#and the implication of a world that does not have a separation of religion and government and capitalism

[maxgicalgirl]

JONNY SIMS IN THE SILT VERSES JUMPSCARE !!!!!

[meetmeintherestrictedsection]

The Blind Blood Best Guess Fest - Reveals!

We've done it again! A Tomarrymort fest in which our writers anonymously submit a story and guess who wrote what! This time, the theme is all things BLOOD AND/OR WINE.

These authors have used all manner of wily tricks to avoid detection, including but not limited to bluffs, double-bluffs, imitation, gaslighting, manipulation, bribery, or general miscreant behavior.

But the time has come for our authors to drop their masks and proudly claim their beautiful, bloody, and sometimes slightly tipsy work!

Greenest when groves are gaunt by @cindle-writes Word count: 5000 Rated: M

When Voldemort starts coughing up white holly petals, he is in serious denial about what it means… …until he can no longer ignore the potentially fatal implications. A Hanahaki disease AU

A stunning subversion in the Harrymort Hanahaki world in which Voldemort is the one with Hanahaki.

Redacted Hogwarts Parchmentwork by @theladygia Word count: 876 Rated: E

An excerpt from the parchmentwork of Alastor Moody¹, Hogwarts' Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor 1994-95, later discovered and annotated by Professor Severus Snape on 31 October, 1996 as he polished off his second bottle of elven-made wine².

¹Read this fic. ²Read this fic.

Red Hair, Red Eyes by @gryphonfeather Word count: 2361 Rated: M

Ginny does not cope well with having Tom ripped out of her. She drags Harry down with her.

Fics that make you howl and bark and roll on the ground.

Separated from Thee let me never be by @vdoshu Word count: 727 Rated: M

“Lord, I give unto you my devotion. I am Your mouth, I am Your hand, I am Your vessel upon the world.”

Never been so into religion. And religion has never been so into Harry!

Spice by @cannibalinc Word count: 1260 Rated: Not Rated

After his resurrection, Lord Voldemort finds himself craving blood. But none of the blood that his followers provide can satisfy him.

Picking up notes of tortured hero-boy in this wine.

And special mention to @the-wig-is-a-metaphor and @cindle-writes for tying for the most correct guesses!

Thank you so much to our writers for creating these lovely stories! Each is a delight in its own bloody, grapey way!

Banners and fest title art created by @cannibalinc.

[greenerteacups]

I'm on my nth re-read of books 1-4, and I keep finding new things to be delighted by, on top of the old reliable lines that make me giggle every time. Like in book 4:

“Yeah,” said Harry, whose success had overdosed him with optimism. “Hey, think about this: you reckon I can just Banish the water and walk down?”

“Oh, bless, he thinks he’s Moses.”

How does (presumably pagan-ish or non-religious based on holiday celebrations) Draco know about Moses? Does he think Moses is a wizard??? I mean... he DID accomplish several miracles with a big stick. Any of the implications here make me cackle

Oh this is awesome, I've been wanting to talk about this for ages: I think wizards know what the Bible is! And Christianity, and Judaism and Islam, and I think there are practicing members of all of those religions (and more!) in the Wizarding World. Here's why.

The Bible (Old Testament specifically — Draco's references lean towards the OT because that's the broader cultural referent, it's the common glue of the Bible/Quran/Torah and if wizards know any Abrahamic text, it's that) is a huge, ubiquitous, world-shaping cultural text that was thousands of years old before the International Statute of Secrecy. The date of 1692 for the SOS means that any muggle culture before the 17th century is fair game, even if it's not accepted by wizards. So that's why I think atheist/agnostic/pagan wizards should still have at least referential familiarity with it.

The fact that wizards celebrate Christmas (NOT Yule, although obviously in Lionheart they do both) tells me that there is at least vestigial religious belief in the population. Expressions like "Merlin" in place of "God" tells me that wizards probably have a different relationship with it — Merlin's generally treated as a kind of prophet? — which is giving "splinter sect of Christianity defined by the emergence of Merlin as a separate prophet for wizards," but I'm not gonna spiral too far into that headcanon, because this is a lore analysis post. But that's my working idea, here.

The first-order response to the "what about magic?" problem is: Not everything that happens in the Bible can be explained by the Harry Potter magic system. Water into wine, sure. Resurrection? Impossible, as far as 99% of wizards know. Harry Potter is the only person we know of to be fully resurrected, and even he's never technically full-dead. Moses parting the Red Sea? I mean, we can imagine spells that would do it, but think about how much water is in the fucking sea! We don't see anything of nearly that scope happen in the series. And what about manna? We know for a fact that you can't use magic to make food!

But let's sidebar that, and drill down on what you can explain. Water into wine. Curing the sick. Okay, cool. There's still a big difference between "established in-universe ability that has been ritualized and turned into technology" and "literal miracles." Walk on water? Sure, you could probably perform a spell for that. But does Jesus? Do we know, for a fact, that he had a wand, or that he cast a spell? Had the spell for that been invented yet? Are you even sure he was a wizard? Can we prove it? Moreover, would it matter?

This leads me to my bigger point about the nature of religious belief: if you believe the dude's divine, having magic doesn't change anything, right? Because he's still the son of God. Christians don't believe Jesus was divine because he performed the miracles; they believe he was divine and so performed the miracles. There are many different IRL-theological stances on how much of the supernatural stuff in the Bible "actually happened," and you can be a skeptic about the scientific facets while still subscribing to its broader philosophical and religious claims about God.

Even if you take Jesus and other Abrahamic characters out of the question, there's still a place for religion in wizarding society, because of the afterlife. With the exception of ghosts (who by their account have never been fully "dead," and so don't know it) and inferi, the relation between the wizarding world and the afterlife is a one-way conduit. That means there's still plenty of room for wizards to adopt religious beliefs specifically about the afterlife, and religion would still play a social role in defining how people approached those topics.

Finally, the pagan elements of the Harry Potter series read less to me as an espousal of sincere religious conviction and more as a ritualistic vestige of prehistorical magical practices. Since the universe's magic draws heavily on pagan ceremonies — especially in the realm of potions/herbology/magical creatures — ironically, I can't imagine paganism as a religion in the universe of Harry Potter. Like, it's just straight-up true! It would be like starting a religion around meteorology, or chemistry. There's no element of mystery or divinity involved for faith and belief to fill in the gaps; you know how magic works, and you can be good at it.

What JKR did with the magic system — apparently on accident — was to textually validate huge volumes of pagan practice without invoking any of the associated spiritual or religious beliefs. And since we live for seven years in the mind of a competent, practicing wizard who does tons of magic without seeming to believe in any particular god at all, I have to infer that you don't need to. Rowling has, again, likely not on purpose, built a universe whose central conceit is: "what if the pagans were just straight-up right?" and revealed the answer to be: "well, then it wouldn't be paganism anymore."

