#and the root cause always has been and always will be jew hatred

[jewishbarbies]

really fucking weird when i see young lgbt+ people talking about the parallels between now and nazi germany and they go on a “we’ve been telling you for years! you haven’t been listening!” rant because imagine how we feel. jews haven’t shut up since the 30’s and still get ignored in 2024 despite everything we know now. you were born in ‘04. calm down.

[eretzyisrael]

by Simon Sebag Montefiore

There is a myth that the last antisemitic pogrom in the British Isles was in medieval York. It was far more recent than that: The long-forgotten Limerick pogrom happened in 1904. It began with a sermon given by a priest and gathered momentum because it was backed by Arthur Griffith, the founder of the original Sinn Féin and friend of Michael Collins.

The story of the Limerick pogrom (or “boycott,” as it is also known) has a special resonance for me because my grandfather and his family, the Jaffes, lived in Limerick then—though they never mentioned it. Indeed, Irish Jewry, including its most famous son, Chaim Herzog, late president of Israel, had protested that Ireland was the most tolerant land in Europe. Now it appears that they protested too much. The strangest thing of all is that the Jews of today’s Ireland are still frightened of telling this story. When I made a television film about the pogrom, most Irish Jews were too scared of “making trouble, attracting attention” to take part in it.

I had always been proud of my Irish roots. My late grandfather, Henry Jaffe, who lost his Irish accent but kept his debonair Irish charm, used to say that he had seen mermaids at Ballybunion, and Aunt Rose used to reminisce in an Irish brogue about the Limerick Races. While talking to a distinguished Irish political writer, I mentioned that I was descended from Limerick Jews. He told me the story that became the basis of my film about the origins of Sinn Féin.

Virtually the whole Jewish community in Limerick, numbering about 170, were from the village of Akmenė in the Tsar’s Baltic territories, which are now Lithuania—part of the Pale of Settlement, the only area where Jews were allowed to live. When in the 1880s Nicholas II stepped up his anti-Jewish legislation, my great-great-grandfather Benjamin Jaffe and most of Akmenė decided to leave before the Cossacks returned. Benjamin bought a ticket for New York, but when he arrived at the picturesque imperial British port of Queenstown in southern Ireland (now called Cobh, whence the Titanic departed on its final voyage), he was told that he had arrived in the New World. “But that doesn’t look like New York,” the Jews protested as they disembarked. “New York’s the next parish,” they were told. When they discovered this was not the case, they settled in Limerick.

They lived together in considerable poverty on Colooney Street, which soon became known as Little Jerusalem. In the 1901 census, four years before the pogrom, my maternal family were registered as peddlers. The patriarch, Benjamin, a magnificent man with a long white beard, was a peddler, though really he was the chazan (singer) and mohel (circumciser) of the little community. He lived at 64 Colooney Street and his son Max, aged 26, lived at Number 31 with his own family, which included my grandfather Henry, aged 3, and my great-aunt Rose, aged 1.

The family has always been proud that Max was a dentist, but I soon discovered that he was not technically qualified; the census called him, alarmingly, “dental mechanic.” It comments dryly that the family could read and write. They must have been the most erudite peddlers who ever existed, for they were as scholarly as they were poor. My grandfather’s bar mitzvah speech is written in both English and in fluent ancient Hebrew, and filled with biblical references.

However hard it was to do business in Limerick, it seemed a safer sanctuary than Russia. But three years after the census, when my grandfather was 6, hatred of this tiny Jewish community reached fever pitch among the very poor Irish to whom they sold their wares. They often sold on credit, and this caused savage resentment. Sometimes when a Jew went to the surrounding countryside to collect a debt, peasant women would pull out their breasts, shout “Rape!,” and then the men would beat up the Jew. An ostentatious Jewish wedding apparently caused jealousy. The pogrom was the result of the increasingly vicious agitation of the spiritual director of Limerick’s Redemptorist Order, Father John Creagh, whose church overshadowed Little Jerusalem. The climax came when Creagh, “a speaker of fervid eloquence,” gave his sermon entitled “How the Israelites trade,” on Monday, January 11, 1904. It reads like a grotesque parody of antisemitism:

The Jews rejected Jesus, they crucified Him and called down the curse of His precious blood on their own heads. . . they did not hesitate to shed Christian blood. Nowadays they dare not kidnap and slay Christian children, but they will not hesitate to expose them to a longer and more cruel martyrdom by taking the clothes off their backs and the bit out of their mouths.

Then Creagh came to the Jews of Limerick:

Twenty years ago and less, Jews were known only by name and evil repute in Limerick. They were sucking the blood of other nations, but those nations turned them out. And they come to our land to fasten themselves like leeches. Their rags have been exchanged for silk. They have wormed themselves into every business. . . the furniture trade, the milk trade, the drapery trade—and they have even traded under Irish names. . . . The victims of the Jews are mostly women. . . .The Jew has a sweet tongue when he wishes. . . . If you want an example, look to France. What is at present going on in that land?

The reference to the Dreyfus scandal is significant.

The injustice of it was little consolation to the Jews of Colooney Street when the thousand or so worshippers of Creagh’s church poured out, as they were to do daily for a month. A huge drunken mob gathered, wielding burning torches. They worked their way down Colooney Street smashing windows and front doors, and forcing their way into the houses which they then looted. For more than a month the Jews of Limerick waited, terrified in their own homes, almost starving, for Creagh had urged the people not to pay their debts. No one would do business with them. If they walked in the streets, they were beaten. The only miracle was that no one lost his life, but for the Jews who had just escaped the Cossacks, it was terrifying.

[dragoneyes618]

For nearly all of Jewish history people recognized that antisemitism was a reaction to the Jews and Judaism. But today, Jew-hatred is generally attributed to factors having little to do with Jews and Judaism; rather, its causes are generally held to be economic, political (the use of Jews as scapegoats), ethnic prejudice, and the psychopathology of hate - all of which dejudaize antisemitism.

Among those most committed to these dejudaizing interpretations are secular and non-Jewish Jews committed to the notion that the Jews are a people like all other peoples. Accordingly, they want to believe that antisemitism is but another form of bigotry, and that in the secular world it will die out. These individuals believe that there are no rational reasons for Jew-hatred and/or that antisemitism is a kind of societal sickness. Another reason why many modern Jews believe in these explanations for Jew-hatred, rather than in the one held by Jews for thousands of years, is simply that these explanations are more or less the only ones offered. Modern scholars tend to promote secular and universalist explanations for nearly all human problems, including, of course, antisemitism. In contrast, the traditional Jewish understanding of antisemitism has been the opposite - religious and particularist.

Among modern scholars there are a large number of Jews whose universalist worldviews make them particularly averse to the Jewish explanation of antisemitism. Indeed, they oppose any thesis, about anything, not only antisemitism, which depicts the Jews as distinctive, let alone unique. Accordingly, they have expended great efforts to prove that the Jews are not different from anyone else.

The dejudaization of antisemitism reached its nadir in the 1955 theatrical adaptation of the most famous document of the Holocaust, The Diary of Anne Frank. As an adolescent in Amsterdam, Anne Frank and her family spent more than two years hiding before being captured by the Nazis. During this time Anne Frank kept a diary that was found and published after the war.

Though raised in a secular and assimilated home, Anne came to feel during her years in hiding that there were specific Jewish reasons for the suffering she and other Jews were undergoing. On April 11, 1944, she wrote: "Who has inflicted this upon us? Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now? It is God who has made us as we are, but it will be God, too, who will raise us up again. If we bear all this suffering and if there are still Jews left, when it is over, then Jews, instead of being doomed, will be held up as an example. Who knows, it might even be our religion from which the world and all peoples learn good, and for that reason and that reason only do we now suffer. We can never become just Netherlanders, or just English, or representatives of any country for that matter. We will always remain Jews, but we want to, too."

But Anne Frank's beliefs that Judaism was at the root of Jew-hatred and that the Jews were different were eliminated in the Broadway version of The Diary of Anne Frank. The authors, Alfred and Frances Hackett, with the advice of the Jewish playwright and political radical Lillian Hellman, simply deleted the above passage, which had been central to Anne's thinking, as well as to writer Meyer Levin's original version of the play. Instead, the Hacketts' put into her mouth words she had never said but that reflected their own universalist views: "We are not the only people that have had to suffer....sometimes one race, sometimes another."

The Hacketts thus presented their dejudaized interpretation of antisemitism in place of the Jewish interpretation offered by Anne Frank, that the Jews are hated precisely because of the Jews' unique role in the world.

- Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, pages 56-58

[edenfenixblogs]

You know? I actually (conditionally) accept this apology from Drawfee, assuming they actually come through on their promise to avoid antisemitism in the chat.

I don’t and never expected them to police people saying “free Palestine” (even though many, many people add an implicit “from Jews” to the end of that thought). I never expected them to prevent the spamming of Palestinian flags and watermelons. I know that will be something that occurs in the chat. I can live with that. That’s just what being online means these days.

But if they allow things like “IsraHell” and “IsNOTreal,” that’s crossing the line into indigenous erasure and hate speech. If they allow blanket statements about Israeli human beings who are not politicians, that’s dangerous rhetoric. I’ve always said that I trust that they all WANT to get it right. And if they do a decent enough job at actually trying to do so, I can maybe get past the hurt they caused one day.

This already makes me feel less sick every time I look at the Drawtectives posters on my wall. So that’s nice.

I think the words and actions against me specifically still hurt a little bit too much for me to engage for right now. And from their statement, it seems like they don’t really care about losing some Jewish fans, let alone one particular fan that they feel is responsible for causing them distress. That’s fine. They’ve got hundreds of thousands of other fans who make my support not really matter in the long run.

I just hope ALL creators know that individual humans who like their content and engage with them DO NOT have that many people in their corner basically ever. And especially at a time when Jews and Arabs and Muslims are all facing increased hatred, they should be responsible and respectful in how they deal with any interactions involving those groups and their concerns.

It is not entitled in a parasocial way to expect creators to address sensitive affairs with concern. It would be entitled to expect them to cater to you specifically or your own individual needs. But that is not and has never been what I’m doing with this blog or any other online presence. I just want to help keep the world safe for Jewish people. And that is not a goal that is individual enough to me and my life that it is out of line to bring up to a creator or group of creators when their actions impact the larger community.

We’ll see how it goes. They clearly had some discussions that led to this statement. I can only hope that the intent behind it is real and stems from a desire to do better and not just a desire to stop hearing about antisemitism. The livestream will tell us everything we need to know, but until then (despite everything) I really am rooting for Drawfee. I hope they live up to their own ideals here, because they have great ideals. And I really hope the community can be safe for people like me.

Well Drawfee is officially no longer safe media for me :(

Karina liked multiple tweets conflating a PSA for antisemitism with Israeli propaganda and claiming that Israel planned its assault to coincide with the superbowl…

Julia liked posts claiming that the war isn’t a war. Nobody has liked anything about antisemitism or even acknowledging Jews are in danger right now.

TBH I’m devastated.

I have Drawfee art all over my home. I was actually gonna become a patron this year. I’d literally been saving to make it feasible. This is crushing. I feel sick.

[thefilmfatale]

Jojo Rabbit (2019)

Who says you can't laugh about the Holocaust? Certainly not Taika Waititi.

The Hunt for the Wilderpeople director’s latest film Jojo Rabbit, set in Nazi Germany with a fanatical Hitler youth at its center, is uproarious, funny, and anything but glib. The story follows 10-year-old Jojo Betzler (played by the effortlessly charismatic and magnetic Roman Griffin Davis), who idolizes Adolf Hitler so much that Hitler (played by Waititi) has become his imaginary friend, popping up like a proverbial devil-on-one’s-shoulder during random moments of turmoil to comfort and counsel our budding young Nazi. 

Jojo’s dedication to the cause is unwavering. Thanks to some imaginative Nazi propaganda, Jojo is convinced that his purpose is to exterminate Jews, whom he envisions as winged creatures that eat children and hoard anything shiny. Alas, after playing cavalier with a grenade at Hitler youth camp, Jojo suffers an accident that renders him unfit to keep training with the other children, including his best friend Yorki (played by the adorably precocious Archie Yates). He’s promptly sent home, where his angst grows due to being isolated from his Jew-hating peers. To add insult to injury, he discovers that his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) has been hiding a Jewish girl in their home. Outraged and beside himself with indignation, Jojo hatches a plan to get rid of the Jewish girl, seizing it as an opportunity to prove himself as a true Nazi believer to his peers. 

