling his wives (or... whoever) to remember Allah’s revelations.

We’re around halfway through the surah, so I’ll leave it there for today. More on Mo’s sexual adventures later. Stay in your houses and don’t walk sluttily til tomorrow, pls.

NEXT TIME: The Prophet (PBUH) outlaws adoption so he can sleep with his daughter-in-law, and other tales of moral uprightness!!!

The Quran Read-Along: Day 165

Ayat: 15

Good: 1 (33:29)

Neutral: 9 (33:20-25, 33:28, 33:32, 33:34)

Bad: 5 (33:26-27, 33:30-31, 33:33)

Kuffar hell counter: 0

⇚ previous day | next day ⇛

[markhanna1896]

The War in Afghanistan and the Flight from what’s Right: Why America Shouldn’t Withdraw

I believe that the United States shouldn’t withdraw its forces from Afghanistan. Now I’m not gonna pretend that its a popular view- it isn’t. Around two-thirds of Americans support the withdrawal from our nation’s longest war, which is why both the Trump and Biden administrations supported or support the withdrawal. However, though the policy may be popular, it does not mean that it’s the right choice. America, in its 20 year war in Afghanistan, lost over 2,400 personnel, far less than in Vietnam, World War 2, or even Korea. And as of March 2021, prior to the Biden administration’s announcement of the withdrawal, the US had 3,500 soldiers in the country, as well as 7,000 NATO troops. Let that soak in. 3,500 American soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan before the Pentagon started evacuating its forces, and none of them were engaged in active combat as has been the case since 2014. For comparison, there are 28,500 American military personnel in South Korea. The Americans in Afghanistan were limited to training and advising the Afghan National Army (ANA) as well as conducting air strikes against Taliban insurgents. Neither of those are dangerous tasks for airmen or soldiers. And yet, the administrations of both Trump and Biden, in their infinite political wisdom, felt the need to completely abandon Afghanistan. What will become of Afghanistan after NATO finally quits the country? Nothing good, it seems. Already, as the map below shows, the Afghan government is rapidly losing ground to the Taliban, with most districts in the country controlled by the insurgents. In Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan’s 4th largest city, the Taliban are, very literally, at the gates and seem poised to seize the town. Speaking to reporters about the withdrawal, President Biden “denied that a Taliban takeover is "inevitable," saying that the Taliban force of approximately 75,000 fighters is no match for the 300,000 Afghan security forces”. However, just a couple of days ago it was reported that over 1,000 Afghan soldiers fled into neighboring Tajikistan to escape the Taliban, as cities, armories and villages across the country are lost, sometimes even without a shot being fired. The ANA is demoralized and weakened after being cut off from NATO advice and air support.

Afghanistan is falling to the Taliban, that rogue band of radical Islamic fundamentalists who harbored the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. And yet, rather than help the nation we sought to build, the United States instead is poised to flee the country, and leave it’s rapidly rotting carcass to the Taliban vultures. With 3,500 troops in the country we prevented a Taliban takeover that now seems inevitable. And although the Trump administration was willing to negotiate with the Taliban, an important step forward in bringing peace to the country, its determination to quit Afghanistan ASAP proved its undoing. Biden, foolishly, continued this policy and by the time US troops leave on September 11- though some will remain to guard the US embassy and the Kabul airport- the Taliban will be closer than they ever have to violently installing a rejuvenated Islamic fundamentalist regime. The United States invaded Afghanistan to get its revenge on Al-Qaeda for 9/11, but remained in the country to help build a new, democratic Afghanistan. Alas, we will abandon them to their fate, we will abandon our allies, our friends out of pure selfishness, only for Afghanistan to once again become a haven for radical Islamic terrorism like in the 90s when the Taliban governed the country. With only 3,500 troops we could have stopped this, but no, we’ll leave, we’ll continue our flight from what’s right.

[kukujain]

How to choose the best credit card?

A credit card is a very handy tool that makes life easy if managed smartly. It is also important that one understand how a credit card functions so that maximum benefits can be realized. Given the lifestyle demands, a credit card has become one of the most basic needs of any individual. And why not? If we are to analyze the uses of a credit card, we could end up counting the multiple benefits that it offers. Well, then the question shouldn’t be about whether at all we need a credit card or not. The right question should be how to choose the best credit card for ourselves.

By some estimates, there are more than 200 different credit cards in the UAE that caters to the diverse lifestyle and needs of the customer. The dilemma that one faces is- how to choose the best credit card? What is best for you may not be the same for me. When we are confronted with such relative and conditional situations, how do we determine what goes in favor of our best financial decisions?