[the-nefarious-vampire]

inch resting that lena said there were both benevolent and malevolent powers now and didnt allude to any Entities being in control (she said that the oiar was "managing" the bad guys which suggests there's either no higher power that she she's aware of, or that the higher powers control the oiar somehow). i mean obviously thats not the full story, and her version of events is probably pretty faulty knowing magnus, but it does sorta seem like these guys are running around unchecked. so maybe instead of an overarching forces deal like we had in tma, the cases are more separate.

anyway i think it's not quite to do with devotion or obsession or love and more to do with belief, or like, how many people you've made an impression on. how strong of an Idea you are. something something scp cognito hazards. inksoul and mr bonzo and violince guy had their fans (and god knows where that violin had been before he got his hands on it). the most recent dude had complete faith in the betting (?) app and im sure many other people did too. needles obviously got strength from people being afraid of him. the volunteers had their "great cause". all this i think has Implications for sam's new obsession with the magnus institute too but thats not what im talking about rn

it's also possible that this malevolent/benevolent split is totally arbitrary human categorization. we'll probably have to meet some of the Good Guys before we really start getting to know whats going on, but thats probably a ways off yet cause of the nature of the oiar, as revealed by lena last episode. they just wont be showing up in reports, thats not what the system's for. some of them kinda toe the line, like the dice, but i dont think we've met any Good Guys yet. maybe they'll show up and fix things in one of the reports or maybe they'll bust down the door to the oiar or someone will run into one in the outside world like how sasha met the distortion or maybe colin will fuck with the system so much it starts reading reports of chill people who cause flowers to bloom around them or who always have a pen if you need one or whatever. maybe the heavily tattooed person from episode 11 will turn out to be a good guy idk ive not checked out the arg i could have embarrassed myself so bad so many times this post. either way if im right that means that santa's probably real in this universe. also every religion simultaneously

[sailorspica]

oooh now i’m curious: do you prefer krista spelt as krista or christa? i’ve seen both ways and i’m not sure which is the more common one

i am so glad you ask because i can expand on all of these for paragraphs, short answer: krista. it's the spelling used in the kodansha USA manga, and i like the regional diversity of hopping up to northern europe among mostly german and anglo names. since ymir is in the norse edda, they get to be strange (gay) together

but i think my preference is more strongly anti-christa, because any additional degree of separation from its origin helps AoT obfuscate its intentions with the royal family for a bit longer. now i don't think iseyama is versed in abrahamic religions at all, but using the references he does for eldia brings with it way more connotations than he probably imagined, which i think ultimately work out in his and historia's favor. christian theology under the cut

"christ" comes from the greek translation of the hebrew bible that predates jesus by like, two centuries: messiah (hebrew) -> khristos (greek) -> christus (latin) -> christ (anglicized). so if not a semitic word itself, it is a semantic stand-in for the jewish concept of an anointed one whose earliest mention is in exodus. pair that with historia's uncle Uri, the most hebraic name in all of AoT from the archangel Uriel, and we're courting christian antisemitism as old as the church itself, specifically replacement theology that claims christians are god's new + better chosen people

this reading casts jesus and mary as the new adam and eve (yes, disgusting), which condemns eve to elevate mary, but in the most rational, atheistic reading of christ's conception? mary was, like founder ymir, a teenage rape victim, and the claim that she was descended from david made this traumatic birth everybody's business since the anointed one was supposed to be ben david. personally i see no fucking way for mary's circumstances to be an improvement on eve's, and many a happy satanist will say eve saved rather than damned humanity

consider the last fritz king's will, and the whole premise of "eldian atonement" echoes this eve-mary binary where eve = ymir fritz and mary = a succession of royal founder shifters, but particularly the reisses. this gets extra gross in the manga because we hear the purest, bloodiest version of the fritz king's intentions from frieda's mouth (mostly to grisha but briefly in historia's memories), wholly condemning her ancestor as sinful and evil when she, too, is a young woman subordinated to a man's will

historia is a bit of the anti-mary (anti-christ) because the whole scene in the chapel caverns where rod reiss is the only person in all of AoT to use extremely theistic language is a kind of twist on the annunciation to mary, where historia says "fuck no," and that's beautiful. the implication is if mary of nazareth had a girlfriend who told her to live her life with pride we would not have christianity/most of the world's evils

so anyway: krista. as fun and ironic and obvious CHRISTa is with this interpretation, i like krista for being slightly off the mark

[rou-luxe]

since not many are online right now I'm just going to erm

i'm a bit blind to putting in content warnings so... at your own risk

not proofread just rambling

long post ahead

I'm starting to realize that I gravitate things with religious references / implications

not because of religion itself, but because of philosophy. many of these have plenty of thought put into them. how the religious beliefs are incorporated.

I think what I'm really looking for is gray moral ground that promotes thought, and the mentality of a criminal

"crime and punishment" by fyodor dostoyevsky has MANY biblical themes. the basic premise? raskolnikov rejects god and takes judgement into his own hands. I can't say anything else without spoilers

haha light yagami

"a separate peace" by john knowles. another classic novel. kid A pushes kid B and ruins kid B's life. kid A has a twisted admiration for kid B - kid A is jealous, sees kid B as a god but also hates kid B. I have evidence for the god part

END ROLL (game) by Segawa - this one stands out from the other two in the sense that this one is more about regret. at the beginning of the story, Russell (14 y/o) turns himself in and is subjected to the "Happy Dream" experiment, where he suffers from his own murders. 11/10. would recommend if you can handle it.

"The Rag and Bone Shop" by Robert Cormier - yet ANOTHER dark juvenile novel. can't spoil. but it shows how a criminal is made (kind of) - and the consequences of not accepting your emotions.

oops I recommended media instead

back to gray moral ground - what they did, was that wrong? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. no one WANTS to be a villain. it's just the will of the world.

does god pick favorites?

many of these main characters (I won't say protagonists) have let go of their beliefs and have committed crimes, and for what? most of the ones above met their doom, but what was it all for?

nihilistic. cynical. intelligent. ambitious. all compelling traits. they were all written well.

I would like to incorporate themes similar to the media above... for it is what I admire.

actually ray is kind of a dumbass

but with cannibalism woo!!

in the bible, cannibalism is a rejection of / disobedience towards god. but in general, it's a sign of desperation. I daresay even a cry for help.

main character (raymond lan) originally cannibalized as a kid after being abandoned - thus starting his transition from dogmatic to nihilistic. he still does now that he's grown - just has a taste for it. murder is natural.

but the child.

the child changes ray. the child is making him grow soft.

now I'm not allowed to say much else but I sincerely hope you enjoy dissecting my brain once I talk about it more

[archivalofsins]

So, the thing about Amane's door reveal- I still think it's a courthouse given everything we know about her.

Plus, she's making a swinging motion as though she's about to slam down a gavel. The door to the building in this case Amane's mind is also reinforced, which goverment buildings tend to be. That and the implication she views her beliefs and understanding of things as the only correct one that outside forces must be scrutinized under if conflict arises is nothing new. We've seen her warn both Shidou and Mahiru this trial for not adhering to her rules through their behavior.

The architecture while having some aspects remniscent of temples isn't out of left field. Because older courthouses and government buildings almost everywhere have some features remniscent of that. However, Amane's door seems to mesh religion and law together to perfectly embody her ideals. Even though Amane cares about her religion she has been shown to value law and other beliefs to the extent that such things don't impose on hers.

Plus, during her first voice drama, she says,

"Hmm...a murderer." - "I did not. Me telling you that it is wrong to assume that I cannot kill someone because I'm twelve, and me being unhappy with being labeled a murderer are two separate things. After all, logic and emotion are not the same thing."

Showing that Amane can distinguish between critical thought and thoughts based on emotions. As well as separate the two. Meaning she can probably apply the same logic to her religious beliefs and the law as well. However, in the case of Shidou and Mahiru she is chosing not to this unlike with Futa who she has yet to reprimand for getting medical care.

The difference is that Mahiru and Shidou treat Amane like a child. Futa, on the other hand, may call her a brat, but he doesn't really overlook or ignore Amane's points based on her age. They are prone to having back and forth conversations as well that are more a clash of ideals than I'm treating you this way because you're a child, you silly kid you just don't understand yet. His behavior comes off less condescending overall. So, even though they have spoken sense the attacks, it's no surprise Amane had conveniently not given him a warning.

"Hmm... Talking about me having killed a person... That may be true, but I do not think that I did anything wrong."

"That's not up for you to decide. In Milgram, I make the decisions. If I say something was a mistake, it's a mistake."

"If you claim that what I did was a mistake, I believe you are the one in the wrong."

Then she says this,

"Hm, you may say it was wrong, but isn't what you are doing here a crime as well? Well, I do have something more important to me than general law. So, I will try not to judge you either."