Jojo embarks on quite the character arc, and Waititi once again proves that he is a masterful director when it comes to working with children. His ability to elicit the purest, most delightful performances from child actors is amazing (just as he did in Hunt for the Wilderpeople), and the audience swiftly finds themselves endeared to Jojo and the rest of the cast. Performances from everyone were delightful, with Waititi allowing each actor (such as Johansson, Sam Rockwell, and Rebel Wilson) to bring their signature flairs to their characters. While the film is approached mostly as a period piece from an aesthetic standpoint (with costumes, set design, and color palettes largely faithful to the period), Waititi’s deliberate choices in making it anachronistic serve two purposes: to punctuate the satire, and to help make what should be a very sobering subject matter more approachable.   

The story, a loose adaptation of the book Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, while quirky and sweet certainly doesn't shy away from the real horrors of the holocaust. It’s a tightrope walk to juggle humor and atrocity, but Waititi makes it seem natural. He also knows precisely how to tug at heartstrings without being melodramatic. Jojo Rabbit’s triumph is ultimately in its ability to treat the topic of ideological extremism with the ridicule it so often deserves while at the same time provoking interesting questions about why people get sucked into blindly following charismatic demagogues, entrenching themselves in hate-filled cults, and spouting toxic ideologies. The best part? Waititi does this with so much thoughtfulness and nuance, all while serving up an entertaining, poignant story. 

By the end of Jojo Rabbit, you’re not raising your pitchforks screaming about the injustice of the Holocaust—that would be rather trite. Instead, you’re reminded that humans are complex, multi-dimensional, and capable of both immense kindness and unbridled terror. It’s a celebration of people’s capacity to change their minds. More importantly, it’s a reminder of the beauty of comedy and how laughter can be the best medicine during turbulent times. 

(More—including spoilers—under the cut)

What I love most about Jojo Rabbit is the depth of each character and how there’s so much to dissect and unpack for each one. Beginning with Jojo—we learn that not only is his father far away, in danger, fighting somewhere on the frontlines, but that he also lost his older sister Inge. We’re never told in full detail what happened to her, but the main takeaway is that her death, coupled by the absence of Jojo’s father, were tragedies that may have propelled Jojo to seek out the philosophy of the Third Reich. It’s not uncommon for young fanatics to get swept into hate groups when they are at their lowest points. When you’re angry or feeling helpless and lonely, it’s easy to externalize your pain and find someone to blame, whether it’s an entire gender, people of certain ethnicities, or members of a different political party. It’s simpler, you see, instead of owning one’s problems and acknowledging that the world doesn’t revolve around you. By making boogeymen out of people who are easy targets, we assert control over the senseless things that happen in our lives. It’s a way to feel powerful.

When you’re young, there are so many things that are out of your control. You’re caught in this torrent of everyone else’s decisions—your parents, school, your peers, society at large—and you’re looking around, flailing and hyperaware, that you’re living what is supposed to be your life and yet there seems so very little that you have ownership of. That's Jojo’s story. Not only is he caught in the middle of a war, but he’s grappling with some seriously heavy shit: an absentee father, a dead sister, a craving for acceptance from his peer group and, ultimately, a longing for connection that is rooted in positivity rather that hate. 

At first that connection seems to be cultivated by his mother, Rosie, who is literally and figuratively the most vibrant character in the film. From her bold, striking fashion sense and rouged lips to her joie de vivre, Rosie is, to quote Mulan, a flower that blooms in adversity. Even during the bleakest of times, she finds ways to uplift her son, whom she can tell is hurting. Her bursts of energy, her ability to find excitement and enthusiasm even in the most mundane of things, her rally to dance in the face of tragedy—all were reminders that dwelling on hatred and sorrow, while easy and sometimes necessary, is a crutch in a balm’s disguise. We must always forge ahead and seek hope when all feels lost, like “staring a tiger in the eyes”, as Rosie would say. That’s why, despite the risks of being caught by the Gestapo, she housed a Jewish girl in her home. In some small way, she was doing her part in the resistance against a hateful movement. While Rosie says she’s never stared a tiger in the eyes, her act of defiance came at great risk to herself, and that’s true courage.

In one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the film, Jojo is wandering the streets when he notices a bright, blue butterfly fluttering against the backdrop of hate-filled propaganda smattered on the city walls. He chases it wistfully and accidentally stumbles on the gallows in the middle of the town square. All the audience sees, hanging from the gallows, is a pair of legs with bright-colored shoes, and our hearts immediately sink. It’s Rosie. Waititi leads up to this shocking moment during a previous scene, while Jojo and Rosie are hanging out by a river. Rosie makes fun of Jojo for still being unable to tie his own shoes. She’s skipping gleefully on top of a concrete wall, with the camera trained low at Jojo’s eye-level, so the audience sees a shot of her shoes as she taps into a merry little dance. Waititi counts on viewers remembering this quiet scene to make what follows truly devastating. The effect is quite heart-stopping, and it’s impossible to want to reach out and give poor Jojo a hug as he cries out and wraps his arms around his dead mother’s feet. It’s then that Waititi makes his message known: Yes, there’s plenty to make light of in the world, but you can do this while also acknowledging that there’s plenty of darkness. It’s an impressive balancing act, and Waititi does it with so much wonderful exuberance and earnestness that it’s tough not to commend.

Viewers notice that the more Jojo focuses on the positive things in his life—his mother, his new Jewish friend Elsa—the less we see of his imaginary friend Hitler. And this is a deliberate choice by Waititi to prove a point: when you are consumed with hate, you’ll want to constantly keep feeding it because it’s comfortable and easy. As humans, we have a biological negative bias that we rely on as a means of survival. The very idea of entropy exists as a reminder that it takes more work to put things in order, to be good, to rise above, than for things to decay and distort and devolve. The more you fill your life with things that bring you joy, fulfillment, and contentment, the less you’ll rely on poisonous literature and toxic people. While this isn't exactly an epiphany for most of us, one may applaud Waititi for the inventive way he delivers this message.  

Another delightful character who, on the surface, seemed to be solely there for comedic effect, was Sam Rockwell’s Captain Klenzendorf, who’s tasked with whipping up these little rascals into Nazi-fighting shape. From the very get go, we sense that this man’s commitment to the Nazi cause is entirely for appearances’ sake. From his clandestine romance with his right-hand man (played by Games of Thrones’ Alfie Allen) to his soft spot for Jojo, the audience is led to believe that this man is merely pretending to be a hard-ass because that’s what you were expected to do, else be accused of treason to your nation. One could assume his affection for Jojo had something to do with being able to sympathize with the young boy after Jojo is relegated to doing simple jobs due to his injury (Klenzendorf claims he was benched from the frontlines because of an injury that led to him having a dead eye). But it’s toward the end of the film where we fully realize the totality of his character. In an earlier scene, Jojo is bullied by some older boys into killing a rabbit. They jeer at him as he wrestles with the decision to kill an innocent animal. He’s torn between wanting desperately to ingratiate himself into his peer group and staying true to the part of himself that’s kind, pure, innocent, and staunchly against needless violence. The music builds as we lean forward in our seats waiting to see what Jojo does. He decides on an act of mercy at his own expense, releasing the bunny and yelling at it to flee from danger. Unfortunately, before it has a chance to escape, the bunny is snatched up by one of the older boys, who wrings its neck in front of all the young boys to see. 

At first this seems like a scene that’s simply supposed to be an obnoxious display of bravado. But Waititi calls back to this scene towards the end of the film twice. Klenzendorf arrives at the Betzler household when it is being searched and ransacked by the Gestapo, who suspect Rosie has been aiding Jews. Jojo is terrified, not just to be discovered as traitors by the Gestapo but for Elsa’s (the Jewish girl they have been hiding who has now become his friend) safety. To get ahead of the situation, Elsa emerges from her hiding place and pretends to be Jojo’s dead sister Inge. When the Gestapo demand her paperwork, she shows them Inge’s old ID card. Klenzendorf immediately intercedes, grabs the ID from her hand and demands that she variate her identity by stating her birthday. Elsa stammers in response. “Correct,” Klenzendorf confirms flatly. The Gestapo consider this acceptable and vacate the premises, none the wiser. We discover immediately that Elsa had actually given the wrong birthdate, and Klenzendorf could have outed her right then, but decided not to. He was helping the bunny escape.

In another scene, when the Allied troops march into Germany and start rounding up all the Nazi soldiers, Jojo (who has a Nazi officer’s jacket on) is mistaken for one of them. He runs into Captain Klenzendorf, who creates a commotion by wrenching the Nazi jacket off of Jojo’s back and pushing him away, telling him to flee while yelling at him for being a dirty Jew so the Allies don’t execute him. It was an act of sacrifice from a man who recognized himself in the young boy. Klenzendorf saw Jojo’s gentleness and purity of heart and knew this kid needed to live. He released the bunny, stared a tiger squarely in the eyes—at the expense of his own life.

Jojo Rabbit, while certainly laugh-out-loud funny and full of amusement, is a moving story about heroism from a group of people who rarely ever get acknowledgment for their acts of bravery. These were Germans who defied their Führer and their Aryan brotherhood at great risk to their own lives. While these acts will never erase the horrors of the Holocaust, it’s a reminder that people are complicated creatures, capable of miraculous acts of mercy and horrific deeds of violence. It implores us to think about how some of the people that get caught up in hate groups are hurting deeply and just looking for something to blame their pain on. It definitely doesn’t excuse their actions or the bile they oftentimes spew, but it merely reminds us that behind every caricature is a human being in pain. 

Even if you see Jojo Rabbit and don’t think it’s that deep—you may say “Starr, it’s just a comedy about stupid Nazis, it’s not even a true story”. What is true about it is that we live in a world of grey, and while it may be simpler to put people in buckets of black and white, hero and villain, good and bad, more often than not we are all just hurting in some way. What’s true about it is that we have more in common than we have differences and ultimately, everyone regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, craves the same thing: freedom; Freedom from the burdens that we carry on our shoulders, from dead loved ones to strife and war. Freedom from the fear of persecution for being who we are. The freedom to wear whatever we want, screw whomever we want, and to dance like no one’s looking. 

[jewish-privilege]

...For Hitler, the Jews were a threat to the human race because they had brought to earth the notion that there was a way for humans to share the earth instead of killing each other for it.

The Jews, according to Hitler, had imposed their values on the natural order and were a force working against humanity. "All world-historical events are nothing more than the expression of the self-preservation drive of the races," he wrote. "It is Jewry that always destroys this order," and "murders the future."

...Hitler failed in removing this obstruction. But in murdering nearly six million Jews, he created a new political resource: Dead Jews. A valuable commodity.

..."Feminism is the cause of declining birth rates in the West, which acts as a scapegoat for mass immigration, and the root of all these problems is the Jew," [the 27 year-old German man who tried to enter the Humboldt Street synagogue in Halle on Yom Kippur (Wednesday) and murder the Jews praying inside] declared, livestreaming himself before arriving at the synagogue.

The chain-reaction leading from feminism, to dropping birth-rates and mass immigration to Germany, all originates from the Jew. And since mass immigration in today’s Europe is a by-word for Muslims, then we are all in the firing-line together.

The ideological manifesto of the Halle shooter is virtually identical to that of the mass-murderer of Christchurch who massacred 51 Muslims at prayer in New Zealand and of the shooter who murdered eleven Jews in a synagogue in Pittsburgh a year ago.

The updated version of Mein Kampf’s natural order of races fighting each other, to the death, is today’s "replacement theory," the conspiracy theory popular on the far-right with echoes on the less radical but more populist right-wing, which sees the hordes of Muslim immigrants invading western countries, depopulated by plummeting birth-rates, and replacing their white Christian majority. The liberal elites responsible for welcoming these immigrants have been contaminated by the Jews and their ideas.

Unsurprisingly, not one of the mainstream Israeli politicians releasing statements at the end of Yom Kippur about the Halle shooting could bring themselves to call the hatred by its name. How could they?

Their ideological allies, from Donald Trump in the U.S. to Viktor Orban in Hungary, regularly spout watered-down versions of the "replacement" theory. As do those very same Israeli politicians, when they talk of Israel’s own Muslim communities and the African asylum seekers who have found shelter here.

Instead they spoke of the "new anti-Semitism," the code-word for anti-Semitism which comes in the form of hatred for Israel. So what if it the attack in Halle, as the other ones which are motivated by white supremacist hate has nothing to do with Israel? Dead Jews are too good to waste. Even if in this case they survived.

It’s not that the left is much better. Statements from left-wing politicians and commentators about how Jews and Muslims are now both targets of the far-right are just a bit too convenient. They obscure the fact that in the last eight years, all the Jews murdered in Europe for being Jews, were killed by Muslims. Because they represented something to them as well.