Perhaps we can start by asking ourselves some basic questions. Before taking the plunge and narrowing down on the credit card, it is good to understand why we need it in the first place. The purpose of having a credit card varies from individual to individual. Some people may use credit cards to see them through a period of financial tight spot whereas some might use it to manage daily finances. For some people a credit card helps maintain cash flow. And no prizes for guessing that a credit card also simply enables us to indulge in opulence- whether occasionally or frequently depending upon the user.

Whatever are the reasons for expenditure, these tips must be considered before choosing the card that works best for you:

• Spending pattern – Even before we consider having a credit card, most of us already have a fair idea about our spending habits. What do we spend a lot on? Does planning a family holiday and spending on air tickets make a dent in our pockets or is it the paying of our kids’ school fees makes up for our biggest recurring expense? Sometimes events or entertainment can also count as our biggest spends and for some people expenses towards purchasing of grocery and utility are the heaviest. Hence, spending pattern is an important element while choosing the best card. There are various benefits offered by credit cards in the market which vary from a spend category perspective. For instance, one might get a higher loyalty reward (air miles, cashback, points etc.) on a certain spend.

• Annual fee: Depending on the card you choose you may have to pay an annual fee. Certain high-end cards offer additional benefits and their annual fees are also higher. You can weigh and decide if the benefits are worth the cost. However, there are some credit cards that don’t have an annual fee. Also, the bank will sometimes set a minimum amount for you to spend to remove the annual fee. You must enquire in details with the bank about the fees structure and terms.

• Instalment offers- To make the experience of owning a credit card more fruitful, a number of leading banks offer interest-free instalment schemes on purchases. Before purchasing an item, do some research to check which cards have the best instalment options. These installment plans make it easier for customers from a re-payment perspective. Most banks have attractive promotions interest rates for such installment plans.

• Benefits and rewards- There is no harm in being pleasantly surprised to learn about the benefits later but an informed choice can prove more advantageous. At the time of zeroing upon the credit card, enquire about the enjoyable aspects that your credit card offers you- the array of benefits and rewards. You can prefer to choose from a variety of cashback on purchases, movie ticket deals, air miles, discounts on school fees, dining discounts, complimentary valet parking and reward points redeemable on shopping or dining vouchers and retail merchandise. Some credit cards come with travel and lifestyle perks, such as airport lounge access, health club memberships and golf privileges to name a few. There is significant value in these benefits for customers and hence a detailed comparison of such rewards and benefits is key while choosing your next credit card.

• Incentives: Many banks offer reward programs on their credit cards and they don’t charge extra for the program. Now is that not a benefit to fall for? A program that offers flexibility of cash or travel and further gives rewards that are simple to redeem are the most beneficial. Be smart and cautious while choosing as these programs are subject to limits and conditions. It is also important to note that attractive rewards need not be the sole deciding factor, one must also review the process of redemption of such rewards. Automated redemption of rewards is a good point to look for while shopping for a credit card.

Islamic banks are Sharia-compliant so interest or profit is not charged on the outstanding amounts This might be an important factor to consider while choosing your credit card.

Looking up multiple banks’ website to know about credit card features is a thing of the past. SoulWallet collects and analyzes information about various credit cards – all in one website at your disposal. Afterall, one must always devote some time on research and verification to choose the best credit card.

[dramallamadingdang]

YAY, I AM FINISHED WITH MY SECRET SANTA GIFT! 

...Unless I think of something to add to it, which knowing me...Uh, yeah, that’s a possibility. :) I was going to play my game to celebrate, but...Kinda tired, so I don’t think I will. Think I’m gonna go catch up on @holleyberry‘s Dossanina and then toddle off to bed. :) But before I do that...

There’s political stuff re: the senatorial election in Alabama behind the cut, a reply to @caticalcorrectness. I don’t really wanna have a debate or anything, but I did want to say some stuff. But I’ll cut it so that it’s not in your face and you can choose to read it or not. :)

caticalcorrectness replied to your post: randommindtime: randommindtime: Here I am.  Just...

You’re trusting your Media? Really? -Who knows who has an interest to redline a person -and pay for his destruction. In germany it’s usually Nazism first -and then Sexuality. I myself are very carefully now in believing that shT. Most of the informations are wrong, and in your country it’s the same game!