From the beginning, Amane has understood what Milgram does is against the law. She gave Milgram the option to overlook her behavior, and in return, she'd overlook the facility's. Heck, maybe we could even work together if things went alright. However, Milgram sided against Amane. Don't fret though, Amane is a good girl she's not mad, just disappointed,

"Honestly…… I had high hopes for you, but you understand nothing."

She's nothing if not gracious. So, she'll give a warning,

"So you decided you don’t forgive me. If you don’t fix your way of thinking, we’ll never forgive you for all eternity."

She's even kind enough to reiterate her previous deal-

"What we think is right and wrong is evidently not the same as what Milgram thinks is right and wrong. Milgram is an incorrect world. But I’ll forgive you this once. We value thought. You should think hard about it."

Even though her thoughts haven't been valued in the same way. Her thoughts on her own actions have been chastised and belittled while people who don't know the full story continue to go by her age alone. Wrongfully assuming that since she's young, she can be taught out of it.

If we think really hard on it though Amane truly believes,

"I know you can do it."

However, if we think too little and come to the wrong answer,

"I will deny you a distorted vision needs to be purged! Let's strangle his throat thoroughly so he'll never talk back."

If Milgram is that sort of incorrect place Amane has no choice but to judge it by her higher more just laws. That's simply the righteous thing to do!

I'm happy that Amane is still the same as usual~

Milgram is going to be in her courtroom soon. I have high expectations for you kid and you've yet to disappoint.

[thecousinsdangereux]

Hi I love your bigger in the morning fic (or nuns can fuck au ) i was wondering if you could expand just a little on how other religions deal with the letter delivery origins? Either way the fic is amazing and I can’t wait for more

Thanks so much! I probably won't get too too much into this in the fic, just because... the story is already going to be long enough and I do actually want to focus on Avatrice lol (Though I'm never quite sure what a chapter is actually going to look like before I start writing, so who knows!) In general, religion is this AU is really geographically based, because religions sort of formed around Letter delivery machine locations. You can sort of assume that the major world religions follow a theology at least loosely based on their real-life counterparts, but there are some differences, as a result of the specifics of the AU (for example, since even the early versions of Letters """""legitimized"""""" queer folks in a variety of ways, the one man one woman stuff is not a thing).

To answer your question specifically, I can give a few examples of how I imagine a few different theologies incorporating/explaining Letters. If I was going to write about this specific part of the universe in great detail, I'd have to reach out to a lot of people to better understand the historical and theological implications (because I am definitely not an expert), but since this is just background info for a fanfic, these are more general, vague thoughts, so... grain of salt and whatnot!

AU Ancient Greek polytheism explains soulmates or Letters (such as they were, back then) in a similar way that Plato did in The Symposium, with humans originally being created with "four legs and a head with two faces" but then Zeus (bitch that he is) fears their power and splits them into two separate parts, which made up a match pair of soulmates. It was Aphrodite (with the help of Eros and others) who was working behind the scenes to deliver messages to help people find their other half.

AU Buddhism still does not believe in God/gods in the traditional sense, so they do not believe the Letters are God-ordained, specifically, but more a result of the universe recognizing individual connections that occur time and time again throughout multiple-lives. Basically, a soulmate is a relationship carrying over from one lifetime to the next. A lot of religions that believe in the concept of reincarnation state that it's connected to the creation of soulmates, in one way or another. There are people who never do receive a Letter, and these are considered new souls who haven't had a chance to form a connection with another soul.

For AU Islam, their equivalent of the Quran still includes the concept of 'of everything We have created pairs', including individuals. There is a heavy spiritual component to soulmates, as in, a soulmate is someone who a person connects with on a spiritual level. They still believe in the oneness of God, and Letter delivery still comes back to Him and the concept of His creating (soul)mates. In general, most monotheistic religions do claim that it's God Himself who is creating the Letters.

There's an off-shoot "religion"(/cult) in the US that states that the Letters that most people receive are government fakes and only 'true believers' (who have coincidentally donated hundreds of thousands of dollars) have cleared themselves and can access their True Letter, which is delivered by an alien lifeform. Rest assured, these people do not have access to a Letter delivery machine.

One major difference between the world in this AU and ours is that different regions/religions have to work together a lot more, simply for practical reasons. A person of one religion (or no religion) receives their Letter based on where they are geographically located, which thus may be from a different religion than what they practice, but that doesn't make their Letter illegitimate in the eyes of whatever their religion is, which means all religions sort of have to come to terms with the notion that their God(s)/Universe/etc. 'thinks' it's okay for these people to be thinking about Him/Her/Them in the way that they do, because they were able to create the machine in the first place, which can only operate under 'divine' instruction.

In general, Letter delivery looks similar in pretty much all religions because their machines are exactly the same in specs, and honestly, whenever one religion makes an advancement in standard Letter delivery (a delivery that doesn't require the OCS), the others tend to follow suit. There's a LOT more bureaucracy in modern day religions and a LOT more connection with government, just because of the collaboration/regulation needed to actually deliver like... hundreds of thousands of letters/day, worldwide. When it comes to the special cases, like we see Beatrice handling, things are obviously done a bit differently. In this universe, the OCS isn't actually attached to Catholicism (or the equivalent of it), because their purpose is to deliver Letters that don't have an easy recipient, which tends to take them all over the place geographically. You might have a Letter originate in England, but then need to be delivered in the US, for example. Or maybe a Letter will make it's way to Spain, but it ends up being delivered in Portugal. ;) There are a lot of reasons for why this happens, but I think they might be considered spoilers, so I'll leave it at that, for now. The OCS is still made up of holy women, but not just 'nuns' in the Catholic sense; holy women of various religions make up its ranks. Thus, the Spain branch of the OCS looks a lot different from the Thailand branch, but their purpose is the same.

[darkfromday]

PLEASE keep the HP Wiki to canon information *only* ffs, and here’s what I mean by that

looks like recently someone has edited Dumbledore’s page, specifically about Harry, with some of the most common fandom misinformation: namely about Harry and the Dursleys, Dumbledore’s intentions, guardianship and a godfather’s rights and responsibilities (parental or otherwise). Seen here:

since I can’t edit this section myself to correct it, and since it pisses me off, I’m debunking it in order instead:

First!

‘taking him away from his godfather and rightful guardian’: far, far too many people have mixed up the terms “godfather” and “guardian” in the HP fandom. We’ll come back to this in a sec, but first...

An aside: The line above is written as though Dumbledore swooped down from the roof like a bat and snatched baby Harry out of Sirius’ arms. Funny image, but it’s not what happened. Dumbledore didn’t “take” Harry away from Sirius. Sirius made one attempt to take Harry at Godric’s Hollow, but when Hagrid rebuffed him and said “Dumbledore says he’s going to his aunt and uncle’s” Sirius did not fight back until he won. From Hagrid’s words, he “argued, but in the end he gave in”. He then immediately pivoted to trying to get revenge for Pettigrew’s betrayal. 

He did not say “Petunia?! Great Scott, Lily and James wouldn’t want this! She hates Lily, she won’t raise Harry right” or any of the many other lines that have been included in innumerable fanfics (which is fandom’s right, no one’s arguing that! the lines just aren’t supported by canon like so many people seem to think). 

So there is no argument to be made that any of Lily or James’ friends “knew” anything about Lily and Petunia’s strained relationship, or that she even brought it up. Even Severus Snape (who would have probably seen/heard most of their relationship firsthand as it evolved and devolved) never brought this up in canon.

Back to “taking him away from his godfather and rightful guardian”. This was clearly written by a Dumbledore-basher and an uncritical Sirius fan. I say “uncritical Sirius fan” because I like Sirius myself, but I’m more interested in seeing him portrayed accurately in canon discussions/writings like the Wiki is meant to be, in order to preserve his agency and prevent other characters from being bashed in the name of ‘protecting’ him. I’m worried the author of these pro-Sirius edits is a fan that doesn’t see his flaws, because this is not only unsupported by canon, it’s not even supported in real life. This is the dictionary definition of “godfather” that comes up via Google:

Obviously the first definition is the meaningful one here: “a man who presents a child at baptism and promises to take responsibility for their religious education”. That’s right: religious education. Not guardianship. In modern times, there are probably people in real life who make their children’s godparents their legal guardians as well in the event of the unthinkable, but Wikipedia’s civil and religious-based definition of the term leans heavily on the religious implications with only brief references to the civil implications (which do state that the godparent can become mentor or guardian to the bereaved child).