If the attacker on Yom Kippur had successfully broken down the door, then we would have more dead Jews in Halle to add to the twelve murdered over the past year by white supremacists in Pittsburgh and Poway. But the interesting thing with left-wing condemnations is that they tend to be much more eloquent when the perpetrator is white and comes from the far-right.

Because a dead Jew is never just a dead Jew, it depends who killed the Jew.

Anti-Semitism is binary, just not in the way that word is usually used in these situations. The left has long categorized Jews as being white and therefore privileged oppressors. We lose our privileged status only when the shooter is from the right, and proposes, as the Halle shooter did, to "kill as many anti-whites as possible, Jews preferred."

In the 20th century our parents and grandparents were killed for being both rapacious capitalists and godless communists. In this century we are killed for both encouraging Muslims to emigrate to the Christian West and for being the vanguard of the imperialist Christian West dispossessing Muslims in the Middle East. Either way we are the targets.

Facing the far-right, both Muslims and Jews are targets. And in the wave of Islamist attacks in recent years, Jews weren’t the only targets either. There were plenty of non-Jewish targets, including satirical cartoonists and pop concert-goers and people eating at restaurants and many bystanders.

But in the Venn diagram of these two waves of terror, Islamist and neo-Nazi, Jews are the only targets who overlap in the crosshairs of both sets of attackers.

...For the 80 Jews in Halle, praying on Yom Kippur that the shooter would not break in, they had no idea if he was a neo-Nazi or a soldier of the Caliphate.

And if those had been their last moments alive, they would not have known how their deaths would be exploited by the politicians, framed by the media, and claimed by Israel - or by multi-cultural Europe.

[antisemitism-eu]

Portugal: Death of a Jew-hater (June 18, 2010)

"We can better understand their biblical god when we know his followers. Jehovah or Yaweh or whatever he is called, is a fierce and spiteful god, whom the Israelis always live up to." José Saramago

"What is happening in Palestine is a crime we can put on the same plane as what happened at Auschwitz... A sense of impunity characterises the Israeli people and its army. They have turned into rentiers of the Holocaust."

On the 10th anniversary of the death of José Saramago. David Frum @ National Post:

Jose Saramago, Nobel laureate in literature and anti-Semite, died Friday aged 87 [2010]. Saramago won his prize in 1998. He put his new global fame to the service of a new cause: denunciations of Israel. But unlike other European anti-Zionists, Saramago explicitly connected his dislike of Israel to his feelings about Jews. In a speech in Brazil on Oct. 13, 2003, Saramago reportedly unburdened himself of this thought about the world’s Jews: “Living under the shadows of the Holocaust and expecting to be forgiven for anything they do on behalf of what they have suffered seems abusive to me. They didn’t learn anything from he suffering of their parents and grandparents.” It was Judaism itself that Saramago blamed for everything he disliked in Israel. He wrote in the Spanish newspaper El Pais on April 21, 2002:

“[C]ontaminated by the monstrous and rooted ‘certitude’ that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God … the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner. Israel seizes hold of the terrible words of God in Deuteronomy: ‘Vengeance is mine, and I will be repaid.’”

A few weeks previous, Saramago had visited Ramallah. The visit occurred shortly after the Passover 2002 suicide bombing at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel that killed 30 people and wounded 140 more. Saramago expressed no grief for these murdered innocents. Instead, he toured areas damaged during fighting between Israeli and Palestinian armed forces and pronounced to a Portuguese radio interviewer: “[I]n Palestine, there is a crime which we can stop. We may compare it with what happened at Auschwitz.” Most European critics of Israel try to draw some kind of line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The line may be half-hearted and unconvincing, but still — they try. Saramago ignored such niceties. He followed the example of Middle Eastern anti-Zionists: He hated Israel, he hated the Jews who lived there and he did not scruple to express his hatred bluntly. In 2006, Saramago joined a group of other writers in a statement denouncing Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon: Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Arundhati Roy, Canada’s Naomi Klein. They accused Israel of plotting the “liquidation of the Palestinian nation.”

read more Saramago wrote in the Madrid newspaper El Pais (as translated by Paul Berman in The Forward):

"Intoxicated mentally by the messianic dream of a Greater Israel which will finally achieve the expansionist dreams of the most radical Zionism; contaminated by the monstrous and rooted 'certitude' that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God and that, consequently, all the actions of an obsessive, psychological and pathologically exclusivist racism are justified; educated and trained in the idea that any suffering that has been inflicted, or is being inflicted, or will be inflicted on everyone else, especially the Palestinians, will always be inferior to that which they themselves suffered in the Holocaust, the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner."

More Europe/Portugal: Anti-Semitism in Europe: ‘The devil that never dies’ The New Antisemite: https://ift.tt/2Ch94gJ

[socialistsephardi]

Zionism isn’t the idea that Jews should have a homeland. That doesn’t even make sense. We have a homeland, we’ve always had a homeland. Zionism is the idea that we should have an ethnostate in the homeland, big difference. Zionism was designed by assimilationists who held our own culture in low regard and were simply attempting to find a different way to assimilate - if the (European, imperial) nations wouldn’t welcome us into their societies, then making our own society modeled after them and aligned with them would allow us to ‘elevate’ ourselves to their level. Zionism is designed to shift us away from a people bound by culture and towards national identity. Zionism is designed to mold us into being as European as possible. Hertzl was a raging self hating Jew who believed Jews of “superstition” in the shtetls deserved what they suffered for not even trying to assimilate, he hated them because they were poor. In his words, “the unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of antisemitism into England, they have already introduced it to America”. To him, the root cause of European antisemitism was the refusal to assimilate, and that it had already destroyed any hope for wealthier Jews to become truly comfortable in whatever nation they preferred.

There’s a reason Zionism has had strange supporters - including Eichmann. Hertzl’s OTHER plan to deal with antisemitism was mass conversion to Christianity. No, that’s not a joke. Another Hertzl quote, “We, the Jews, not only have degenerated and are located at the end of the path, we spoiled the blood of all the peoples of Europe … Jews are descended from a mixture of waste of all races”. Seems like a pretty shitty bedrock for what’s supposedly the Jewish savior ideology. The internal consequences of Zionism have been devastating - sabra machismo, growing dismissal and disillusionment with any other political stances beyond Zionism, an ever increasing corrosion of Jewish culture, and persist alignment with imperialist, white supremacist forces like clockwork. The hatred of diaspora to the extent of hating diaspora Jews and refusing to acknowledge that we NEED a degree of diaspora to survive. Zionism is a cancer to the Jewish community, suffocating everything else out of Jewish life. In my own life, the most glaring example of this was my high school having us take a three week seminar about antisemitism, and the entire thing was about anti-Israel sentiment, BDS, and antizionist Jews. I and several students pointed at that maybe we should consider that some students within that very room weren’t exactly firm Zionists, and our Rabbi yelled at us until he turned red and we had tears in our eyes. He outright refused to acknowledge the issue of rising neonazism, especially on campus, and told us we should be more concerned about people critical of Israel. Zionism is toxic, and I fear it will do to us what the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, and Nazis failed to do - destroy us from the inside out.

[abandondeceit]

It's not about anti-semitism

I am increasingly distressed by the opportunistic portrayal of Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-semite. He isn’t. Never has been. I cannot foresee a time when he ever would be. It is sickening and extremely disturbing to hear his name being once more besmirched by coincidentally published words form the country’s most prominent Rabbi. I have no evidence as to whether he was involved in any plan, or whether there is a real plan at all, but I can only observe, and these are my observations. On the day when the Labour party publish their policies regarding faith and race the Chief Rabbi goes public to criticise Jeremy Corbyn, not only for not having rid the Labour Party of anti-semitism, but for being himself anti-semitic. I haven’t read his original words in The Times because it is behind a paywall, but the quotes on the BBC web site provide some clues. For example, 'Ephraim Mirvis said "a new poison - sanctioned from the very top - has taken root" in the party’ and 'Labour's claim it had investigated all cases of anti-Semitism in its ranks was a "mendacious fiction", he added.’ There’s a lot more (have a look here) and it is generally making the point that lots of Jews are anxious about the possibility of a Corbyn-led government, because of a perceived institutionalised anti-semitism. My distress is that once again the anti-semitism issue dribbles forward and it is allowed to become a mainstream story at a time when Jeremy Corbyn is making some good headway in the public domain. The poison mentioned by Mervis brings me up short, and I would argue that the constant drip-feed of anti-semitism complaints is itself the poison.  I am well aware of the consultation and investigation currently underway within the party, and like many I wish it was resolved, once and for all. I have every confidence that claims of anti-semitism are founded on no more (and probably less) evidence of anti-Jewish prejudice than in any other walk of life, and the Labour Party are always seeking to be better and more inclusive than any other walk of life. So, I’m not going to bleat on about where is the evidence, or express convoluted complaints about how anti-Zionism is different to anti-Semitism because you can get that kind of discussion in any number of outlets. In fact, here’s one, written by a prominent Jew. Anti-semitism is the loudest and shrillest of all dog whistles in our political culture, and as a consequence it has become all but overwhelmed by hectoring and fear. The hectoring is what happens when people see anti-semitism as easy accusation, and the fear is that they will not be seen supportive enough of the anti-semitic value signalling. And this stinks when it is aimed at a man who is attacked from all sides for both his pacifism and, somehow, terrorist tendencies. What causes me such despair is the media obsession, to the point of fetishisation, about this story, and the ways in which it is trotted out with such little regard for reason and responsibility. Mervis is wrong, and he should know better than to enter into the campaign as he has. I know he is a friend of Boris and also Theresa May, but I also believe he has been misadvised, to the extent that he has spoken as he has at the behest of powers behind the throne. He has bolstered a Conservative campaign by arriving on the scene just in time. How convenient. And so, we have the usual media storm of a man having to ‘prove’ his goodness in the face of rabid accusations of hatreds. And all on a day when the discussion should be about how inclusive the Labour Party is and will continue to be.

[snkpolls]

SnK Chapter 111 Poll Results

RATE THE CHAPTER 1,677 Responses

While still a highly rated chapter, satisfaction was down slightly over last month (4.33 for 111; 4.49 for 110). Many people expressed surprise that Isayama was able to pull off such an emotional chapter despite the predictable setup. Now that the Braus dinner has reached its conclusion, most are eager to get back to the main cast.

I loved the mood whiplash Isayama was doing. A happy moment already ruined by a tragic one that escalated higher. The main course was supposed to be delicious, but everything the Blouses and the SC tasted was treason and deception. Pure evil.

Glad to see further development for the characters of Falco & Gabi as well as the beginnings of preparation for war against Marley. (Albeit very slight) Hopefully in the next chapter we will get to see what the warriors & Marley have been up to while this revolution has been happening.

Good chapter, nice way to start a volume

I get why this chapter needed to happen, but I feel there were ways to advance these plot threads without killing the momentum we had last chapter.

I'm glad the Blouses are teaching Gabi that war is bad. Now let's get back to the damn war! Also, is Historia ok?! She wasn't looking good last we saw her, and now the Yaegerists are targeting her, and I'm worried.

not enough floch and no funeral/memorial for zackly and shitmachine, disappointed :'( good chapter though

I would like to file a petition for Isayama to stop repeatedly stabbing the already open wound he caused in to my chest pls?

  WHAT WAS YOUR FAVORITE PART OF THE CHAPTER? 1,678 Responses

With so many options it was difficult to choose but “Wine Mystery Revealed” edged out “All of the Above” with almost 20% of respondents. “Mr. Braus’ speech” and “Mikasa, savior of children” also had strong showings.

I honestly wanted to choose more than one which was Mikasa protecting Gabi, Mr Braus's speech and Gabi asking if they didn't hate her but I can't pick more because of the question type so ;-;

Favorite moment? Nicolo christening the Falbi ship. Yeah.

Mikasa saving Gabi was an incredible scene!

The way Nicolo insulted Jean to protect him was so cute, but if I were Jean I'd feel offended too lol.

Jean's new hair is awesome :D

OMG MIKASA IS PERFECT. MARRY ME!

Sasha eating pizza was sooo cute and i don't know if my heart can take it anymore because all this cuteness turns into angst because of what happened to her :(

  PAPA BRAUS, BEST DAD IN SNK, OR BEST DAD OF ALL TIME? 1,673 Responses

On a scale of 1 out of 10, Mr. Braus scores an 8.6. Although we haven’t asked you guys to rate other dads in the SnK universe, we’re confident he takes the number one spot of best father, and probably best parent as well.