It has nothing to do with trusting the media or not. (Which, you know, I could write a whole rant about the dangers of the far-right campaign -- spearheaded by Trumpty Dumpty himself -- to delegitimize the media...but I’ll refrain.) Moore is simply a person who is completely unacceptable as a lawmaker. Why? Not as much, IMO, because of the allegations against him of sexual misconduct with teenagers but more because as a judge, he was unseated not once but twice because he flouted laws that he personally disagreed with. He also said -- in a recorded interview on a wacky conspiracy theorist's radio show -- that getting rid of many constitutional amendments -- including the one that outlawed slavery, the one that granted black people citizenship and equal protection under the law post-Civil War, and the one that allowed women to vote -- would “eliminate many problems” in the government. He's also said, again on record, that he feels "God's Law" should supersede secular law. So, basically, he wants a theocracy, just like, say, Saudi Arabia, only "Christian" rather than Islamic. Frankly, even if he were sexually pure as the driven snow, that is NOT the sort of person who should be making laws in America in the 21st century. Period. 

And as much as I'm happy that he lost, the fact that he lost by only about 1% of the vote is, forgive my language, fucking terrifying. I thank God for the black folks in Alabama who turned out in droves to vote and who are solely responsible for Moore's defeat because the white folks -- even white women -- voted overwhelmingly for him. IMO, the accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct with teenagers pale in comparison to the danger of electing as a US Senator a person who disregards the law of the land when he doesn't personally agree with it. He never should have been allowed to run in the first place simply because of that, IMO. If you can’t respect the law when you disagree with it, you shouldn’t be making it. It’s very, very simple.

That said, I do believe the allegations against him. The accusers are credible and their accusations have been corroborated by family members and other people whom they told about the incidents at the time, not to mention by coworkers of Moore's who confirmed that he did, indeed, actively pursue teenage girls to "date." (And we all know what that's a euphemism for when it's a 35-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl. He's not taking her out on innocent dinner-and-a-movie dates. He's looking for a pretty and powerless girl that he can do whatever he wants with.) Not to mention that Moore himself admitted that he "dated" young girls when he was in his 30s and up, although "only with their mother's permission." (As if that makes it OK or something.) So it's not a huge leap to suppose that, hey, maybe his accusers aren't lying. Sure, accusations such as these can be false, but in this case, I really don't think they are, and I didn’t need “the media” to tell me so. I just needed my brain, common sense, a little logic, and an understanding of power games.

[moviesyndrome]

Movie Syndrome’s Film of The Hour” London Fields “DIRECTOR’S CUT.” 2019

The only time to watch and review The Director's Cut of London fields is now: within a human species post-crisis, so novel to that species that there is no occurrence leave alone a record. Its the only time that London Fields makes more than just sense, total sense. It is now our new potential mirror and or X-ray machine for our so called"New Normal."  It can be London but it can be any city, town, enclave of human dissonance.

As a child I went to the school of life though films presented by the great Alex Cox, on his Moviedrome show, I was introduced to precursors to the coming influx of Neo-90's Noir. Narratives that coiled around its characters with the love of hungry anacondas; stories from the shrades of the social human fringe; men and women alike gleefully hapless or broken, souls just seeking to steal their inevitabilities from fate and make it their own - as if that some how made thier doom bearable.   Films where pale shadows crowded the celluloid frame even they were alone they were just paler than the crowd.

London fields so reminds me of this vein of filmmaking. In Neo-90's noir people were incapable of making anyone happy, not even themselves, or anyone else, they either new it and would violently seek irony, or just detraction, or simply some air of self-appointed cleverness about their failures: their philosophy the wisdom of one's own doom is better than the ignorance of it (as if that helps).

It was a joy to feel like a kid watching films I shouldn't be watching, with the sound turned down low, so parents in bed don't wake, listening to an intro by the great Alex Cox, and the prototypes of the coming 90's noir. This is what it felt like watching London Fields.

The first shot had dance in its guts, the first sign of a good director, making sure the audience know s/he cares. I was reassured and sat back in comfort knowing I don't have to be anxious. Few films know how to utilize stock footage, or some films over use it, some just don't respect it, we may see more of it since the big plague of 2020 hit planet earth. The now infamous "C" word hit just 4 months after I saw it in 2019 on the eve of the UK election that would decide the fate of thousands literally and of the new London that I am now living through. This is why London Fields Directors cut must be watched post-global pandemic, post London post human incubation, post human global coma, wake up and watch it!

The true value of London Fields is in its ability to be relevant externally, not just internally, it will be talked about for decades as the greatest film-restructuring/ turnaround since George Miller saved Mad Max 4 from september 11th. As long as London is here with a new normal that a film and book called London Fields possibly predictive like Nostradamus "pre" and mid plague predictions. Like Daniel's predictions of the fourth beast,  that is a president of the free world advising people to drink bleach as it cures plague like some victorian charlatan-witch-doctor.  