Religion in general isn’t mentioned much in HP, so it’s likely that the religious definition wasn’t relevant to what James and Lily wanted. And (to be fair to uncritical Sirius fans) there was an understanding that if something happened to James and Lily that Sirius would step in to become Harry’s guardian, which is stated by Sirius himself in Chapter 20 of Prisoner of Azkaban. (More on this in my second rebuttal.) But Sirius states both things separately: specifically, he asks first if Harry knows that Sirius is his godfather, then states that Lily and  James named Sirius Harry’s guardian. That tells me that the two are not inextricably linked even in the wizarding world: one can be a godparent without accepting any legal responsibility for the child. But that’s a moot sub-point, since Sirius does accept that responsibility.

Right?

Well. Actually, no. Not instantly. That’s the issue: at the critical moment, Sirius does not step up to this responsibility. 

His chance to do is clear: Hagrid is merely a stand-in for Dumbledore, who had clearly already come up with the protective charm he hoped to activate with Petunia. Hagrid at this point doesn’t know that Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, so he has no reason to suspect Sirius of anything yet. Hagrid is big and strong—annnd also a half-giant monitored by the racist British Ministry, forbidden to legally use magic; a bit of subterfuge and perhaps some Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder, and Sirius could have gotten away free and clear with his godson, if he wanted to. In the worst-case scenario where Harry had to go to his aunt and uncle anyway, Sirius also could have just gone with Hagrid, hung around the Dursleys’ house until his situation was cleared up, and then worked with Dumbledore on a way to be involved with Harry without sacrificing or compromising the blood protection. What most Dumbledore-bashers miss is that Sirius did not do any of those things for two reasons: 

1)  his priorities were skewed toward revenge (seriously. instead of telling literally anyone on his side about the Fidelius switch before it could be pinned on him, he chose to go after Pettigrew alone, because he further underestimated his former friend’s cunning and skill. and not even to bring him in for judgment, but to just kill him and destroy any evidence of his own innocence. bruh. I love you, but you idiot.)

and

2) he trusted Dumbledore to take care of Harry. IRL people nowadays like to treat trusting Dumbledore in general as a moral failing, but it’s not, whether in our world or in-universe. Dumbledore is the leader of Sirius’ rebellion against Voldemort, his blood family, and all blood purists. This is the man who didn’t expel Sirius for putting Severus’ life and Remus’ safety in danger. This is the man who offered to become Lily and James’ Secret Keeper himself to ensure their absolute safety. If Sirius hadn’t trusted Dumbledore, he might have fought harder to start his new life as a surrogate father. 

Or maybe he wouldn’t have fought—who knows? We know a little about Sirius, but the tragedy of the series is that he dies before we and Harry can get a full picture of him as a complete person (both before and after Azkaban). But I know for a fact that we certainly don’t ever hear him disparage Petunia Dursley—in fact, when he offers himself and his home to Harry in PoA, this is his exact line:

"I'll understand, of course, if you want to stay with your aunt and uncle," said Black. "But... well... think about it. Once my name's cleared... if you wanted a... a different home..."

Now why would Sirius say this if he knew for a fact that Petunia and Vernon were emotionally and psychologically abusing Harry, or that they were horrid and untrustworthy people in general? He wouldn’t. No one in their right mind would. He didn’t know. In fact, when Harry hesitates in the next line, made speechless by the opportunity for freedom, Sirius misinterprets it as a sign that Harry’s quite happy living with his mother’s family and doesn’t want anything to do with living with him. Harry has to untie his tongue to correct this impression (in the most vague way ever, notably: he never directly mentions how the Dursleys treat him. typical Harry).

So. We know Sirius isn’t nursing any grudge against Petunia Dursley. And we know he didn’t stake his claim on Harry in 1981. Fandom (and bash-friendly fans of Sirius especially) would do well to grapple with this bit of canon and redeem Sirius of this flaw in their works, rather than erasing it, whitewashing it, or pointing their fingers at other characters and absolving Sirius of his agency in the story.

Next!

‘despite them not even being named guardians in the event of James and Lily’s death’: ah yes, the “the Dursleys weren’t legally named guardians!” argument. (first off: I hate the Dursleys. this post is not Dursley apologism. fuck the Dursleys. if I’d had my way they would have been brutally murdered the second Dumbledore and Harry left their doorstep in book 6. But anyway.)

Not to be one of those “your word against his” people, but as stated above in Counterargument A, Sirius states in Chapter 20 of PoA that James and Lily appointed him as Harry’s guardian if anything ever happened to them:

"Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black stiffly. "If anything happened to them..."

... and he’s the only word we have on that point. 

Fans of “Sirius and/or Remus raise Harry” (or even “Amelia Bones/the Malfoys pre-defection/other random HP character raises Harry”) often tout this as a reason that Dumbledore was “stealing” Harry from his rightful place, and include a lot of bogus legalese during their obligatory Gringotts or Wizengamot chapter. But the fact is: we don’t ever see James and Lily’s will. A will is never mentioned in any of the books. Wartime or not, since they’re twenty-one years old, it’s very likely that they just didn’t make one—and certainly not one that explicitly named Sirius as Harry’s guardian or disqualified Petunia from being one. 

This may be hard for some fans to swallow, but it’s another piece of the puzzle of the tragedy of the Potters: like many young people, they thought themselves invincible even when in direct danger, and the one they left behind paid the price for their mistakes.

All of this detailed wordvomit ignores the most important counterargument to this line: namely, the one brought up before. Sirius’ choice and its consequences. With the agency he possessed in 1981, he chose to pursue Pettigrew and, when that failed, chose to let the entire wizarding world believe that he was the traitor. Perhaps his grief and guilt tied his tongue. Perhaps he felt the only punishment that was adequate for losing his surrogate brother was prison. He says “I as good as killed them,” in PoA, but the truth is that (regardless of his mistakes) he didn’t kill Lily and James. 

He also didn’t take the opportunity to set the record straight, meaning he was not in the running to raise Harry anyway. We know from canon that wizards skilled in Occlumency can fight Veritaserum and that’s why it’s not admissible in court as some kind of flawless truth-serum. But that detail doesn’t really have any bearing on Sirius’ situation because we don’t know if he knew Occlumency or not (though probably not, or else Dumbledore would have just had him teach Harry in year 5. remember, Occlumency is not a common skill that everyone and their mom knows how to do). 

I won’t get into the other canon gray area of “did-Sirius-have-a-trial-or-was-he-carted-straight-to-Azkaban” (though unlike other fans, I firmly believe that just because we didn’t see a trial doesn’t mean there wasn’t one; Dumbledore did say “[he himself] gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius was the Potters’ Secret-Keeper”, and it seems rather far-fetched to assume he gave this evidence outside of a trial. Granted, I do not doubt it was a kangaroo court fueled by the rage of public opinion and that Sirius hardly had a lawyer or any chance to defend himself, even if he’d had the inclination). 

But the points stand:

Sirius’ decisions that November night sent him to Azkaban, meaning he was legally out of the running to raise Harry. So any co-parenting or godfather visits he might have set up in canon are dust in the wind. (Legal experts can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure certain crimes disqualify you from having guardianship over kids.) 

Remus is a werewolf, and thus discriminated against by the Ministry similarly to Hagrid (also as mentioned above). But since his whereabouts and any other canon reasoning for noninvolvement in 1981 are unknown, James’ friends are now disqualified to raise Harry. 