Mr. Braus is the best parent in this entire universe (not that the bar was set very high, but still). I nearly cried during his speech.

Mr Braus showing this act of compassion - an act of letting go of revenge to stop the cycle of hatred and oppression is probably the most valuable experience Gabi could've learnt from (more valuable than any words spoken to her).

Step aside Eren, papa and mama Braus are the real Humanity's Last Hope! Their kindness and empathy are the only things that can stop the cycle of violence that this series is depicting on the most intimate and personal level. My appreciation for Sasha as well has grown exponentially through Nicolo, Kaya and the Braus parents.

Mr. Braus is like the only person in all that fucked up world that actually understands the root of the problem. Keeping people "into the forest" in a perpetual fight for survival between "preys and predators". I do believe that his words are everything we need to understand the moral of the story and may be hinting to what Eren and Zeke are trying to achieve (though from extremely different mindsets).

Sasha's dad's speech is so touching. Almost gave me hope that the series will end in a good way--people will find a way to deal with this unforgiving forest that is our world.

With all the allusions to World War II and the Holocaust, Mr. Braus' speech might have been the single most realistic depiction of the entire series. There are echoes of Oskar Schindler here. This is the same compassion that some Germans showed when hiding Jews in their basements, barns, etc. and saved lives. I was absolutely floored by this chapter, especially because my grandparents were Holocaust survivors themselves.

  AFTER SEEING GABI'S EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE BRAUS FAMILY'S GRIEF, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT HER? 1,668 Responses

Believe it or not, but compared to previous polls it seems more and more people are warming up to Gabi (or at least don’t hate her as much as they used to). 46.4% are glad she finally got some character development. Nearly 30% of the fandom are starting to like her or have always loved her. However, 17.9% of all respondents would rather not deal with Gabi at all.

Between warming up and loving her

Always loved her. Just keep loving her more and more. It was NEVER her fault.

Doesn’t put me up nor down

Feed her to titan falco

Finally some character development, but I still don't like her. She just grates on my nerves.

Gabi's scenes this chapter gives me hope for the story's message. Gabi's heartfelt question juxtaposed with Kaya's instant reversal was the most powerful scene in the recent chapters.

Great character development, but sorry she'll remain the one whom I hated.

I can't decide I just need a bit more time

I have always felt the hatred towards Gabi was unjustified so i'm glad that people are starting to like her character more

In that "Do you really not hate me?" there is everything Gabi is and represents as a character. Can't wait to see how she will further develop now.

This shows that regardless of the environment she has been raised in, Gabi is still just a confused child and a human being with feelings. I approve.

My hopes for her are very very low, but it's nice finally seeing a human and not radical, violent, aggressive reaction for once. hopefully she'll start seeing walldians as repressed ppl like the ghetto dudes

  WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE TERM  “YEAGERIST”? 1,676 Responses

The fan translation gave us “The Jaeger Faction” which over half of respondents preferred over Kodansha’s official translation of “Yeagerists.” 14% like the term, while 10% are not fans of it.

"Yeagerist" sounds like a name of some crazy group of fan girls. I prefer "Jaeger Faction" - sounds more serious.

I hope to become a member. better because it could mean both yeagers, not just eren

Could've come up with something better.  

I like the name, and hereby identify as a Yeagerist.

The abs empire

It's more respectful than "Idiots" I guess

Silly as fuck and hilarious. Jaeger Faction is superior.

I chuckled. It’s fine.

I like the term! It sounds perfect for an extremist faction!

The name doesn't matter. It just had to be called a sect, so it's fine.

  DO YOU THINK ANY OF THE SOLDIERS AWARE OF ZEKE’S AND/OR HISTORIA’S LOCATION COULD BE A “YEAGERIST?” 1,672 Responses

63% of respondents suspect that at least one of the 30+ soldiers aware of Zeke and/or Historia’s location are loyal to the Yeager brothers. 28% aren’t sure, and a small percentage are certain that these soldiers are all to be trusted.

  LET’S TALK ABOUT COMMANDER PIXIS SURRENDERING TO EREN. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU MOST AGREE WITH? 1,672 Responses

Very few of us took Pixis’ word at face value. 47.3% believe he was at least partially putting on a show. 41.6% have no idea, but trust him regardless.

I don't know how this negotiation is going to work but I'm glad someone finally has some plan which doesn't involve fighting or doing nothing. I think he's a wise man and he knows what he's doing. I'm going he's in charge now.

Pixis is smart and has a strategy that aims to save lives. Momentary surrender is a necessary step to take back control of the situation as a whole. That's called leadership.

Loved it, he’s playing chess. Sacrificing his bishop for another move

Why has Pixis become my hero these past two chapters? He is smart and brave enough to not only recognise the military's mistakes, but also humble and determined enough to take corrective steps to bring the lost sheep back into the flock for the higher, long-term good. I love how there's one adult in the room who is above petty bickering and suspicion at a critical moment like this. Pixis is an Erwin-level class act and I'm so grateful we still have a character like that in the series ;--; (RIP Erwin)

He trusts Hange enough to let her lead the secret mission of screwing the Jaegers' plans, and he will do something important in the right moment. Of course, he can't say it directly because there are still traitors that want to put bombs here and there.

Pixis has no idea what he's doing, dawg, he just wants to get vored by a pretty lady and this is harshing his buzz

HE'S A YEAGERIST...

  WHO MASTERMINDED THE SPIKED WINE PLOT? 1,657 Responses

At 71.8%, the overwhelming consensus is that Zeke masterminded the spiked wine. 9.4% gave Yelena the credit, and 8% attributed it to the Yaegerists.

Onyankopon seemed real suspicious with Nicolo this chap…

Zeke masterminded it, but he's too slippery to ever take responsibility for it. Yelena would probably go to the ends of the earth to claim it was her plan.

Both Jaegerists and Volunteers

Probably Gordon Ramsey, who's mad that his potential customer Sasha was ripped away from him.

I think it was Zeke's plan but Eren doesn't know about it, or the bomb. I think Zeke has more interests than meets the eye and will betray Eren.

  DO YOU THINK EREN IS AWARE OF THE SPIKED WINE? 1,667 Responses

With a relatively close split, nearly 40% believe that Eren isn’t aware of the spiked wine. 32% don’t want to say either way, and 27% are certain he’s in on it.

I think Eren has been shown too evil to be true, i really think that in reality he has a plan that for some reason he couldn't share with his friends, and he is trying to save as many people as possible.

EXPLAIN WHAT EREN'S UP TO ALREADY

I never trusted Zeke for one second and I’m glad ta starting to pay off. I do still believe Eren isn’t really working with Zeke as closely as Military believes.He doesn’t want any of his loved ones to turn into Titans and I’m certain the hidden spinal fluid is Zeke’s intent because I believe nothing the disciples are doing is without his knowledge.

  WHY DO YOU THINK THE WINE WAS SPIKED WITH ZEKE’S SPINAL FLUID? 1,648 Responses

58% of respondents believe that the wine is spiked as an insurance for Zeke in case Paradis turns on him. 18% believe it’s a way to hold leverage over Eren specifically, and 14% feel that the intent is to have pure titans available in case Paradis is attacked.

A way to easily get rid of pesky opposition

I’m not quite sure but none of these strike me as correct.

There are so many possibilities here: i mostly believe it’s some kind of insurance in case eren or paradis go against him, but there’s also the possibility that zeke was never actually on the eldian’s side in the first place

He will use it when he wants to eliminate Paradise if Eren refuses his true plan

Bargaining tool to gain control over everyone, like a threat/hostage

I'm hesitating between it being a conspiracy, and Zeke trying to do a coup d'état, by replacing all the higher up by people he somewhat trusts

I’m not so sure it’s just insurance... I think zeke might just be straight up planning on turning the higher ups into titans either way. I think he ultimately is not allied with Paradis and wants to be able to overthrow their military command structure at the drop of a hat.

It's Zeke's trump card and bargaining chip all rolled into one

Since they only used the wine on the military police members, it could be a protection toward Historia

I knew Zeke was going to stab them in the back, I was just wrong about how.

  WHO DO YOU THINK DRANK THE SPIKED WINE? 1,655 Responses

36.3% believe the wine was limited to high ranking MPs. 63.7% of us worry that the wine has reached beyond that narrow scope.

A FUCKTON OF PEOPLE

Anyone in the high ranks of each branch, and possibly the entire MP (since their overall living environment is much fancier than the other two branches, they probably were also served by Marleyans)

I think just the MPs, but dear god I hope Nile didn't drink it. He was the only one from his training days' friends group that made it it out of the depressive cycle of violence and managed to have a family. He deserves better. Marie deserves better.

Wouldn't be surprised if Jean starts racing for the alcohol rack again after this chapter. Everyone is mentally and emotionally exhausted already and the storm hasn't even began. Time to get some wine fellas.

PLEASE NOT HANGE AND DOUBLE PLEASE NOT FALCO

  WHAT IS YOUR THEORY REGARDING FALCO’S FUTURE? 1,654 Responses

Nearly ⅔ of all respondents think Reiner will pass on the Armored Titan to Falco. Another 11.5% think he will turn into a mindless titan, and not gain any shifter powers. The least popular choice was Porco or Pieck giving their powers to Falco. We also received quite a few write-ins:

He is going to die at the venerable age of 128 surrounded by friends and family

He will become the next Beast Titan

He won't transform at all and continue living the source of all pureness (fingers-crossed)

he will become flying titan

I love the fact that Falco in a way has already managed to fulfill his mission. He wanted to save Gabi from the horrors of becoming a Titan - and he just did that. By pushing her out of the way of the wine, he shortened his own lifespan, but managed to save her from dying a potentially early death.

He's going to have to save Gabi at least 2 or 3 more times.

It's going to be tragic and I'm very sad already!! He'll either end up as mindless titan killing people or he'll inherit Reiner's titan, meaning he'll be the one who kills him and inherit his memories. And of course his life will be shortened!! Either way I hate it!! He doesn't deserve any of that!!

SAVE BEST BOY

  WHY DID NICOLO CONFESS AT THE END? 1,664 Responses

With a fairly even 3 way split, slightly more people felt that Nicolo confessed because of his friendship with the SL. Following that at 26.6% and 26.4%, Nicolo may have confessed because he was already caught red-handed, and that Mr. Braus’ speech moved him to come clean.

!All of the above!

He knew that it was almost time for Zeke’s plan to go in full swing, so he told them after it became too late.

Honestly, for me it's a toss. He was very emotional in this entire chapter, and he let it get the better of him. Why he confessed is beyond me. Maybe it has something to do with him wanting to seek vengeance against the Yeagers and Marley for both indirectly contributing to Sasha's death?

He felt guilty because Falco is innocent and he regrets that he took the hit and had wine in his mouth as a result (but he doesn't regret attacking Gabi)

It was probably quite a big burden of knowledge to carry. I imagine it was all those things at once.

He broke down under the enormous emotional pressure, as simple as that.

He participated in serving the spiked wine, maybe willingly at first. But at some point, maybe because of his relationship with sasha, he become uncomfortable and was compelled by the volunteers to continue against his will. After his arc, he know he's going to be arrested, and just confesses to unburden himself.

He felt guilty about using the spinal fluid on Falco at all - he was trying to use a normal wine bottle

  HOW DO YOU VIEW NICOLO AND SASHA'S RELATIONSHIP? 1,666 Responses

Wow. Two thirds of the fandom believe Nicolo and Sasha were a couple. 23.3% believe it was a one-sided love affair, or as one comment put it, “Friendzone with food benefits. ”

I HOPE they were dating but the chapter made it to where there’s not really solid evidence that they were…

Nicolo loved Sasha in the conventional way. Sasha loved Nicolo the only way she could, alimentarily.

I'm a huge Springles shipper, so I'm kinda of sad about the whole thing with Nikolo, to be honest. Springles is really what helped me through a lot of dark times, so the fact that Nikolo and Sasha may have been dating really kind of hurts XD

The way Nicolo confessed his feelings toward Sasha in front of everyone especially Sasha's parents made me emotional.

I want to care about her “relationship” with Nikolo because I like the Romeo and Juliet setup but it also got zero development so.......how am I supposed to believe Nikolo was THAT upset about her when I never really saw them together in the first place?

If it turns out they really were together, I won't have a problem with it. But until Isayama confirms it in a more direct manner, I don't buy any notion of romantic relationship in Attack On Titan, especially with someone like Sasha, who seems to only be interested in food.

Sasha was a food-digger

  SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ONYANKOPON IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED AND WAS PERHAPS SENDING A MESSAGE TO NICOLO. WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHOSE SIDE IS ONYANKOPON ON? 1,653 Responses

Nearly half of us are in the dark about where Onyankopon’s loyalty stands, though 31% think that his allegiance lies with his own faction of volunteers.