Talking of victorian London look out for a wonderful Fagan meets Sid-Vicious like surprise, it will remain a surprise as I will not spoil it , you will have to watch it.  Remember the advent of dvd extras where the story behind the story became King and queen, well here is your story behind the story of London Fields the coiling fluid labyrinth that this director's cut had to circumvent and master at the same time, is in itself a book, a film maybe a trilogy. It then becomes a matrix for the films ability to gracefully scream with silent pain, palpable in its starving human waifs, the population of jagged grizzled shadows of an old world, just like a pre-covid London.

My story:

- I waited 5 years to watch the director's cut, as I knew this would be the film to watch, I know from day zero, that this would be the definite splice, I am glad I waited, but i had no other option. More importantly I am glad I waited to be one of the fortunate survivors of the real London apocalypse to be able to write a review worthy of note.

Filming locations:

During the pandemic I walked around the many locations that London Fields filmed in, like Brixton where I grew up, and I went to bulk buy food, part of my post apocalyptic preppers protocol. I'm a prepper by nature so  I had bought my ffp3 mask months before. I actually gave a health and safety threat and risk consultation to a filmmaker heading to Ebola hit Lagos, I said "Make sure you have 3 meters on everyone and every surface so only the soles of your shoes need chlorine (the only chem that degrades DNA) I didn't call it social distancing I called it don't get Ebola. Here we are fortunate it was not Ebola that hit world and London Fields. I bought food in bulk buying is very different from panic buying, but I can't judge london is pretty but pretty tough to live in.  

London Fields Anatomy: + Matrix: When I say The Matrix of London fields I speak about the meta-mould, London is the ideal place to film an apocalypse, London was once the capital of the world since Britannia once owned most of the world. Location location location is everything.   +Concept: You can have a concept of any thing a concept of concept itself , a concept of the idea of a principal. Why not start with the concept of human nature, give our nature enough rope and we will hang ourselves and each everyone else in the room , but why is the nicely investigated by Bill Bob Thornton's character. This rope reaches the macro space to the micro of all the individual characters. + Basis: I have a feeling much like the basis for the characters in "Withnail and I"  the writer Ames, the author of the book, he has based these characters on the transients that peppered his life in London. + Grounds: There are sub-cultures of ravaged souls who make the characters even in the book look pale in comparison - art always mimics life not the other way round.

+Criteria:  The criteria is to capture a credible cinematic vignette of a very wild book + Responsibility: There is an integrity of context well policed diegetically and in the non diegetic space. The director is now renowned for policing this context which was under threat when islamic content (there's that other "C" word) was misaligned with pornography to create a pornography, the legal battle that ensued was only fueled by this particular mismanagement of content with no context.

+ |Sense of place "This is London" London is hit by hyperinflation, social controls, shortages, poverty, mass unemployment, Social Unrest,divisions, divergency of schisms, social branching in to pockets of gang pods.

+Pattern of capacity: is potent disconcerting X-ray machine to the lower digestive system, beyond the ice-tipped persona of innocence, the bystander, observer, storyteller. It peels back the plasters wrapped around the slick wounds, and it does it finger by finger of London's inner ducts, where its appendix once was.  

The shadows of a cosmopolitan gas chamber known as London slither and preen the boiling social swampy waves seeking their nothings in what they see as somethings', goals that are obvious traps or not so obvious. They leave patterns of psycho-splatter across the corridors of doom-drowned doors with no one able to reach their goals and no one capable of making each other happy but, even though deep down they know it, they still pursue against instinct better judgment. They have to, as if they don't we would not have any drama.

This is Kitch satire the likes of which spilled out of neo-grungy scenes of the 90's neo noir, but its interesting to see this in a London steamy punky setting, rather than Hollywoodland. Highlights of the film is an interesting crossing of the 180 degree line, which is always a tricky area.

In London Fields the human ice-berg is built almost entirely out of constellations of man and woman's failure points, we are left with the question simply what will drive us, what will keep us going after the discovery of these failure points.