We don’t know if Lily had any other close friends besides the one she’d already fallen out with (no, I regret to inform some of you that no adult female HP character was legally or otherwise declared Harry’s ‘godmother’. That’s also fanon. You’re welcome to keep using it of course, I’m not your mom, but it’s not canon or canon-supported, so please don’t treat it as such in meta arguments). 

This means that the Dursleys are the only ones left who have any sort of legal claim to Harry. Yes, we the readers know the Dursleys suck in-universe and shouldn’t have had legal guardianship of a shoe, let alone two children; but on the surface, to the oblivious observer (which is 99% of Harry’s contacts), with Sirius in absentia, the last Potter was going to be placed with his next-of-kin relatives just as anyone in the real world with no written directive would be.

The obvious sub-argument implied in the ‘why would anyone put Harry with the Dursleys’ main argument is usually “what right does DUMBLEDORE have to put Harry with the Dursleys” etc. etc. This is where narrative purpose comes in. No, no one (least of all That Woman when she was writing this) expects you to read Harry Potter and think that every single government official or headmaster has the right to just pluck orphan children out of the ruins of their dead parents’ houses and place them with whomever they see fit. But it fit the story for Albus Dumbledore, most powerful ‘good’ wizard and the only person knowledgeable and powerful enough to activate the bond of blood protection, to be the one to take responsibility for Harry’s present and future safety from Voldemort, especially once Sirius so spectacularly disqualified himself.

And again: in November 1981 canon, there is no one else left. Remus fucks off to parts unknown, Peter is considered dead, and both James and Lily’s parents predeceased them. The Weasleys don’t know the Potters that well and already have six children (maybe seven? had Ginny been born by then? hell if I know). Most other ‘good’ aligned families don’t know the Potters that well either, and they are also too busy celebrating Voldemort’s downfall to do anything more than toast to the orphan involved in it. Like it or not, Dumbledore (well, and Slughorn and Snape) are the only ones who have any inkling that Voldemort will be coming back, and Dumbledore is the only one who comes up with a plan to at least thwart Voldemort just directly knocking on the Dursleys’ door and taking Harry off to one of his murder locations.

Third, and Finally!

‘Despite being aware of the criminal abuse Harry had suffered while living with the Dursley family through a contact, Arabella Figg, he did not step in to prevent the abuse Harry suffered as a child,’ etc.: yeah, no. Just no.

The following are the only two very vaguely-written lines (why does That Woman love vague lines so much) from Albus Dumbledore about Harry’s life at the Dursleys, from Order of the Phoenix:

Harry glared at him for a moment, then flung himself back into the chair opposite Dumbledore and waited. Dumbledore stared for a moment at the sunlit grounds outside the window, then looked back at Harry and said, “Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well — not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.”

Dumbledore bashers love this line. I daresay they salivate over it. It certainly makes Albus look like a dick, I’ll give them that—but let’s break it down a bit, shall we?

“Five years ago you arrived... safe and whole, as I had planned and intended.”

The ‘as I had planned and intended’ is important here, because the (il)logical conclusion many bashers and antis jump to is that Dumbledore deliberately left Harry somewhere to be abused. This line refutes that conclusion. Dumbledore may not have imagined Harry to be some perfectly bubbly boy in the Muggle world, but even in his coldest plans, the plans he made before actually meeting Harry and becoming emotionally attached, he intended for Harry to arrive at Hogwarts ‘safe and whole’. It’s safe to assume this means physically, mentally, psychologically, etc.

Next part: the big part.

“Well—not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.”

Doesn’t sound so great, yep. Except. What does he mean EXACTLY by 'ten dark and difficult years’? We are never told. He does not clarify, here or elsewhere. He does not say, “I knew the Dursleys would abuse you. I knew they would hit you/starve you/be unkind to you and did nothing”.

This is the conclusion many people choose to draw because as the readers they know what happens to Harry; in fact, they know even more than the characters Harry is living his life with since he doesn’t seriously fucking tell anyone how the Dursleys treat him. But we also know despite all the fanon uproar about this line that Dumbledore did not know all the minutiae of Harry’s life at the Dursleys, and we know this because of a line from OotP (up first) and another line from Half-Blood Prince (up later):

“Five years ago, then,” continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, “you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well...”

If we are going to analyze Dumbledore’s ‘dark and difficult years’ line, we must also analyze equally all the other lines he says around it. This is one of the most candid conversations Albus Dumbledore has with Harry in the entire series. In this conversation in Chapter 37 of OotP, he reveals (implicitly) that his ‘plan’ was to tell Harry the prophecy early on, for reasons he doesn’t elaborate on. And in this conversation, he states, twice, that at minimum he intended for Harry to return to the wizarding world ‘safe and whole’, or ‘alive and healthy’. I am sure his definition of those words matches the readers’.

We should also note here that Dumbledore says “neither as happy nor as well-nourished as I would have liked”, and “as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances”. Meaning, again, that Dumbledore’s intent in leaving Harry with the Dursleys was not only to protect him, but also to perhaps give him a happy, normal life away from the magical world, protected from Voldemort and his most unhinged followers, until he was old enough to rejoin the world he belonged in. 

Depending on how much he’d gotten over his old ideas about Muggles, it could even be theorized that to Dumbledore ‘dark and difficult years’ referred simply to the time Harry would be exiled from the wizarding world, unable to return or interact until he could start learning magic (supported by the fact that even ‘good’ people like Mr. Weasley and Minerva McGonagall don’t have an entirely unbiased view of Muggles, or living without magic). This might be torturous if Harry knew his true origins growing up—which we know Dumbledore intended because 1) Dumbledore mentions to McGonagall in Chapter 1 that he doesn’t think it’s sensible for Harry to grow up knowing he’s famous (“...for something he can’t even remember!”), not that he doesn’t think it’s sensible for Harry to know about magic at all; and 2) his messenger, Hagrid, is shocked and angry that Harry doesn’t even know he’s a wizard. 

Before my words/theories are misinterpreted: I’m not saying Albus was totally naïve to the Dursleys’ treatment of Harry here. The way this line from Chapter 37 is phrased implies that once Harry arrived at Hogwarts, Albus was able to see for himself that Petunia had not taken his request in his letter to heart. And given how skinny and underfed Harry probably looked at eleven, even if he probably wasn’t saying shit about the Dursleys to anyone at this point, it’s a logical conclusion.

But before that point we have no idea how much or what specifically Albus knew about Harry’s life with his relatives. Bashers use the same argument above that’s marring the Wiki: that Arabella Figg kept Dumbledore informed on every little thing that happened in the Dursleys’ home, thus he knew about the full extent of Harry’s mistreatment and actively did not intervene, making him complicit. Except: we don’t know that either. Cue second quote from just after Mrs. Figg reveals herself to Harry:

“Why didn’t you tell me you’re a Squib?” Harry asked Mrs. Figg, panting with the effort to keep walking. “All those times I came round your house — why didn’t you say anything?” 

“Dumbledore’s orders. I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything, you were too young. I’m sorry I gave you such a miserable time, but the Dursleys would never have let you come if they’d thought you enjoyed it. It wasn’t easy, you know. . . .”

“I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything.” This bit of text, similarly vague (say anything to Harry about what exactly? and not say anything when? before Harry learned about the magical world? after?), is contradictory to Hagrid’s own expectations that Harry would know about magic, if indeed that’s what Arabella means. But she also implicates herself here: she too made sure part of Harry’s existence was at minimum mind-numbingly boring. Harry never recounts any instances of abuse from her, but nor does he imply that he ever told her the whole truth about his personal life. 

It’s clear she’s a good enough judge of character to tell that the Dursleys did not want Harry to have things he enjoyed (and draw conclusions from there), and it’s likely she passed that information on to Dumbledore. But when? And to what extent did she emphasize the second-class citizen status she observed from Harry? And even if she had, who’s to say that Dumbledore, Fudge, or anyone would have done anything about it?