¡Que lástima! As much as I like him I no longer trust him because of the wine reveal. Compared to everyone else, the look on his face makes me believe he knew exactly what was going on.

Eren, Zeke, Yelena, Floch... Literally everyone is a double agent. Can't we have a single person who is not a traitor?

He's not with Marley and not with Yelena, but does this mean we can 100% trust him i'm not sure

He's in relationship with Kiyomi. Not his fault Kiyomi's hot.

Liar liar paths on fire

I don't believe that he's totally innocent, totally 100% devoted to Paradis and Eldians. But I do believe that Yelena's acting separately from him.

I think Onyankopon probably knows more than he's letting on which is disappointing because I'd like at least one fucking person to not be shady as fuck. It's overkill.

If best boi onyankopon betrays hange I’m rioting

WILD CARD BITCHES!!

  KIYOMI WAS PROMINENTLY FEATURED DURING THE WAR COUNCIL. WHAT BEST MATCHES YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT HER BEING THERE? 1,641 Responses

35.8% of responders think the military knows something is shady about Kiyomi and are trying to set her up, followed by 31.7% think the military made a mistake allowing her to hear their argument. Only 10.2% believe Kiyomi is actually being sincere about her plans and Mikasa.

Her motive is clearly not pure but I think she is (for now) on the right side. At the moment it's a game of maneuver between her, Mikasa, and Paradis.

She's aware of Zeke's spinal fluid plan, as it's extra insurance to insure her access to resources.

Paradisian incompetence continues on full display. To let an outsider in on the unfolding crisis situtation is amateur hour to say the least.

Kiyomi wants to screw everyone over for their money and resources and she's pressing the flesh aggressively

Kiyomi had something to do with Zackley's assassination...

Kiyomi is no threat to Paradis as long as their relationship benefits her and Azumabito. I can see she that if she perceives instability and civil war she will cut her losses and side with Marley / the world. Also Hizuru does not seem to condone what the Azumabito clan is doing. If the pressure is great enough from multiplicative forces, she will budge. I can also see her running back to Marley, figuratively and/or literally, and be basically disposed of as an example or due to sheer brutality. It's an archetype I feel Isayama would use - it's consistent with this arc's themes of political intrigue and moral ambiguity. Yams will definitely still make it his own in some way if this does happen though.

She's a shady Bitch and I wouldn't trust her with my car insurance let alone anything to do with this series.

WILD CARD BITCHES!!

  WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON NICOLO’S ATTACK ON GABI AND FALCO? 1,664 Responses

With ⅔ of all votes, most people could understand Nicolo’s anger, but do not condone his actions. A good chunk (28.2%) of people would have rather he’d hit Gabi with the wine bottle instead of Falco. A mere 3% want to see him swinging from a tree for what he did.

It was good but felt a bit forced. Kaya’s reaction was strange and Nicolo was genuinely unhinged. It’s alright to an extent as people tend to do absurd things in terrible situations.

Falco in his hero complex brought himself to trouble. I understand Nikolo.

Gabi is very bratty, stubborn, close minded and rude - she definitely doesn't deserve all love and protection. I was happy to see Nicolo kicking her ass.

I understood and I actually did not care if Gaby dies. I would be glad actually, It would be sad for Falco though.

I can maybe understand the bottle and punch but him treating a 12 year old like a sacrificial lamb was insanity.

It doesnt sit well with me at all tbh but i dont hate him

Nicolo comes from a place where it’s heavily socialised that Eldians are sub human. So while I disagree completely with him hurting children, I can see how he did it so easily.

Nicolo's actions were horrible, yet very human. It's clear he felt something towards Sasha, and he doesn't view Gabi or Falco as children in this scenario--he sees them as soldiers(or warriors), which is why he had no hesitation attacking a child.

  HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT MIKASA’S DISPLAY OF COMPASSION? 1,661 Responses

Nearly half of respondents were just pleased to see Mikasa get attention on anything that doesn’t involve Eren. 28% were simply just excited. A few agreed it was a good show of Mikasa having room in her heart to spare and a few wished she wouldn’t have interfered.

A great example that she cares for others and hates to see death especially from children. She does not want to let them have the same future as herself.

Loving Mikasa in this arc, it really feels like she's matured in those 4 years.

Extremely important. She's stopping Kaya from "stepping into the forest".

Honestly the most powerful scene in the chapter, along with Papa Braus putting down the knife.

I don't know how to feel. She didn't have the right.

Considering none of Sasha's friends attacked Gabi or Falco on the airship and Mikasa's always been like this I don't see what the big deal is. It could've easily be anyone else imo but I guess it's nice she's getting to do something other than wanting to get to Eren asap. I just wish she was given more to do when I still cared about her. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I never really liked Mikasa, but I adored this scene. It shows a part of her that we don't often get to see so plainly in my opinion. She prevented a very bad situation from unfurling by being a bit more merciful, even if only for Kaya's sake.

Mikasa used to be one of my favorites. Not anymore. Not after this.

it's nice i decided to not take a drink each time mikasa shows concern for someone other than eren and ppl react by saying "finally! she shows concern for someone other than eren!" i'd be a chronic alcoholic by then.

We don't all have a Mikasa to craddle us in her strong arms so i hope Gabi appreciates this eventually. She seems shook already.

  HAS THERE BEEN TOO MUCH ATTENTION ON SASHA’S DEATH? 1,657 Responses

Maybe it’s fate that this pie chart looks like a peace sign since fandom discussion on this topic is surprisingly civil. Very few people resent the attention Sasha has gotten. Only 11.9% are unhappy with it.

I appreciate how Sasha’s death this way is much more impactful than if she died how Isayama had originally planned.

I think there’s so much emphasis on Sasha’s death because 1. she made it so far with the group that they never thought they could lose her and 2. It’s peaceful enough on Paradis that they finally have time to mourn their dead (when before they had to figure out how to get back wall Maria and take out the titans).

I understand why people are frustrated that so much time has been spent on Sasha after her death, but I think there's a difference between spending time on her to mourn her death versus spending time on her death to advance the plot—revealing the wine scheme, yikes Falco+titan juice, Gabi's struggle with her indoctrination, discovering that even an integrated Marleyan like Nicolo isn't actually on Paradis's side. I think no other death in the series had as much potential to move the plot because because before now, the enemy was almost always a titan. A death at the hands of a human—moreover, a pseudo-protagonist and a child—in international warfare has a lot more to unpack in terms of what-happens-next than a death from a monstrous natural disaster.

  WILL KODANSHA EVER RELEASE A CHAPTER WITHOUT TYPOS? 1,646 Responses

We were so close to having “No but in red” end with 66.6% of the votes earlier last week! Nonetheless, we are all in agreement that Kodansha’s translations will never improve. Not even for the tankobon.

ChildEREN Of The Sun... maybe Kodansha are sending us a message

  WHAT ARE YOU MOST HOPING TO SEE NEXT CHAPTER? 1,665 Responses

With over 50% of the votes each, most of the fandom want so see the Yaegerbros reunite and catch a glimpse of the queen. In third place are the warriors (including their disguises, hopefully). Next on the list is a flashback to Eren’s time in Marley, while more Gabi and Falco ended in fifth place. Only 3 out of 10 people want to watch Monsterbowl.

Abs of anyone but Jeagers.

All of the above, and a pizza too, thanks.

What happened the to EMA conversation?

Historia's baby goes fetus deletus

Hange NOT turning into a titan.

This chapter has made me eager to see how Falco and Gabi would interact with the Warriors now that they are wiser. Also Zeke's plot has really thickened. Also, really appreciate the use of Sasha's death as more than just a GoT-esque stunt.

ANNIEEEEE

Eren and his horde. Zeke and Levi. The Warrior infiltration. Revelations on any other plots/schemes/conspiracies taking place on the island. Historia and her role in all of this. The arc is just beginning, but it's building up to something big. I can't wait for all this to finally blow up! Soon!

How widely the spiked wine was disseminated and drunk.

Floch, naked, in a stream with Eren, also naked, washing his back.

WHERE  DO YOU PRIMARILY DISCUSS THE SERIES? 1,600 Responses

Tumblr? Are you ok? We had more Facebook entries than yours.

  ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THE CHAPTER?

Attack on Titan universe is 100% worth living in now that we know it has pizza.

Best birthday gift my dream comes true so many feels EEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKK

Best boy Jean looked so hurt when Nikolo used a racial slur against him (to save him - you could tell Nikolo didn’t want to call him that) : (

Clean af. And it didn’t  even touch the more exciting plot lines: Yeager bros, Annie, Warriors, Historia.

FALCO PLEASE BE OKAY MY BABY

Gabi's actions are revealed, Nicola's actions are revealed, Zeke's potential plans are revealed, Pixis' possible plan is revealed, the Volunteers' plans are slowly unravelling, now we just need to move onto Zeke, Eren, Levi, and Reiner.

Haven't enjoyed a chapter this much in months.

I think this is the first time in more than a year and a half that people are gonna understand what I've been saying about Gabi all along. If people don't change their opinions on her from this chapter they just have their hate blinders on.

Honestly I think it was pretty boring compared to the past like 10 chapters, but also because the bar has been set really high. I'm expecting each chapter to be amazing, when in reality, I should be looking at the overarching story. That's what's amazing.

I thought I would hate this chapter as much as the one where pregnant Historia was revealed but I hate it a little less because Gabi is getting the character arc she deserves. I'm super worried for Falco BBY tho. And Nicolo is a dick.

I thought it was really great in displaying the manga's most important message: Stopping the cycle of hatred. Mr. Braus had all the reason to direct his hatred towards Gabi, but realised the world is cruel. It's eat or be eaten, just like in the forest. Gabi was a victim of propaganda and was indoctrinated into her beliefs.

I was initially disappointed this chapter didn't stick/continue with the chaos of last chapter, but was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.

It was a great chapter! However, if it had at least one panel of Eren, it would have been even better. I cannot wait for more!

Last Christmas chapter was crazy, here's hoping the next one will be as well! As for this chapter, I enjoyed it as usual but was a little frustrated that we still didn't get more information about Historia. I mean, her last real apperance was back in July! I really hope we'll get to see her before the new year but I've got a feeling we may not. Also Annie. Please let 2019 be our lucky year, she's been gone long enough…

NicoSasha is so cute...!!! I'm glad to finally see the most anticipated scene. Mr. Braus's speech was really emotional. Never felt so much better after reading a chapter. But felt bad for Falco. He doesn't deserve this.

Not a huge fan of how melodramatic the nicolo part was (I understand why he snapped, but no mater how angry/upset he was would someone in that situation jump straight to murder? Really?) but overall I enjoyed the chapter. Now I’m just eager to see what happens when eren shows up to the zevi picnic!

oh Nic, the things you do for love. Sasha -saved- 2 people now, Kaya from the 2m titan and Nicole from the hatred the war caused. I really, really miss her

Really really emotional and fantastic chapter..... I'm sort of sad at the discourse that this has sparked in the fandom, but that's nothing new honestly. If anything, it's a sign of fantastic writing that everyone always has such strong opinions in any direction. At this point I would be concerned if a chapter DIDN'T spark such strong opinons and controversy. I am moved by the amount of human compasion showed in every single corner of every single faction, and shocked by how attached I am to every sect. I'm nervous for the future but ready to start seeing some outcomes.

The character development in this series is absolutely incredible. Its way beyond the simple gorey/edgy battle shonen reputation that it received way back from season 1. The themes, the characters, the plot, the attention to detail have evolved so much that this series truly is one of my favorites of all time. Its reached the complexity and "realness" of Monster for me. This was one of the best chapters to date, I loved it!!

Yeah, I loved Sasha but I'm salty she gets so much focus after her death considering she wasn't that important in the overall story. Meanwhile Erwin got nothing despite the fact 90% of the events of the story would have happened very differently or not at all if he hadn't been there (no Levi in the SC, Eren  shipped off to the MP, no Uprising... etc.). I get she's the catalyst to Gabi's characater development but... wait, why does Gabi gets more screen time than most MCs in this story anyway? That's how many chapters with the main focus on her? Is she a MC now? Isayama changes MCs like he changes his undies I swear.

Nicolo was tempting the Braus family with a violent solution that promised quick satisfaction, while Kaya just lost her cool long enough to go with what had been offered to her on a silver platter. However, in return, the sight of the Braus parents and Kaya's raw sadness in the aftermath of the confrontation and what he almost made Kaya do returned Nicolo back to his own senses as well. They are all such wholesome characters despite the moments of weakness.