I: Inspiration by the challenge to put a x-ray, a mirror in front of the face of London as a gateway to the face of the wider world W: WHy do this film? Well every couple of years in intervals where London is begging for this mirror so lets provide it. V: The vision was to engineer an exposing investigation of the ghosts of London all the way to their souls and their soul-engines. M: Mission was to find the cast and support structure to manifest this vision S-T: The strategy to tactical synergy was to turn the motion of this story in to an serendipitous dance off the page of the book on to the cinema screen. Vision: To make a respectable cool potently socially vital potency vignette that a 2 hour film cna do for the many pages of a book Strategy: To go in with fervent dedication leveraging years of mastering skill of marrying music and image, and an industry that forces the discipline of story. B: Diegetic: Why do these characters do what they do, human beings have drives from baseline to top line drives, these drives are constantly hungry, convergent and divergent simultaneously. where do we put drives, what do we do with them, where will they go The characters with doomed naive seek happy endings for their drives, in doing so misd judge everyone. The souls here are using chess strategies to leverage their needs and clear the road of others in their path creating an emotionally psychologically all-in-ring wrestling match everyone eliminating each other. - Agility: The agility is not just in the films dynamic rehabilitative turnaround but agility in characterisation of the most hyper-wild surreal characters in a book nicely done by Jim Sturgess fagan meets sid vicious sex-pistols. And Johnny Depps Cockney-Rockabilly predator. 5.- kudoi: The Synecdoche: Here is with the director has managed to perform if not one of but maybe the most important Innovation Turnaround in the history of cinema. This could be the making of a new career. It is a career I went into recently I have performed it on other films myself but never had to do it on my own. 6.- Innovation: The director holds the mantle on the most strategic siege-craft innovation since those valiant thanes of the 5th century, took the gabled hall to siege in King Fin's realm of friesland; that young King of Denmark Heanerf with with 60 retainers went to visit his sister, recently married in peace weaving in Frankish lands, and for reasons yet to be disclosed to us, is put to seige in a gabled hall. It is an example in history where siegecraft worked. Matthew Cullen would have had to must some ancient type of lock-jaw dedication to pursue a siege craft of 5 years. with an army of producers, investors and compounding resistance. 7.- leadership side: The leadership it requires to execute a turnaround on a business is Herculean. There are 5 stages to a turnaround 0. People 1. Runaway - Leverage Cash runnaw 2. Technical engineering 3. Value chain strategy: add value - take away value - modify underlying value 4. Finalizing product market fit and fitness to execute a cut 5. New Campaign 6. Re-delivery. Just like in the film the characters all see themselves as leaders but they are ultimately proxy-puppets of a greater chess game. 8.- assertiveness: The director asserts with a five year kung-fu grip to show that the little voice in the milestone of a crocodile culture of producers, investors and meta-investors that the little voice can shout the loudest when it counts. It can do this  when it is important, when our voice must protect the unicorns gallop and leave our creativity factory, we must do this so they don;t fall down the cracks. In the film we see actors forging their stamps on their portrayals, of characters seertingthier desperations on each other's visions of happiness. 9.- Resonance of Messaging:brand Matthews Brand is potent authenticity of creativity this resonates in his film-turnaround and in the realignment of creative assets in,most in the alignments 10. Positive magnet respect attract positive Providence: The Universe has shined on Matthew and his valiant journey as the results have shown that it was on his side

LONDON FIELDS GLOSSARY:

- Conceptuals: What if you apply business turnaround to your own film not just someone's film but your own. Inside the film the concept - Concept of principle: The core principle was constant unbridled constant pulse of exposure of warts and all innards of post-social apocalyptic jagged humanity character by character. - Context: The Meta Post-Apocalypse: the after-party to the aftermath of London. - Grounds: Matthew had good grounds to purser this Colonel kurtz-like mission his unicorns had been dropped down the - Reach - if it is made more clear where to find the directors cut this will be king, . - Inimitability: Anyone trying to imitate this will stick out like a pik zeblinp - replayability: There is plenty here to study and restudy and this is the best master class in Film Turnaround making Matthew Cullen the most history making CFO of London Fields successfully restructured like LEGO brick By Brick (Which is also an interesting book on how lego turned themselves around in 5 years). - Accessibility: There is plenty here to make accessible to wider audiences with lots of help from Johnny Depp providing magnetic rockabilly-cockney psycho-menace - Principle: Waste nothing and produce more with as little as possible. Vision mission : Apex-Crux: A poetic battle manual in overcoming the cataclysm-apocalyptic crushing of your family as a consequences of the poisonous chains of criminology. - Idea: Human nature builds cunning paths of self-sabotage for itself knowingly and unknowingly and its infectious. - Theme(s): self-infliction, sabotatge, self-sabotage - Terms of understanding: the terms of understanding here are though the pattern of traffic between peoples' enemy within how they clash and - Dance: The film is nicely dancing   - sculpture : There is a sense of engineering finess to the this cut that reaches between the small life of characters and the wider outside world that is out there somewhere but hasn't been seen in a long time and and clearly is not missed. 4 - Signature: The signature here the brand the unique finger print is garishly distinct defined unmistakable, flamboyant graish clever use nourish pop-kitch- - Innovation: There is an interesting way that Matthew Cullen breaks the 180 line look out for it, Jim Sturges Innovative contribution to a now infamous Sid -Vicious meets Fagan mashup is no legend. ---------------------> - Communication: The colours seem to be the some of the most dominant communicator in London - Message: Warnings of not just the soul's emotional vulnerability of people, the hazard of peoples problems, but the hazard of a now victorian like London - Language - Conveyance - Shape Nuance: Nuance swells in the misery that Billy Bob Thornton carries around, it hangs like the unsucked cigarette smoke constantly trailing his character's - Ethos: The Directors ethos is the first rule of any endeavor is never give up! Once the mission was demanded to turn the film around this rule become law so taking names off a film are not part of this ethos.  The Films' ethos everything is available. - idiosyncrasy: The positions of satirical use of nourish pop--kitch is so uni - ethics: The direct fought to remedy inflammatory scenes IN the original cut there were scenes where religion is explicitly juxat - Responsibility: There is obvious responsibility to do just ice to the book, but also to the characters and how the actors navigate this, then there is London, one of the most if not the most unique city in the world. - Code: Its code of conduct is to never let you rest to corrugate the constant exposure of the shades of core characters and new characters both minor and major. - Policy: IS to be calmly unrelenting in the face of adversity on and off set.

[wearyewe]

I’m once again completely unable to sleep. Whatever follows, and I’m hoping it’s somewhat lucid, comes from living as a Jewish person in America with white-skin who is not Black or African American. They’re thoughts as a Jewish American who only recently found out that I am directly related to Jews who were slaughtered and thrown into a ravine in Babi Yar because my (great-)uncle never told anyone his family didn’t just stay in Ukraine. We didn’t find out until after he died. I’m not even sure if he told his wife. I’m sure I’m not the only Jewish person who owns this story. It isn’t shocking to me that someone who lost all their relatives and friends but somehow escaped just didn’t talk about it after they survived. I’m still struggling with this. I feel like I’m claiming something that I shouldn’t claim.

I’ve always been someone who has to figure out why people believe what they do. It led me to study philosophy, it led me to law school, it’s led me study more about Jewish history (yes that includes Nazism, yes that includes Israel) and religion, and it’s me to learn about white supremacy, racism, anti-Blackness, America’s original sin of slavery and African American bondage, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and so many other -isms and phobias that I can’t begin to list here. Do I know everything? No. Anyone who ever claims they do is lying to you. But I make it my business to figure out why to learn why people hate my people so much that they tried to burn us from the earth over and over and over again. Why they gathered up my cousins, ordered them to bring their money, valuables, clothes, and linen on pain of death, drove them to a ravine, made them unpack their belongings and valuables into separate piles, undress, ordered them into a ravine, made them lie down on top of other Jews who had already been shot and then kill them one by one by one. The soldiers walked over their dead bodies to get to the next Jew to kill them. 

I’m still struggling with this.

This is now my personal story, and it’s made it that much harder to study what happened and to live around people who ignore antisemitism except when it’s to use it as a comparison or to frame as incidental. It’s made it that much harder to deal with non-Black Jews who excuse what is currently going on because they are deluded to think that they’ll be safe. That non-Black Jews are safe even as we hear the President use antisemitic dog whistles like “the liberal media,” “the elites,” and “globalists.” The Jews working in the White House are even more delusional to think that they’re safe because they “know what’s in his heart.” I could not care less what’s in someone’s heart. It matters to me what someone’s actions and words show. 

Jews, we will never be completely safe if we don’t stand up against anti Blackness. That includes within our communities. That includes acknowledging that while antisemitism still exists, it operates fundamentally differently than anti Black racism in the U.S. Jews are not thrown into jail at an exponentially higher rate because they’re Jewish for the same crimes as non-Jews. African Americans (Jewish and not) are though. Jews are not followed around stores because we’re stereotyped as being criminals. African Americans (Jewish and not) are though. Jews are not afraid of being shot in the street or while driving a car by a police officer because we are Jewish. African Americans (Jewish and not) are though. Jews are not forced to see statues and monuments and schools in recognition of people who started an armed rebellion because they didn’t want to give up owning our ancestors and family. African Americans (Jewish and not) are. This isn’t necessarily because Jews are privileged over African Americans, it’s because we function differently within white supremacist ideology (and again, African American Jews exist at the crossroads).