(This, by the way, is the kind of plot hole/vague, non-explained thing fandom should grapple with in fanworks in my not-so-humble opinion. I can understand why no one wants to wrestle with the idea that a child being unhappy at home but not visibly mistreated would not be whisked away to happier, safer environs, because for many people that is their real story. Or maybe just because it’s hard to accept that under all the magic and adventure, Harry’s story is a story about adults fucking up in so many ways that he eventually has to rescue himself by murdering an old serial killer.)

Frankly, there are not enough fanworks that explore the possibilities of a Dumbledore who was not aware of the exact details of Dursleys’ mistreatment, a Figg who told him, and the moral grappling/potential spell retooling that might follow. Or, on the darker side, the possibilities of a Dumbledore who was still a good man, but had to make an ugly, shitty decision and live with how ugly and shitty it likely made him feel. Instead the default is to pivot to it all being “AN EVUL PLAN” by the mastermind who knew everything but also somehow not enough to stop the various plots that happen during the books.

Long past time for the aforementioned HBP quote, the one that (while it still doesn’t specify precisely what Dumbledore knew and when he knew it) is the most specific the entire series gets about Harry’s abuse:

"Now, as you already know, the wizard called Lord Voldemort has returned to this country. The wizarding community is currently in a state of open warfare. Harry, whom Lord Voldemort has already attempted to kill on a number of occasions, is in even greater danger now than the day when I left him upon your doorstep fifteen years ago, with a letter explaining about his parents' murder and expressing the hope that you would care for him as though he were your own."

Dumbledore paused, and although his voice remained light and calm, and he gave no obvious sign of anger, Harry felt a kind of chill emanating from him and noticed that the Dursleys drew very slightly closer together.

"You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands. The best that can be said is that he has at least escaped the appalling damage you have inflicted upon the unfortunate boy sitting between you."

This, along with a few more following sentences in chapter 3, is Dumbledore’s canon criticism against the Dursleys. Here is another instance where Dumbledore explicitly states that his desire was for the Dursleys to treat Harry as a beloved member of their family; he has now said the same thing twice before witnesses. And this critique notably comes following the close of several months of Harry’s Occlumency lessons with Snape, who (as a teacher) may have actually done one positive thing and acted as a mandated reporter for whatever atrocities he saw in Harry’s mind. 

Note: this is just a theory. Nothing in canon specifically states that Snape shared any of what he saw in Harry’s mind. I have no proof that Dumbledore’s conversation with the Dursleys was spurred by any alleged reporting by Severus, but I think that this combined with the fact that Alastor Moody, Arthur Weasley and Remus Lupin (three people who Harry definitely did not confide in about the Dursleys) all team together to threaten the Dursleys at the end of OotP of Harry’s lessons with Snape means that some information that was previously unknown made its way around the ranks, and all the way up to the top.

But ‘just a theory’ or not, it’s far more likely based on timing that Severus said something than Arabella. Dumbledore himself is a candidate too, except... if he knew the extent from the start, why keep it to himself and only share it fifteen years later with the aforementioned trio of Moody, Arthur and Lupin?

As for the “criminal abuse” phrase: let’s not leave any doubt in any mind that what Petunia and Vernon did to Harry was criminal. It makes them criminals. The implication in how this is written on the Wiki though is that the two of them were beating him raw and Dumbledore strolled by, peeked in the window, and muttered “b-but Voldemort” and kept it moving. That’s not the case for all the reasons listed above. 

Additionally, and unfortunately, we don’t know the full details of all the abuse Harry suffered. Physically, we know that Petunia swung a frying pan at Harry in second year. We know that Vernon was quick to grab Harry, even hit his own eleven-year-old son when he tired of listening to him, and strangled Harry so effectively that either Harry’s blood protection or his own accidental magic kicked in to stop the asshole. We have those two concrete examples, and (though I hate to say it) these are what many in the fandom hyperfocus on. Whatever they might say to the contrary, there are an unbelievable amount of stories which inflate or overexaggerate the amount of physical damage Harry obtained, because they consider that more concrete or more ‘valid’ to write about than the more insidious, unseen types of abuse. 

There are far fewer stories exploring and deconstructing the lion’s share of the abuse Harry received: the neglect and cruelty that Dumbledore mentions. The deliberate erasure of his presence within the house, whether that was through the lack of pictures with him in them or through the Dursleys expecting Harry to shrink himself when they had company, such as in Chamber of Secrets. And worst of all, on top of all of this: the enduring fact that Petunia still had the nerve to offer Harry space in the house for his protection, even as she and her family worked to make that space as cramped and unwelcoming as possible.

This is a fandom flaw: as long as there are fans quick to invent depraved acts for the Dursleys to perform rather than sitting with exactly what they have done and acknowledging it as ‘more than shitty enough’, we will as a whole still be plagued with stories that unbalance the amount of blame the adults in Harry’s life can claim over his circumstances.

So. We need a TL;DR. What have we learned here?

Lily and James had no other remaining relatives who could have taken Harry and thus (on Lily’s side since James’ wouldn’t matter) also upheld the upcoming bond of blood protection.

Lily and James named Sirius Harry’s godfather, and there was an understanding between all three that Sirius would care for Harry if his parents predeceased him.

Specifically, there was no written or referenced will ever mentioned in canon that qualified Sirius or disqualified Petunia Dursley from Harry’s guardianship.

The specific nature of Lily’s sacrifice gave Dumbledore a method he could use to protect Harry in his most vulnerable years, a method that required Lily’s only living relative; and he acted on his knowledge as soon as possible.

Concurrently, Sirius went to stake his claim to Harry, but (for whatever reasons) did not persist with Hagrid until Harry was in his care. He trusted that Dumbledore would look after his godson. Instead, he went after Pettigrew and ended up framed, imprisoned, and out of the running to care for (or even interact with) Harry.

We don’t know if Sirius had a trial. We can assume that he may have since ‘evidence’ was given of his undeniable guilt, but we will never know for sure unless That Woman says one way or another. 

If he didn’t have a trial, though, that blame lies squarely at the feet of Barty Crouch Sr., who we learn in Goblet of Fire was locking people up left and right after their speedy trials—not Dumbledore.

Besides legal racism reasons, Remus was unavailable to be Harry’s guardian for reasons unknown. (Is this info on Pottermore? someone tell me.)

Peter was... yeah.

Minister Bagnold of “I assert our inalienable right to party” fame was not thinking about baby Harry Potter’s well-being while she and her Ministry were celebrating Voldemort’s “downfall”.

Dumbledore was one of the few people thinking about Harry in the revelry that followed Voldemort’s disappearance, and with the chaotic events between Sirius and Pettigrew, he was also the last person left who could place Harry anywhere. He placed Harry with the Dursleys, trusting that they would treat him like a second son and care for him until Hogwarts could welcome him home.

McGonagall’s resistance to leaving Harry with the Dursleys in book 1 was not due to some sixth sense she had about how they would treat him: her specific concerns were that Vernon was a prick and baby Dudley was clearly overly spoiled. If anything she was more concerned about Harry’s moral fiber being compromised, not his safety.

From 1981 - 1991, the Dursleys emotionally and psychologically abused Harry, keeping the truth of his origins and nature from him while subsequently punishing him for those truths. 

Outside of dark jokes to his friends about their mutual dislike in the early years and one explicit confession to Dumbledore that Petunia “doesn’t give a damn [about him]” in Order of the Phoenix, Harry is not candid about his experiences.

Specific details of the Dursleys’ abuse outside of explicit book descriptions are unknown; when and how much each of the major adults in Harry’s life (Albus, Sirius, Remus, Arabella, Arthur, and Severus) know about his shitty situation is also unknown, though there are enough confusing half-references and retaliation scenes to make any reader’s head spin.