Gabi’s character arc seems very predictable, which is not a bad thing really, but i kinda want it to be done so that the story moved on to more interesting things and characters

I want to know what the warriors are doing. No one strong enough is watching over Annie right now so Pieck, Reiner and Porko might try to get her back in the next chapter.

I would have killed for just one panel of Historia or Eren.

Isayama handled the gabi-sasha-nicolo plot line well.

More questions , less answers ... every time Isayama does his thing.

[master-sass-blast]

Henlo, it's me, your local trash monster here to say I love Hannah and I can't wait to hear more about her?? That being said, GIMME ALL THE SAD GOODS ABOUT HER. But also add in something happy about her in the end! ( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ ((Also sending hugs! I know things have been stressful the last few days so just know I'm rooting for you !!))

Holy fuck I think this is the first time someone’s ever told me to cut loose and just SAY ALL THE THINGS AND I’M SO EXCITED!!!! :D

(Answers under the cut because I just went with the entire list. I have no self control.

And thank you for the hugs and encouragement!)

1. What is one word to shut them up: Okay, for some context, Hannah is a lawyer. She has a thick skin (unlike me, heyoooo). It takes a lot to shut her up; she’s an HBIC and she owns it.

But if someone starts talking about her scars (she’s struggled/struggles with self-harm), she shuts down. It’s a part of her she’s still self-conscious about, and if someone mentions it she’ll literally stop mid-sentence and mentally exit the conversation.

2. What is the thing they feel the most guilty about: Again, she’s got a pretty thick skin, so she doesn’t hold onto too much. Life happens, you make mistakes, and it’s better to learn from them rather than beat yourself over the head for something you can’t change anyway.

If there’s something she’s going to feel guilty about, though, it’s fights or incidents she’s had with family members/close friends where she’s hurt them with something she’s said or done. She holds herself in high accountability to ensure that she doesn’t step all over people, and when she does she fails not only them but her expectations for herself, so yeah. Guilt.

3. What is the worst pain they’ve ever experienced: Physical pain? Probably different injuries from her career in martial arts. She’s a tough cookie, but some of that stuff just hurts.

Emotional pain? Anytime she fails her expectations for herself. She has very high standards for herself, and when she can’t reach them she becomes very depressed (more so than usual).

4. Describe their worst nightmare: Actual dream? Anything where she’s drowning or running out of air. She almost drowned a couple times as a child/preteen, and the trauma still emerges in her adult life from time to time.

Real life “this is a nightmare” scenario? Any point where her depression gets so bad that she stops being functional. Things just start piling up and get overwhelming very quickly.

5. List 3 fears; one “surface level” fear, one “repressed” fear, and one “deep dark” fear: 1.) Drowning, which runs pretty deep but it’s an obvious one that she’s done a lot of therapy work for, and she doesn’t mind talking about it with other people. 2.) Wasps. She accidentally got locked into a shed with an active wasp nest in it as a child. She made it out alright, but the sheer terror of the situation made her repress the memory. She’s heard the story from friends and family, and “gets” why she’s scared of the fuckers, but can’t actually recall the incident itself. 3.) The dark. A side effect of depression is paranoia, and when she’s alone, in the dark, she can’t shake the feeling that there’s some sort of creature watching/following her. When her depression gets really bad, she has to sleep with a light on to keep from flipping out.

6. What is something that never fails to make them feel sick: She’s not naturally squeamish, but the sounds of belching (ala college frat boys, y’all know what I mean) make her stomach churn.

7. What feature (physical or otherwise) do they hate most about themselves: Her scars. She’s very ashamed of them, and goes out of her way to wear long sleeved shirts so she can hide them.

8. Do they have anything that triggers them: Feeling like she’s failed her own expectations/expectations others have of her, accidentally inhaling water, the ‘buzzing’ sound bees/wasps make.

9. What is their greatest physical weakness: Her height. She might be a kickass lawyer and an even kick-assier martial artist, but she barely clears five feet.

10. What is their greatest mental weakness: Her struggles with self-hatred. She’s her own worst enemy a lot of the time.

11. Do they have any vices: Not really. Not as far as serious vices go. She’s pretty grounded.

12. Have they ever done something illegal? What was it: Nope. She knew she wanted to be a lawyer from day one and made sure her record was spotless.

13. Which of the 7 Deadly Sins best describes them: Pride? I think that one comes closest? Again, since she really doesn’t have a vice or a thorn in her side, it’s hard to pick something for her.

I think Pride comes closest because she spirals when she fails to live up to her own expectations, which I think often comes with a bit of ego (at least in my experience with that sort of thing). She’s also got a lot to be proud of (lawyer, martial artist, financially independent), but she’s not a walking ego either?

Idk. This is a weird question, lol.

14. Are they prone to outbursts (of violence, extreme emotion… exc… ): Not really. Don’t get me wrong, she can get there, but it takes a lot. She’s very collected (and usually swings the opposite way; she’s more likely to cold shoulder you if she’s mad).

She does threaten to shove her Prada stiletto sideways up Hank Pym’s ass, though. So there’s that.

15. Who do they hate the most: Guys who use her height against her by cornering her into spots while they try to ask her out/talk to her about something. It’s the fastest way to wind up on her shit list.

16. Is there anyone who makes them feel inferior: Herself. She’s her own worst enemy.

17. What sound always gives them a headache: Her coworker Tracey’s text/notification sound. Which is always going off because Tracey’s always talking to someone.

18. Is there a certain flavor that disgusts them: Not really. She’s half Japanese, half ethnic Jew, and a practicing Jew to boot, so she grew up on a pretty broad flavor palette.

She’s tried a bacon cheeseburger once on a dare, though, and she hated it.

19. Do they consider themselves ugly: Not really (outside of her scars). She’s pretty confident in her appearance.

20. Do they consider themselves unloveable: Again, not really. She’s spent a lot of time in therapy, which helps, but she’s always had her feet pretty well on the ground.

21. What is something that causes them great anxiety: The prospect of losing. She’s very competitive.

22. Do they have any mental illnesses: Depression.

23. Have they ever been assaulted/abused/raped: She’s run into the usual guys that like to try and use her size against her, but they usually wind up worse for wear than she does.

24. Do they fear the possibility of being assaulted/abused/raped: Yes. She’s five feet tall and doesn’t clear 110 lbs. She’s very aware that she’s got “TARGET” written across her back.

25. Have they ever been betrayed by someone they thought they could trust: Fortunately, no. Most of her close relationships come from communities she knows well (school, work, the temple she attends in LA), so she hasn’t had to deal with too much betrayal.

26. Have they ever been seriously injured: Yes. Even outside of her struggles with self-harm, she’s a martial artist. She’s broken a few bones over the years from that.

27. How many times have they been in the hospital: Five. Three for some pretty drastic self harm incidents, and two from sparring injuries.

28. Is there a certain type of person that disgusts them: Obviously, she has frustrations with asshole guys, racists/anti-Semites, but she cannot stand people who work in organizations that prey on the disenfranchised (ala military recruiters going to schools in impoverished areas to fill their quota because they know how to trick the kids into trying out and all that). It gets her blood boiling fast.

29. Does what they cannot see scare them: Yes. Again, this shows perfectly with her fear of the dark.

30. Have they ever been bullied: Yupp. For her heritage, her beliefs, her mental health struggles, her size... High school sucks.

31. Do they have self-confidence or self-image issues: Yes and no. Again, she’s pretty confident about most things in life, but she does have certain weak points (her scars, living up to her own expectations, her height).

32. Do they have a bad relationship with their parents: Actually, no! She has a good relationship with both her parents and her extended family!

33. Have they ever been in a relationship that didn’t work out so well: Not in the drastic sense of things. She’s been through a few break ups, sure, but nothing that was abusive or crazy.

34. Have they ever self harmed: Yes. It’s something she still struggles with as an adult.

35. If they could change one thing about themselves, what would it be: Her scars. She’d make them disappear.

36. Are they in control of their emotions, or are their emotions in control of them: She’s pretty well in control of her emotions.

37. Have they ever had their freedom taken away: Not really, no.

38. Have they ever been imprisoned: Nope.

39. Have they ever been accused of something they didn’t do: Not in any serious sense. Her reputation for toeing the line was too well known for her to be accused of something she didn’t do.

40. Do they often blame themselves for other people’s problems: She did as a teenager, but dutiful therapy and self-care has helped her outgrow that habit.

41. Do they get sick often: Nope! She’s pretty healthy.

42. Are they comfortable with where they are in life: She’s content, but not complacent.

43. Do they wish that they could change their pasts: Yes. Again, she doesn’t like her history with self-harm. If she could erase that, she would.

44. What’s one thing they wish they could do more often, but can’t: Travel. Her job’s pretty demanding as far as hours go.

45. What is the emotion they most commonly experience: Melancholy. No matter what she’s doing, it’s sort of always hanging around her, like a tiny cloud.

46. Have they ever contemplated suicide: Yes. Unfortunately, it’s a side effect of the depression.

47. Have they ever gone so far as to attempt suicide: A couple of times, when she was teenager.

48. Is there anyone that they would willingly kill: Outside of self-defense/the defense of others? No.

49. If [name] was put into ______ situation, they’d rather die than live to see it through: Being forced to reject her identities as a Jew/person of Japanese heritage. Her families have made it through so much (internment camps, persecution, the Holocaust), and she’d rather die than erase her own identity.

50. Create your own: Alright, I’m gonna put the happy one here so we end on a high note!

She’s a firm believer in the need for “mah” (the Japanese word for “emptiness), or a moment to pause and do nothing. It’s easy to see that reflected in how she practices meditation, follows Shabbat, or takes time each day to simply be.

However, she also believes that the principle of “mah” is what makes her and Luis work so well as a couple. She is the silence to his constant chatter and helps him keep his feet on the ground. Likewise, he keeps her from living inside her head and helps her connect to the world.

They’re just such opposites attract. Ugh, I love them so much!

[eretzyisrael]

7 October distances young Jews from their Maghrebi roots

Most Jews in France have North African roots, and there has been a tendency among the young generation to re-connect with Tunisian, Algerian and Moroccan culture. But the 7 October massacre has created a cleavage with non-Jewish Maghrebi friends, Slate reports. The situation in Tunisia can only deteriorate further as its president, Kais Sayed, reinforces his holdon power.

The annual Ghriba pilgrimage, already scaled down in 2023, was shattered by a terrorist attack

This is the case of Diane’s paternal family, who lived in Tunisia for fourteen generations. Through her daily Arabic words, her grandmother triggered a deep awareness in Diane a few years ago. Her family’s history is much more “oriental” than French. In search of her origins, Diane went to Tunisia in May 2023. She realized that her family’s values ​​- the warmth of human relationships, the attention paid to the well-being of others – inhabit Tunisian society.

At the Jewish cemetery of Borgel, in Tunis, Diane meditates on the tomb of her ancestors. “I also wanted to finally discover the places where my parents had grown up. I was trying to rebuild an identity.” Tears interrupt her story. In Sephardic Jewish families, the attraction of the youngest to the country of origin often meet disapproval from their parents. For Diane’s mother, her daughter’s journey was painful.

Confirming her mother’s anxieties, an attack was committed at the same time on the Tunisian island of Djerba. On 9 May 2023, a radicalized Tunisian policeman carried out an attack near the Ghriba synagogue in the midst of the annual Jewish pilgrimage. He killed four people. Diane was there, as was Sarah, who survived the shooting. A convert to Islam twelve years ago, this Jewish-Tunisian has several identities. “But this anti-Semitic attack reinforced my Jewishness, as if I was lashing out in self-defence,”  the young woman says.

For many Jewish-Tunisians, the trauma of the Ghriba is mixed with that of 7 October 2023. On that day, Hamas fighters killed more than 1,200 Israelis, the majority of them civilians. According to the United Nations, militias from Hamas,  the Palestinian Islamist movement,  committed rape, including gang rape.

The shock of the massacre and its perception in Tunisia inflicted a second wound on Emmanuelle, a French  Jewish-Tunisian. “In a crazy joy, Tunisian youth seem to have experienced this event as a great evening of national liberation for the Palestinians,” she sighs. “I understand the solidarity with the Palestinian people very well,” she adds. “But I believe that it masks a great hatred towards the Jews.”

A hatred that seems to grow in tandem with the bombs raining down on the Gaza Strip. On 17 October 2023, in southeastern Tunisia, the El-Hamma synagogue was reduced to ashes, causing shock among the Jewish-Tunisian diaspora, which is very connected on social media. Mikhael, 40, also thought he would make Tunisia his second family. “But I understood the message that my mother and her parents received when they fled this country: ‘We don’t want you here. Without you, it’s better…'” His maternal family left Tunisia in 1968, after individuals tried to burn down the family home.