We Jews are parroting what white supremacists say and believe when we are anti Black. I do not say this to claim that the Jewish community would not be anti Black but for our exposure to White supremacist culture and assimilation. That would be asinine and would allow us unaccountability for any personal responsibility. I know that part of being Jewish in the diaspora is to keep our heads down and not rock the boat because we know what could happen. I grew up playing the “which gentile would help hide me” game too. We stay silent out of fear of the inevitable mobs and pogroms. But if we continue to remain silent? It’s just going to get worse. Being silent and hoping for the best is not an option anymore.

Those people who are marching against statues of Confederate “heroes” are being removed and taken down? They don’t just hate African Americans. They explicitly hate Jews. To my African American friends? White supremacy will never be fully eradicated if antisemitism is not entirely eradicated. Antisemitism is the cornerstone belief of white supremacy; without it, their ideology falls apart. And to my African American Jewish friends? Please know I’m here for you, to listen, and to be whatever you need me to be.

White supremacists believe that Jews make up an international conspiracy that controls the government. That’s not hyperbole. White supremacists literally believe this to the point they don’t have to state they’re talking about Jews. Instead, they use “the New World Order,“ communists, Marxists, or other euphemisms. When they use these words, they only mean Jews. Eric K. Ward explains this better than I ever could:

White nationalists in the United States perceive the country as having plunged into unending crisis since the social ruptures of the 1960s supposedly dispossessed White people of their very nation. The successes of the civil rights movement created a terrible problem for White supremacist ideology. White supremacism—inscribed de jure by the Jim Crow regime and upheld de facto outside the South—had been the law of the land, and a Black-led social movement had toppled the political regime that supported it. How could a race of inferiors have unseated this power structure through organizing alone? For that matter, how could feminists and LGBTQ people have upended traditional gender relations, leftists mounted a challenge to global capitalism, Muslims won billions of converts to Islam? How do you explain the boundary-crossing allure of hip hop? The election of a Black president? Some secret cabal, some mythological power, must be manipulating the social order behind the scenes. This diabolical evil must control television, banking, entertainment, education, and even Washington, D.C. It must be brainwashing White people, rendering them racially unconscious.

What is this arch-nemesis of the White race, whose machinations have prevented the natural and inevitable imposition of white supremacy? It is, of course, the Jews. Jews function for today’s White nationalists as they often have for antisemites through the centuries: as the demons stirring an otherwise changing and heterogeneous pot of lesser evils. At the turn of the twentieth century, “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”—a forgery, first circulated by Czarist secret police in Russia in 1903, that purports to represent the minutes of a meeting of the international Jewish conspiracy—established the blueprint of antisemitic ideology in its modern form. It did this by recasting the shape-shifting, money-grubbing caricature of the Jew from a religious caricature to a racialized one. Upper-class Jews in Europe might have been assimilating and changing their names, but under the new regime of antisemitic thought, even a Jew who converted to Christianity would still be a Jew.

The antisemitic slogans the marchers in Charlottesville were using was not incidental. Not only are Jews placed as being this invisible supernatural power that is controlling the levers of power, but also that when we are read as being the same as White gentiles, it’s further “evidence” of us infiltrating and destroying White culture. When Trump said “rewriting history,” whether he meant to or not, he was referencing Jewish control and power "subjugating” and erasing White culture. When the white supremacists were shouting “Jews will not replace us,” “You will not replace us” (NB these two phrases mean literally the same thing to them), “Heebs will not divide us,” and “the goyim know,” they meant that Jews are actively controlling PoC and Muslims to replace them in what they believe is only their country. When they call it “Fake News” or “the liberal media” they mean the Jewish media. 

When non-Jewish PoC and other minorities say that the Jews are a group of overlords who are actually responsible for or behind any number of social ills, they are parroting white supremacy. And they are shielding white supremacists from any sort of responsibility. After all, how can they be responsible when it’s the Jews and not them who are truly behind it? When non-Jewish PoC and other minorities ignore that antisemitism is at the center of white supremacy, they ignore that white supremacists hate us the same, if not more in some cases, than them. White supremacists have attempted to create alliances with non-Jewish PoC to solve “the Jewish problem,” (look for Jack McLamb) but they would never work with Jewish people to solve anything unless it was murdering us to stop the NWO.

White supremacy is dependent upon not only portraying African Americans as lesser and inferior to Whites but also portraying Jews as foreign interlopers who are at once subhuman and supernatural such that they control everything. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have white supremacy without both, and we can’t eradicate white supremacy without fighting against antisemitism and anti Black racism.