Any fanon attempts to color in the lines between what’s said and unsaid, what’s known and not known, are just that: fanon. They are just as divorced from canon as the concept of ladies’ man!Sirius or Slytherin Lord!Harry. I’m emphasizing the following again because I know some people will dismiss me and my post as a sermon from the fun police: There is nothing wrong with creativity in fanon by any means. The problem comes when invented information and (both friendly and malicious) personal headcanons are treated as canon and affect the canon accordingly.

So I’d really appreciate it if someone with the power to edit the HP Wiki deleted everything from the erroneous sentences starting with “It was Dumbledore who planned...” and ending with “...bullying cousin Dudley.” Those lines weren’t on Albus’ wiki originally anyway, so it won’t hurt to consign them back to the void—especially since there are plenty of other flaws and conflicts in Harry and Albus’ relationship that can be (and are) addressed there instead. 

After all, Sirius’ wiki article is flattering and (mostly) canon-accurate without discounting his flaws and how they affect his cut-short relationship with Harry. If we can keep the bias out of Sirius’ account, surely we can do the same for Albus’.

[cridhe]

"The national/ethnic belonging of every Israeli citizen and resident is registered in the Population Registry, and until 2002 it was also stated in the identification cards issued by the state that all residents are obliged to carry by law. For Jewish Israelis the nation (or nationality, le’om in Hebrew) is registered as Jewish if the person satisfies the requirements of the definition of ‘Jew’ in the Law of Return (whoever was born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, and does not belong to any other religion). Palestinian citizens are usually registered as ‘Arabs’ or ‘Druze’ depending on their religious affiliation. ‘Israeli’ as a national category does not exist. Dissatisfaction with this situation and with the religious definition of the Jewish nation has led to two legal challenges where the discussion focused on the question of whether an Israeli nation exists. In both cases the courts’ answer was negative.

As early as 1972, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a citizen who was registered as Jewish to change his registration to Israeli. The Court stated that there is no such thing as an Israeli nation. The appellant could not be registered as Israeli since he could not prove the existence of an Israeli nation that is distinct and separate from the Jewish nation. In 2008, a group of citizens petitioned the Jerusalem District Court demanding a declaration that their national belonging is ‘Israeli’. The Court rejected their request, stating that:

[A] declaration regarding the existence of an Israeli nation has significant implications for the identity of the State of Israel; in its [Israel’s] eyes, in the eyes of its citizens and residents, and in the eyes of the Jewish people in the diaspora, and in the eyes of the nations of the world.

In their argument in favour of rejecting the request, the Attorney General and the Ministry of Interior went as far as saying that if an Israeli nation were recognised, this would have decisive consequences for the character of the state as the state of the Jewish people to the point that this determination would contradict Israel’s definition as a Jewish and democratic state. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which emphasised that ‘“the constitutional Jewishness” of the state negates the legal possibility of recognising “the Israeli nation” which is supposedly distinct from the “Jewish nation”’.

In both cases the Courts linked the issue of the existence of a nation to the concept of self-determination, signalling that such recognition may affect Jewish self-determination. The rejection of the idea that there is an Israeli nation signifies the rejection of the idea that all citizens in Israel are equal participants in a self-determining unit in the form of the state.

from 'The Dynamics of Exclusionary Constitutionalism: Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State' by Mazen Masri

[andromerot]

mabel, episode seven: king in the labyrinth. in which the snake begins to eat its own tail

oh im gonna be soo normal about this

whoever posted about how mabels voicemail message is her own voice but anna just says her own name and the machine does the rest and how she forgets to be a person sometimes. yeah

mabel martin customer service voice...

"im kind of... kind of swamped... haha" oh you KNOW she was sitting around in some sort of bog when she said this. mabel martin dad joke truthers rise

YOURE PAYING TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO THE WRONG CORNERS

i can have so many feelings about the attic room

hi dad

I AM NOT MOON AND MIRROR I AM FLESH AND BONE OKAY!!!!!!

mabel martin customer service voice.....two!

oughgh aughghh etc

have you ever heard a fox scream. have you. she has.

AND THEN SHE PUT GLASS IN MY FOOD AND KILLED ME. this line was already crazy but knowing what we do now well...the idea mabel knows what has happened to her in every universe maybe even that shes the same across all of them that shes not separated from her other selves like "anna" is and then this means that mabel has died so many times she doesn't even know how to be alive and was she ever? im also convinced that the glass were mirror shards. sally feeding luna to mabel. deeply normal about The Implications. "its not as if she knew it would make me so..."

first of the famous what what whats...shes just like me fr

i think this here was one of the first moments i went oh ok im never gonna get over this there is so much here. its like a religion people dont love like that anymore. the house isnt haunted its a haunting. the dark wood curved around me in love even when i slammed my head into it. even when i tried a little bit nothing stuck. AFTER AWHILE ITS NOT COMFORTING IT'S JUST STIFLING.

mabel martin customer service voice....three!! normalest girl in the whole world

this episode was guest written by mabel martin the voice of mabel martin is BEEP 👍

[lasplaga]

Are there some things you dislike about how the show/series/etc. portray the character you have picked up? If so, what?

-;┊ 𓆙 𝕺𝕺𝕮 ; ◥ 𓆙      —       𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐍 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐍𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄 --- Accepting!

( 11 ) 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰/𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬/𝐞𝐭𝐜. 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐩? 𝐈𝐟 𝐬𝐨, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭?

I've always had issues with the 2005 iteration because Lord Saddler was a remodel / recolor of Oswell Spencer from RE3.5's Castle Vers. & I want to separate myself from themes of Nazism / Eugenics as much as humanely possible. It's partially why I don't really care for the games spanning from 0 - 3 & lost interest in Sergei Vladimir / James Marcus over time.

On the topic of the English Localization again, the blatant American / Foreign xenophobia they introduced was in extremely bad taste & rooted in The War on Terror influence back in the early 2000's. I was overjoyed when this was completely removed in Vendetta & the remake because what purpose does it serve for a religion / religious preacher to be discriminatory in that way that is hellbent upon world domination with a mind-controlling parasite?

Thirdly, because I'm always at Capcom's throat, they are ( but slowly getting better ) SERIOUSLY bad with stealing ( art in general, coming from someone who studied art history ) iconography & symbolism from closed cultures / practices that suffer discrimination, racism & harmful stereotypes to this day. They are also bad with using real world events for canonical history without considering the implications it might have on the average consumer. Instead of listing individual sources, there is an entire wikia page ( I hardly trust the wikia but these sources are legitimate ) dedicated to how The War of Terror initially influenced RE4 & / or the remake. There is also Mesoamerican / Mesopotamian leftovers from early builds of 3.5 & 4 which again, carries harmful stereotypes when it's representing a sacrificial death cult & religious extremists. I would have preferred a RE4 that was delayed & completely original artistically instead of... what we got.

Final thing but his full name is absolutely stupid & it drives me up a wall CONSTANTLY.

[bells-of-black-sunday]

how does Tarhos think about the painting? He dismisses it, but is this because he genuinely doesn’t care or because he is worried that it will influence their relationship in some way? Do you think he’s worried that Haru might see their relationship as a “bad sign” because of his superstitions and the horrible ending their counterparts had within the image?

Context out of the way first, because this is something me and Egg have primarily talked about on discord, but: Tarhos and Haru are the same people from Tarhos's base verse, they're just reincarnated over the years and lived a lot of different lives due to the fallen angel verse where Haru is literally a primordial god whose making this all happen so that he and his beloved angel can meet in every life they live.

The painting itself is one of the center pieces in modern Vittorio's museum. It's of Tarhos and Haru from way back when and it's something that was commissioned shortly after he started working for Vittorio as the knight wanted the maiden to see what he actually looked like instead of just in polished spoons and reflections of water. He knew it was something very important to him and a further way to show how far Tarhos's mind goes the closer he gets to the entity exploiting parts of him that always existed, but he just had impulse control and empathy for other people in his situation.

Vittorio has also been translating the maiden's journals for Haru and Tarhos doesn't really get why his boyfriend is so obsessed with it and concerned that he's going to upset himself when he finds out how they died. Not that he knows how he knows that they died.