Today, the anti-Semitism observed among some Maghrebis is born from a combination of factors: rejection of the existence of Israel, coupled with a confusion between Israel and Jewishness. But by proclaiming itself the representative of the Jews of the world, Israel has greatly reinforced this confusion, remarks the Franco-Tunisian historian Sophie Bessis. Anti-Zionism – seeing the establishment of a Jewish state as a historic mistake– exists in the spectrum of Jewish opinion. But it remains a minority view.

“Dissociating Jewishness from Israel is complicated,” the people we interviewed confirm. Most of them remain attached to Israel. “My father always said: ‘The fate of the Jews is is that they may have to leave at any moment.’ And Israel appeared to be the only place where we would be protected,” explains Diane.

Online, the Israeli flag displayed by Mikhael on his profile picture creates a gulf with most Internet users of Maghrebi origin. Fellow citizens, to whom “I nevertheless feel culturally so much closer than to other French people,” he admits. By way of explanation, he cites couscous,  sacred to him or indeed his family. But that’s not all. In  Quranic recitations, Mikhael finds the sounds of the Sephardic liturgy. An avowed “Zionist”, he loves the Arabic language to the point of listening to the surahs of the prophet Muhammad in his car.

Read article in full (French)

[dragoneyes618]

Israel is fighting perhaps the most precise, restrained, and disciplined war in the history of modern conflict. Unlike the wars of the US (and the UK and other Western countries) in Iraq, or campaigns against Libya and Serbia, which were designed to achieve strategic objectives or intervene in foreign conflicts, Israel’s war is against an enemy that actually invaded, committed terrible depredations, and is committed to doing so again and again. And Hamas’s Simchas Torah attack was just one prong of an Iranian proxy war against the Jewish state, paralleled by attacks from Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet around the world, Israel finds itself under diplomatic offensive, facing sanctions, arms embargoes, and broad condemnation.

To understand how remarkable the accusations against Israel are, one needs to know about how other countries fight wars. It is never sterile. Especially in urban combat, civilian casualties are unavoidable — and not illegal. Take some recent examples.

The Battle of Mosul in 2016 involved an effort by a US-led coalition to flush out a few thousand remnants of ISIS from a major city in northern Iraq. The nine-month battle began with the imposition of a siege and ended with nearly 10,000 civilians dead — more than the numbers of ISIS fighters that had been in the city. The entire town was reduced to rubble and its population displaced primarily by US-led aerial bombardment. A similar fate befell Raqqa in Syria. In Gaza, by comparison, the civilan casualty rate is about 13% — despite Hamas’s embedding of their entire military apparatus under civilian facilities.

Yet President Biden insists — Raqqa for me, but no Rafah for thee.

Israel, perversely, stands accused of genocide, though there are no allegations of Israel intentionally striking civilian targets. Rather the complaint is that Israel permits “disproportionate” civilian casualties in strikes on legitimate Hamas targets. Yet the ratio of combatant-to-civilian casualties is between 1:1 and 1:2 — far better than ratios of 1:3 or more in similar conflicts by other Western countries. Denunciations of Israel’s conduct amount to saying that the Jewish state is not allowed to effectively defend itself.

Indeed, the transient and ephemeral “support” Israel enjoyed after October 7 began to disappear as soon as it became clear it would vigorously defend itself. Before October 7, Western liberals had certain deeply held beliefs, which often reflected a projection of their national histories onto the Jews. Among those beliefs was that Western colonialism is the root cause of violence in the Third World, and ��native” peoples have an inherent right to kill interlopers in their territory in the same way, say, Englishmen don’t. Related beliefs held that Islamic terror groups are just like everyone else, they just want their grievances addressed.

For Israel, this meant that settlements are the root cause of Arab violence. Palestinian factions just want to live with “dignity.” All these narratives melted in the explosion of savage, atavistic violence.

Perhaps if Israel had turned the other cheek, as the Biden administration has done when faced with repeated Iranian-backed attacks on US troops and international shipping, world sympathy would have lasted through the shloshim. But should we be surprised that a US that lets its borders be violently torn down and overrun should not understand a Jewish state that stands its ground?

As always, the Jews are the Ivri, the rejection of the regnant ideas, which for the West today is civilization’s self-hatred. October 7, and Israel’s subsequent defense, exploded the narratives of Western liberal elites, and for that, they will never forgive us.

The Biden administration in particular has steadily ratcheted up its hostility to Israel. It is reportedly slowing weapons shipments; imposing sanctions on Jews (but not PA terrorists) in Judea and Samaria; allowing the UN Security Council to pass a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire, without the release of hostages; and most consequentially, demanding that Israel stand down before it has entered Hamas’s last stronghold of Gaza, where the hostages are kept. All this is consistent with President Biden’s view that Israel’s reaction to October 7 has been “over the top.”

Some wish to explain this as a response to details of electoral politics, in particular, the vocal demands of 10,000 or so Arab voters in Michigan. But this seems an unlikely explanation. For one, this demographic is relatively small, and certainly would not switch to Trump. Second, Biden’s increasing hostility to Israel coincides well with that of other left-leaning Western politicians in countries like Spain and France, who are not facing election-year pressures.

In short, Biden’s overall position on the war — yes, Israel can defend itself but not successfully — is more about pressure from the broader left flank of the Democratic Party. Which means that Israel can expect more of such treatment, and worse, from the US in the future.

[quakerjoe]

I thought white people were evil. I was wrong.

Whenever anyone mentions the historical atrocity of chattel slavery, white people will emerge from the dark crevices of humanity to gnaw away at the assertion like roaches on a discarded Cheeto. They will explain how most white people didn’t own slaves. They will offer a convoluted explanation about the Confederacy and Southern heritage. They will introduce the concept of “presentism”—the idea that we shouldn’t judge the actions of people in the past using modern-day standards—as if the white people of the past couldn’t quite grasp the idea of inhumanity and brutality until 1861.

Everyone knew that slavery was evil. Everyone knew that Jim Crow was evil. Everyone knew that lynching was evil. Everyone knows that any kind of injustice or inequality is evil. These things persist because most white people don’t actively fight to eradicate them.

And most white people don’t actively fight to eradicate inequality and injustice because they usually benefit in some small way. The Southern economy was built on evil slavery. Jim Crow laws maintained a national order with white people firmly planted atop the social hierarchy. Systematic injustice keeps black people in their place, but it also comforts white people to know that the big black bogeymen are being kept behind bars.

Inequality and racism exist not because of evil but because the unaffected majority put their interests above all others, and their inaction allows inequality to flourish. That is why I believe that silence in the presence of injustice is as bad as injustice itself. White people who are quiet about racism might not plant the seed, but their silence is sunlight.

Many of those people don’t speak out because they fear alienation more than they hate racism. For them, the fear of having someone furrow their brow in their direction outweighs their hatred of sending children to an underfunded school knowing that they don’t have an equal chance at success because of the color of their skin.

They know the reality of disproportionate police brutality, but they don’t have to worry about their children being shot in the face. Their kids receive good educations. Their kids can wear hoodies whenever they please. Little Amber and Connor’s résumés don’t get tossed in the trash because of their black-sounding names. Their children’s futures are determined only by work ethic and ability. Therefore, they stay silent on the sidelines.

That’s not evil.

That is cowardice.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

—THOMAS JEFFERSON (MAYBE)

On Thursday, while visiting San Antonio, I was approached by a gentleman who heard my name and wanted to know if I was the Michael Harriot from The Root. He said that he was a paralegal who works with one of the noted immigration attorneys who were all over the news that day (I don’t know which one because I had been traveling and ... Crown Royal). He began to explain how the Trump administration was literally putting children in concentration camps.

Hold up ... before that previous sentence causes Caucasian heads to explode, allow me to offer this definition from Dictionary.com:

Now back to our previous conversation.

Just before he shook my hand and said it was nice meeting me, he explained that it was entirely possible that those children might never see their parents again. Then he said something that I still cannot erase from my brain. He paused, his hand still gripping mine, and looked past me as if he were recalling something, and said, “This is some Gestapo shit, man.”

I know that sentence gave liberals heart palpitations. There is always pushback anytime someone compares anything or anyone to the führer. Even though there is a literal Nazi movement rising in this country, Hitler is the third rail of every conversation, no matter how apt the comparison.

Despite the similarities between 1933 Germany and 2018 America (a rise in nationalism, a government-sponsored ethnic-cleansing movement, a racist strongman in power, that whole concentration camp thing ... ), the most obvious parallel between the Third Reich and the Trump administration is the willing silence of the majority.

Trump chief of staff John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and many others refuse to publicly stand up to this insane administration even though they disagree with the policies. Ryan would rather quit. Kelly has reportedly given up. Sanders is reportedly leaving the White House. But none have publicly broken up with Donald Trump.

But it is not just the politicians in the Republican Party who are afraid to speak out against their base; the spineless cowardice of the Democrats has also become increasingly apparent. We expect Republicans to stand with their fearless leader and maintain their grip on power, but Democrats have been so silent that Rep. Maxine Waters’ defiance makes her look like a crazy woman in a tinfoil hat by comparison.

A CBS survey revealed that most Americans disagree with Trump’s “both sides” equivocation regarding the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., last year. According to a CNN/ORC poll, a majority of Americans opposed the white-nationalist-inspired travel ban. Two-thirds of Americans say that separating children from their parents at the border is unacceptable, according to a CBS poll.

Still, most white people won’t do shit.

The crisis at the border is the latest addition to a long list of instances when white people have chosen silence over what is right. Most of the white people who supported civil and voting rights still did not march, boycott or sit in. The white people who shed tears over police videos won’t attend a Black Lives Matter meeting.

Cowards. All of them.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

—DESMOND TUTU

At least once a week, I will receive an email from a well-meaning white person who wants to know what they can do to fight injustice and inequality. The answer to that is simple. Whenever and wherever you spot racism or inequality, say something. Do something.

Every. Single. Time.

If a white person spoke up every time a fellow Caucasian used the word “nigger” in the safe space of whiteness, they would stop doing it. If a white person advocated for diversity and equality behind the closed doors of power, where black faces are seldom present, people in power wouldn’t dismiss the reality of the tilted playing field.

And maybe I should go back and add the word “some” before every mention of “white people” in this article because I’d bet every penny I have that at least one white person with good intentions is reading this while murmuring, “Not all white people ... ”

Which is exactly my point.

“Some” is not enough.

Some white people will speak out sometimes, just like some fish can fly and somebears can ride bicycles. But if a biologist were lecturing on the mobility of aquatic animals or grizzlies, it would be idiotic to interrupt with the rare cases of flying fish or bears that ride Huffys.

Fish swim. Bears walk.

And white people are cowards.

“I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.”

—LILY TOMLIN

There is a quote in the Holocaust Museum by Martin Niemöller, who was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for speaking out against Adolf Hitler. The quote reads:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Initially, Niemöller supported the Nazi Party for years because he “felt that reparations, democracy, and foreign influence” had damaged his country and “believed that Germany needed a strong leader to promote national unity and honor.”

Sound familiar?

When they came for black people, white people, like Neimöller, did nothing because they were not black. When they came for the Muslims, white people did not speak out because they were not Muslims. When they came for the immigrants, white people remained quiet because they were not immigrants.

The most disheartening part of all this is that black people and other people of color alone cannot abolish discrimination and hate. It is a problem created by white America and maintained by the silence of the majority. Every form of inequality would disappear by next Friday if every white person in America used his or her privilege to eliminate it.

It is useless to speculate on the exact reasons why they don’t. Sure, some of them are racists who benefit from the current social order. But many are just unmotivated because they don’t want to upset the apple cart. They will weep at the sight of children being ripped from their parents’ arms and shipped to internment camps. They will say Philando Castile’s death was a cruel injustice. They will tell you they “have a good heart.”

But they will only whisper these feelings? Who gives a fuck about hearts when their mouths are quiet and their hands are idle?

Republicans who disagree with the Trump administration remain silent. Instead of screaming at the top of their lungs, Democrats are calmly suggesting the same electoral solution that put Trump in power in the first place. Moderate whites say nothing behind closed doors. White women still have not confronted the 53 percent of their population who supported Trump.

And that is why racism persists. That is how Trump maintains his power. Injustice is evil. The cowardice of silence perpetuates injustice, and anything that perpetuates evil is, by definition, also evil.

Therefore, silence is evil.