[go-redgirl]

Auschwitz survivor a focus of Italy’s anti-Semitic tensions By COLLEEN BARRY yesterday

MILAN (AP) — An 89-year-old Auschwitz survivor who is a senator-for-life in Italy has unwittingly provoked one of the country’s most intense confrontations with anti-Semitism since the end of Italy’s Fascist dictatorship during World War II.

In response to revelations that she is subject to 200 social media attacks each day, Liliana Segre called for the creation of a parliamentary committee to combat hate, racism and anti-Semitism. Parliament approved her motion — but without votes from Italy’s right-wing parties.

Matteo Salvini’s euroskeptic League party, Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right Forza Italia and Giorgia Meloni’s far-right Brothers of Italy all abstained, in a move that defied the social consensus that has marked Italian post-war politics.

The vote last week, along with a round of racist chants in a soccer stadium, has focused attention on a growing boldness in anti-Semitic and racist attitudes in Italy, and the role of politicians in sanctioning them.

On Thursday, Italian state radio said Milan’s prefect, who reports to the interior minister, has assigned a Carabinieri paramilitary police security detail to Segre because of the threats against her.

Israel’s ambassador to Italy tweeted his dismay about the threats. “An 89-year-old survivor under escort symbolizes the danger that the Jewish communities in Europe still are facing today,” said Ambassador Dror Eydar.

Meloni said she abstained because the commission didn’t address the role of Islamic extremism in anti-Semitism. Salvini said he was worried the motion would introduce limits on freedom of expression and that “the left would pass off for racism what for us is the belief or the right to say ‘Italians first.’” In a similar vein, Forza Italia called the commission an attempt at “political censure.”

Riccardo Pacifici, the former leader of Rome’s Jewish community and a member of the Shoah Foundation of Rome, said the reasons given for the abstentions could be taken at face value.

“But if we should discover that the real reason for which they didn’t vote was because they feared losing the consensus of the extreme right, I believe that Jews will have a problem also in Italy,” Pacifici said.

The Milan-based Center of Contemporary Jewish Documents’ Observatory on Anti-Jewish Prejudice, which disclosed the hateful messages directed toward Segre on social media, says anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise in Italy, particularly online. 

Through the end of September, 190 anti-Semitic incidents had been reported this year to the observatory, 120 of them on social media. That compares with 153 anti-Semitic incidents for all of 2018 and 91 for all of 2017.

Examples include defamation, direct insults or downplaying Nazism, with rare cases of threats or aggression, including a Jewish woman who was slapped this year in the northern province of Cuneo and a Jewish professor who was spat upon in Rome.

Prominent Jews are often the main targets, researcher Stefano Gatti said.“These are not coming just from extremists,” Gatti said of the attacks on Segre. “This is very worrying.”Still, Gatti said “anti-Semitism in Italy is not a social emergency. 

Episodes of anti-Semitism are not violent,” in comparison to Germany and France, which have much larger Jewish communities. Italy’s Jewish community numbers around 30,000, compared with half a million in France, Europe’s largest Jewish population, and 200,000 in Germany.

The rise in anti-Semitism has come alongside a rising climate of intolerance toward migrants arriving from Libya that was stoked during Salvini’s tenure as interior minister, which was marked by his refusal to allow humanitarian rescue ships to land in Italy.

Incidents of racism are also making headlines, such as monkey chants aimed at forward Mario Balotelli during a top-tier soccer game Sunday. Balotelli, who is black, was visibly upset and threatened to leave the field, but Salvini, a soccer fan, told the Corriere della Sera newspaper that “the fuss has been exaggerated.

”The head of Italy’s largest Jewish community in Rome, Ruth Dureghello, said the commission vote alongside “the manifestation of anti-Semitism, racism, discrimination and hatred are signals of a climate that has changed.”“The right-wing (politicians) made a choice that I see as mistaken and dangerous at a crucial moment. 

Above all, for the history of the person who proposed the commission, they should have taken deeper consideration,” Dureghello, said by telephone from Poland, where she was visiting Auschwitz with students.Segre was 13 when she was sent to Auschwitz, where her father and paternal grandparents were killed. 

She has spent the last several decades recounting her experiences during the Holocaust to young people.She was on such a visit Tuesday in Milan when asked if she would respond to a statement by Salvini, who in the wake of the commission controversy said he would like to meet her.“I will meet him, of course, why shouldn’t I?” she asked. “If I don’t hate, why should I not open the door?”