Tarhos doesn't even know what to think about the painting, he knows it's someone that looks like him, shares the same name as him and even is from the same town he grew up in and he gets this really weird melancholy when he looks at it. Like he knows who those people are and how happy they were when it was commissioned, but also... how dark their lives would become, because of one thing. And he feels like he should knows what that thing is, but he doesn't. It gives him this really eerie feeling that he hates and Robin even comments on how uneasy Tarhos gets around it.

He doesn't want Haru getting involved with it, because it's freaky. And he doesn't like how Vittorio keeps pushing how him and Haru are the people from the painting, it feels disrespectful to him. Because they aren't the same people, they've both lived completely separate and better lives. He always had free will to chose to do things even if he hates some of the choices he did and even more so Haru was never kidnapped and forced into something like that. He may have been kidnapped and nearly died for another reason, but somehow that reason is a tiny bit less awful to him than what the maiden went through.

Tarhos also doesn't like how Vittorio, though not intentionally he's just really excited, keeps trying to push that them two could somehow make things right. Make what right? Those two died horrifically, there's no making that right even if they were reincarnated into who they are now. Nothing will fix what happened then and it makes him irritated that Vittorio keeps putting those implications in Haru's head, he doesn't want him to put anymore strain on his relationship when they're already had a really rough patch.

He also doesn't like Vittorio in general, how all of his ideas for him and Haru meeting to discuss his "findings" all seem like dates. Coffee at fancy cafe's, fancy dinners or lunches, meeting at his home for drinks. He doesn't like it. He doesn't trust him or his intentions. Granted Vittorio means nothing by it even if he does have a tiny bit of a crush on Haru just like he did in the 1300s. He's just really passionate about his work, the occult, supernatural and world religions, he's convinced he's a reincarnated version of his self and he's just excited to meet the two he died with even if Tarhos wasn't fond of him.

[wheredidmyfacego]

I've been thinking a good bit about free will lately. How to define it, how is it useful, and how it relates to chaos. Here's some of those thoughts.

I think I believe we do have free will.

The most exacting definition would be something like, the ability to act in a way that disregards any stimuli. Of course neurons firing in the brain does count as stimuli to react to, which makes the idea of free will seem impossible. Especially when disregarding what your brain says, means there is a you separate from your brain. And the most compelling argument I've heard against is, you don't decide what you value. And every decision you make is really just weighing what values most to you. In this way I would have to agree that free will does not exist.

What implications does that bring? Our world, mostly dominated by Christianity but also most other major religions, operates under the assumption that free will does exist. Some even argue that that's how we can do evil, because we can choose wrong. It makes it very easy to punish those who use their free will in that way. But if we don't have free will, what then are we to do with things that go against our values? Is it fair to punish someone for the wrong neurons firing in their brain? On the other hand, you don't choose your values. So if someone is deemed to have bad values, why shouldn't you lock them up for life? Or is it more about shaping the person by getting different neurons to fire?

Obviously our current justice system is not very just. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are generally capable of changing for the better. It's clear that we need to focus the system on rehabilitation rather than punishment, but that's not what this post is about. I also don't think that that truth necessarily says anything about whether or not free will exists. Anyway, speaking of being chaotic.

As far as scientists can tell, there is an inherently chaotic nature to the universe. All the clean patterns and formulas break down at the quantum level. As Schrodinger postulated, those particles are in a super position of multiple states until they are directly observed. So assuming that's true, that exists within us as well yes? So with each decision there is a super position of all the possible choices being realized. And again, there are times when the decision is made by a weighing of values which we don't choose. But I know I've experienced times when I truly didn't know what my values favored. In these times, can we not use randomness to make the decision? Even further, when we make things happen that don't have previous expectancy. Have a new thought and execute on it. Can we be said to be adding chaos to the universe? Also, what about decisions we make that we disagree with? A decision that goes against our values at the time of making in. It seems like if free will didn't exist, then we wouldn't able to make such decisions. We appear to be able to use chaos in order to make choices that are counter to what we believe in or even our survival.

I anticipate the argument that randomness is not the same as free will, so here's that rebuttal. The first obvious counter is to point at the word "free". Second is looking at the definition I provided and state that randomness does in fact disregard stimuli in order to be random. Beyond those, we use our will to pluck our choices and ideas out of the randomness. We pick the realized position out of the super position.

So that's where I'm at with it right now. I welcome any debate, my argument is certainly not fully comprehensive. Just don't expect me to respond quickly or consistently. Also here's a motivational quote inspired by this idea.

You are the chaos inherent to the universe.

[whatisonthemoon]

Sun Myung Moon Was Building the Kingdom with M-16 Machine Guns

This post was submitted by Kirsti Nevalainen on the old WIOTM blog, originally posted on June 20, 2016.

Sun Myung Moon said in his speech on May 17, 1973: But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So we cannot separate the political field from the religious. Democracy was born because people ruled the world…Then, we come to the conclusion that God has to rule the world, and God loving people have to rule the world - and that is logical. We have to purge the corrupted politicians, and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most.

http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon73/SM730517.htm

Moon does not recognize the legitimacy of constitutional democracy. Democracy is just a transitory phase on the way toward the global theocracy (Clarkson, Fred, “Moon’s Law”: “God Is Phasing Out Democracy” in CovertAction, Number 27 (Spring 1987), p. 46.

Sun Myung Moon and his political organizations The World Anticommunist League WACL and CAUSA were cooperating with the South Korean government and KCIA, the Taiwanese government and the ruling Japanese LDP party (whose backers were fascist war criminals Ryoichi Sasakawa, Yoshio Kodama and Nobusuke Kishi) and with the US government and CIA. This cooperation began already in the 1950s right after the WWII when the US government launched its global unti-communist war and continued Hitler’s unti-communist crusade with the help of former Nazis, Neo-Nazis, Fascists and all other extreme right-wingers like Sun Myung Moon and his church.

The Moon organization was deeply involved in the unti-communist wars in South and Central America during the 1970s and 1980s. According to Anderson’s report CIA and the Unification Church members cooperated in Sandinista War. In Central American hinterlands it was sometimes difficult to distinguish CIA operatives from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s disciples. The Messiah had a solid presence in the region. CAUSA has helped “freedom fighters” with basic supplies, cash and emergency relief. Anderson has seen gun-toting guerillas in Honduras clad in red CAUSA T-shirts (Anderson, Scott and Anderson, Jon Lee, Inside The League, The Shocking Exposé Of How Terrorists, Nazis, And Latin American Death Squads Have Infiltrated The World Anti-Communist League, Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1986, pp. 128, 233, 234.

Moon’s organization developed close ties with the Honduran military and the Nicaraguan contra movement which were permiated with drug smugglers and human right violators. Senator John Kerry’s contra-drug investigation concluded that a number of contra units were implicated in the cocaine trade. According to Senator Kerry’s report, issued April 13, 1989, it was clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers.

In 1980 Sun Myung Moon made friends in South America when Bolivia’s Cocaine Coup plotters seized power. According to Bolivian government and newspaper reports, a Moon representative invested about 4 million US dollars in preparations for the coup. CAUSA listed as members nearly all the leading Bolivian coup-makers. Moon’s organizations WACL and CAUSA were instrumental in financing and training the coup plotters.

It would be very important that all Unification Church and CAUSA members and ex-members who participated in the anti-communist wars in South and Central America and elsewhere in the world would come forward and tell about these secret and illegal operations.

Kirsti Nevalainen

Related links below

Sasakawa and Kodama may have had another reason for their alliance with Moon

Moon didn’t know about the guns! - Bo Hi Pak, really?

On the KCIA’s Money for Yasue Erikawa (1978)

Moon and Guns in the 60s

U.S. Department of State Transcribing the Soviet News Program on Moon’s Ties to the Military-Industrial Complex