As Leonardo da Vinci once said (I could not find the exact source. I think he said it when he painted the Mona Lisa, fought injustice as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle or starred in Inception): “He who does not oppose evil commands it to be done.”

This is some Gestapo shit.

Until all white people do and say something, people in power will always be able to point to the silent majority and say that no one cares about racism or inequality. Ultimately, whiteness affords them the right to remain silent.

I thought white people were evil.

I was right.

- Michael Harriot

[schraubd]

Negative Partisanship and the Politics of Hurt

Idealistically, we think of the process of political identity formation proceeding something like this:

I am pro-life; Republicans are the pro-life party; therefore, I am a Republican.

We come to certain political positions, we figure out which party best matches those positions, and we vote accordingly.

In reality, this turns out to be wildly optimistic. What is more often observed is that loyalty to one's political team comes first, and that in turn drives one's substantive political commitments. It looks something like this:

I am a Republican; Republicans are pro-life; therefore, I am pro-life.

Partisanship rules the day, and the implications for the project of political persuasion are worrisome. If people adopt their political positions first (presumably via a process of reasoning) and then pick their party in turn, then they can be persuaded to change their minds through debate about the underlying issues. But if they pick the party first (based on...?) and only come to the positions later, what new information would cause them to change their minds?

Yet there is some evidence that the picture is grimmer still. The above account suggests that people positively associate with a party and pick positions that line up with that party. But there's another theory making the rounds -- that of negative partisanship -- which says that the focus isn't positive but reactive. People are motivated by dislike or outright hatred for the other party, and choose issue-positions based on whatever is dispreferred by the external group. So we get something like this:

I hate Democrats; Democrats are pro-choice; therefore, I am pro-life.

In many cases, this looks observationally-equivalent to the above (are you pro-life because Republicans are or because Democrats aren't?). But not always. Consider the rapid ... let's go with "evolution" ... of Republican voters on the subject of Russia and Putin. It doesn't seem to me like there was widespread public embrace of Russia by Republican Party elites. But as Democrats continually hammered on Russia being a threat and meddling in our election, Republicans started to associate "concern with Russia" with a Democratic position. And so, like lemmings, they flocked to the opposite. Indeed, the Trump phenomenon itself can be viewed in this light. Republican Party elites did not, to say the least, initially back him. But it was evident that liberals hated Trump. And if you're motivated by "whatever liberals hate", then Trump's appeal is obvious.

Any iteration of acting "to own the libs" is basically an iteration of this. "Cleek's Law" famously posited that "today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily." Go back further, and you have Nietzsche's idea of ressentiment. It's reactionary politics; it isn't based on being for anything.

None of this is me saying anything new. But I did want to make two observations that I think are worth stressing.

The first is that I doubt negative partisanship is limited to parties. People can be negatively motivated by a desire to hurt groups as well. I suspect a lot of the backlash against, say, Black Lives Matter, is a form of racial negative partisanship (in another era we could get away with simply labeling that "racism", but today we need to obscure under layers). White racial resentment is such that when they see large-scale Black political action, that's reason alone to react against it. And one of my main worries of rising antisemitism is a concern that we'll start to see a form of negative partisanship there too -- circumstances where Jews being worried or concerned is taken as proof you're doing something right. 

That's not been the status quo on the left -- including the African-American community, whose staunch anti-antisemitism commitments have been evident for as long as they've been underappreciated by too many in the Jewish community. In race after race, where Jews have expressed concern that a given candidate (Cynthia McKinney, Nikki Tinker, Charles Barron) is hostile to us and ours, the African-American community has responded like allies (and Jews, for our part, have wanted no part with our anti-Black extremists like Seth Grossman). But there's worries that might be changing -- that when Jews say "we're worried about such and such candidate", too many seem to think of it as a sign that the candidate is on the right track. It means one is striking a blow against AIPAC (that this is raised even in cases where AIPAC doesn't seem remotely related to the controversy is independently worrisome), or is proof that new, more deserving minorities are rising to political ascendancy. What was it that Linda Sarsour said? Jews might have to "have to come to terms with being uncomfortable." Jewish discomfort isn't a problem to be addressed, it's a positive good to be lauded.

And that brings me to my second point. Negative partisanship is not by any means solely a right-wing phenomenon. We're all susceptible to it, and indeed, there's a certain logic to it: if you told me that a given piece of legislation was supported by Donald Trump and I knew nothing else about it, I'd still take that one fact as at least prima facie evidence that the legislation was bad. But I can't help but think that negative partisanship is, at root, necessarily reactionary. It's a politics driven by a desire to hurt, and that never moves us in the right direction.

Yes, there are days when I'm like "you know what? Kansas can burn to the ground for all I care -- their voters made their bed and they should have to lie in it." But in my better moments, I don't like that version of myself. It's not just because there are plenty of Kansasans who didn't vote for insane reactionary Republicans and ultra-regressive tax cut extravaganzas. It's also because I don't want to endorse any sort of politics that is predicated on seeing people hurt. Yes, it's funny in its way that the leopards are eating their faces. But that doesn't mean I don't oppose leopards-eating-people's-faces on principle.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2LA4kXi

[thegiftedoneishere]

I thought white people were evil. I was wrong.

Whenever anyone mentions the historical atrocity of chattel slavery, white people will emerge from the dark crevices of humanity to gnaw away at the assertion like roaches on a discarded Cheeto. They will explain how most white people didn’t own slaves. They will offer a convoluted explanation about the Confederacy and Southern heritage. They will introduce the concept of “presentism”—the idea that we shouldn’t judge the actions of people in the past using modern-day standards—as if the white people of the past couldn’t quite grasp the idea of inhumanity and brutality until 1861.

Everyone knew that slavery was evil. 

Everyone knew that Jim Crow was evil. 

Everyone knew that lynching was evil.

 Everyone knows that any kind of injustice or inequality is evil. These things persist because most white people don’t actively fight to eradicate them.

And most white people don’t actively fight to eradicate inequality and injustice because they usually benefit in some small way. The Southern economy was built on evil slavery. Jim Crow laws maintained a national order with white people firmly planted atop the social hierarchy. Systematic injustice keeps black people in their place, but it also comforts white people to know that the big black bogeymen are being kept behind bars.

Inequality and racism exist not because of evil but because the unaffected majority put their interests above all others, and their inaction allows inequality to flourish. That is why I believe that silence in the presence of injustice is as bad as injustice itself. White people who are quiet about racism might not plant the seed, but their silence is sunlight.

Many of those people don’t speak out because they fear alienation more than they hate racism. For them, the fear of having someone furrow their brow in their direction outweighs their hatred of sending children to an underfunded school knowing that they don’t have an equal chance at success because of the color of their skin.

They know the reality of disproportionate police brutality, but they don’t have to worry about their children being shot in the face. Their kids receive good educations. Their kids can wear hoodies whenever they please. Little Amber and Connor’s résumés don’t get tossed in the trash because of their black-sounding names. Their children’s futures are determined only by work ethic and ability. Therefore, they stay silent on the sidelines.

That’s not evil.

That is cowardice.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

—THOMAS JEFFERSON (MAYBE)

On Thursday, while visiting San Antonio, I was approached by a gentleman who heard my name and wanted to know if I was the Michael Harriot from The Root. He said that he was a paralegal who works with one of the noted immigration attorneys who were all over the news that day (I don’t know which one because I had been traveling and ... Crown Royal). He began to explain how the Trump administration was literally putting children in concentration camps.

Hold up ... before that previous sentence causes Caucasian heads to explode, allow me to offer this definition from Dictionary.com:

Concentration Camp: a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners.

Now back to our previous conversation.

Just before he shook my hand and said it was nice meeting me, he explained that it was entirely possible that those children might never see their parents again. Then he said something that I still cannot erase from my brain. He paused, his hand still gripping mine, and looked past me as if he were recalling something, and said, “This is some Gestapo shit, man.”

I know that sentence gave liberals heart palpitations. There is always pushback anytime someone compares anything or anyone to the führer. Even though there is a literal Nazi movement rising in this country, Hitler is the third rail of every conversation, no matter how apt the comparison.

Despite the similarities between 1933 Germany and 2018 America (a rise in nationalism, a government-sponsored ethnic-cleansing movement, a racist strongman in power, that whole concentration camp thing ... ), the most obvious parallel between the Third Reich and the Trump administration is the willing silence of the majority.

Trump chief of staff John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and many others refuse to publicly stand up to this insane administration even though they disagree with the policies. Ryan would rather quit. Kelly has reportedly given up. Sanders is reportedly leaving the White House. But none have publicly broken up with Donald Trump.

But it is not just the politicians in the Republican Party who are afraid to speak out against their base; the spineless cowardice of the Democrats has also become increasingly apparent. We expect Republicans to stand with their fearless leader and maintain their grip on power, but Democrats have been so silent that Rep. Maxine Waters’ defiance makes her look like a crazy woman in a tinfoil hat by comparison.

A CBS survey revealed that most Americans disagree with Trump’s “both sides” equivocation regarding the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., last year. According to a CNN/ORC poll, a majority of Americans opposed the white-nationalist-inspired travel ban. Two-thirds of Americans say that separating children from their parents at the border is unacceptable, according to a CBS poll.

Still, most white people won’t do shit.

The crisis at the border is the latest addition to a long list of instances when white people have chosen silence over what is right. Most of the white people who supported civil and voting rights still did not march, boycott or sit in. The white people who shed tears over police videos won’t attend a Black Lives Matter meeting.

Cowards. All of them.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

—DESMOND TUTU

At least once a week, I will receive an email from a well-meaning white person who wants to know what they can do to fight injustice and inequality. The answer to that is simple. Whenever and wherever you spot racism or inequality, say something. Do something.

Every. Single. Time.

If a white person spoke up every time a fellow Caucasian used the word “nigger” in the safe space of whiteness, they would stop doing it. If a white person advocated for diversity and equality behind the closed doors of power, where black faces are seldom present, people in power wouldn’t dismiss the reality of the tilted playing field.

And maybe I should go back and add the word “some” before every mention of “white people” in this article because I’d bet every penny I have that at least one white person with good intentions is reading this while murmuring, “Not all white people ... ”

Which is exactly my point.

“Some” is not enough.

Some white people will speak out sometimes, just like some fish can fly and somebears can ride bicycles. But if a biologist were lecturing on the mobility of aquatic animals or grizzlies, it would be idiotic to interrupt with the rare cases of flying fish or bears that ride Huffys.

Fish swim. Bears walk.

And white people are cowards.

“I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.”

—LILY TOMLIN

There is a quote in the Holocaust Museum by Martin Niemöller, who was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for speaking out against Adolf Hitler. The quote reads:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Initially, Niemöller supported the Nazi Party for years because he “felt that reparations, democracy, and foreign influence” had damaged his country and “believed that Germany needed a strong leader to promote national unity and honor.”

Sound familiar?

When they came for black people, white people, like Neimöller, did nothing because they were not black. When they came for the Muslims, white people did not speak out because they were not Muslims. When they came for the immigrants, white people remained quiet because they were not immigrants.

The most disheartening part of all this is that black people and other people of color alone cannot abolish discrimination and hate. It is a problem created by white America and maintained by the silence of the majority. Every form of inequality would disappear by next Friday if every white person in America used his or her privilege to eliminate it.

It is useless to speculate on the exact reasons why they don’t. Sure, some of them are racists who benefit from the current social order. But many are just unmotivated because they don’t want to upset the apple cart. They will weep at the sight of children being ripped from their parents’ arms and shipped to internment camps. They will say Philando Castile’s death was a cruel injustice. They will tell you they “have a good heart.”

But they will only whisper these feelings? Who gives a fuck about hearts when their mouths are quiet and their hands are idle?

Republicans who disagree with the Trump administration remain silent. Instead of screaming at the top of their lungs, Democrats are calmly suggesting the same electoral solution that put Trump in power in the first place. Moderate whites say nothing behind closed doors. White women still have not confronted the 53 percent of their population who supported Trump.

And that is why racism persists. That is how Trump maintains his power. Injustice is evil. The cowardice of silence perpetuates injustice, and anything that perpetuates evil is, by definition, also evil.

Therefore, silence is evil.

As Leonardo da Vinci once said (I could not find the exact source. I think he said it when he painted the Mona Lisa, fought injustice as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle or starred in Inception): “He who does not oppose evil commands it to be done.”

This is some Gestapo shit.

Until all white people do and say something, people in power will always be able to point to the silent majority and say that no one cares about racism or inequality. Ultimately, whiteness affords them the right to remain silent.

I thought white people were evil.

I was right.