simonpoliche

[bogleech]

I still can't fathom what in the entire world I could have ever said or done to make that gerrysherry (also known as spot-the-antisemitism) person come after me, and try every possible way of reframing every anti-war feeling I have as somehow, secretly, anti-jewish. Unless they don't actually believe that, but they hope saying it enough will make people believe it?? I don't know them, never did anything to them, and yet this person has reportedly still spent weeks and weeks boosting the same thread over and over, in which they urge people to boycott my book - something I'm depending on to even be able to afford my home in the future - because they apparently insist I have only antisemitic reasons for wanting to support Palestinians. How would that even make sense?! Jewish people aren't doing anything to Palestinians, a government is. They failed to make any dent in my follower count which just keeps jumping up every day, and I'm technically making more income off my art than ever (even if it still only barely covers cost of living), but I can't get over the sheer principle of someone hoping they could spread misinfo like that with the hope of impacting my ability to live. I've never run into anything that personally vicious before, all over sentiments they just up and pretend I have? For what??

[thecrazyalchemist]

I've recently seen a post on Tumblr that just, 'broke' something in me (for a lack of a better term).

So I just want to vent about it and another thing that's been bothering me.

(Disclaimer: this is a vent post. I am not an expert in the topics discussed. What I say is knowledge that I have learned from all kinds of places (school, history classes, researching for history projects, reading first hand written material from archives, and other places) and I don't have much the energy to compile everything source into a list (if I can even remember them). However, if you want to add, argue against, or argue in favor of something said here, correct me, you're welcome! Although, please act civil and cite your sources please. (I know I didn't and I'm sorry, but also please remember this is a vent post.) so anyways, here we start)

So, first of all:

Let's talk about Zionism. What does it mean?

To me, it seems that a lot of people think Zionism is something along the lines of 'racist bloodthirsty monstrous baby murderer and cold blooded killer and a rapist pedophile' since I keep seeing the word 'Zionist' in DNI lists next to 'nazis', 'pedophiles', 'minor attracted people', and other stuff like that.

I would love to hear what you think its definition is and I would love to hear where did you learn it, or perhaps any sources for such a definition.

Here's a brief recap of how Zionism was formed and what it is:

Zionism means the desire for Jewish self determination and self governing to exist/continue in the land/country of Israel.

It is an umbrella term, like the term queer, for example.

Zionism has deep roots in Judaism. A lot of practices and rituals in Judaism involve or are related to Israel. The name Israel comes from the name Jacob got from the angel he defeated, and after him the whole tribe of the Jewish people and the area are called Israel. The name Israel is in one of the most basic Jewish prayers - Shema Israel. Also, at the end of every pesach (Passover) Seder we say "Leshana habaa beyerushalaim habnuia" - next year in built Jerusalem. Jewish people have said so ever since the diaspora started.

Before the state of Israel existed, Zionism was about how to create and build Israel.

Three examples:

Political Zionism - create Israel by first getting a charter and international recognition and funding.

Practical Zionism - create Israel by first buying land, building settlements and developing the area.

Synthetic Zionism - a merge between the two movements above. Afaik most of the early political leaders of Israel were from that movement (for example, the first Israeli prime minister - David Ben Gurion).

Nowadays, Zionism is more vague. The reason for is that Israel already exits. The different movements on how to create Israel are kind of irrelevant now, because it exists now. The discussion on how to run Israel is perhaps what one may define as different movements within Zionism in modern time, however yet almost always when one says they are a Zionist, they mean they desire/want/believe that Israel should exist. That's it.

As such, Zionism alone doesn't say almost anything about the political view of the person who identifies as a Zionist.

Afaik basically 100% of Israeli Jews and around 80% of the Jews in America identify as Zionist. Under *this* definition.

Now because Israel exists, it's much harder to talk about different movements within Zionism which aren't basically political movements within Israel.

That leads me onto Kahanism.

Kahanism is an extremist far-right nationalist-racist religious Zionist movement (that I completely do not, I repeat: **do not** agree with). It was founded by the rabbi Meir Kahane, which believed that Jews should rule the whole area which was the kingdom of Israel in the days of the Tanach and should kill anyone who's an enemy of the Jewish people (which according to him, is basically everyone).

Here's an article that sums up some of my feelings about it in relation to the current events:

[https://archive.ph/2024.06.10-191347/https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-06-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/forget-being-anti-zionists-lets-be-anti-kahanists/00000190-0228-d660-af95-6fbed3e60000]

Now on to the post that 'broke the camel's back', per say.

The post said “I think that all Israelis should go back to Europe” and that it would solve all the problems here.

Let's try to break down the sentence “all Israelis should go back to Europe”. That sentence implies that that's where *all* Israelis came from.

What's "Israeli"? Afaik, since Israel is a country, Israeli is anyone who has Israeli citizenship (and some may even add 'and/or everyone who was born here').

What's Israel's population demographic? According to official government surveys, Israel has around ~9.9 million citizens, out of which ~73% (~7.227 million) are Jewish, ~21% (2.079 million) are Arab and the rest ~6% (0.594 million or 594 thousand) are classified as else.

The Arab population of Israel (which has equal rights as the Jewish population in Israel) and the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank originate from the same group of people. Some of them originate from Arab people who had been here for hundreds of years (since the empires age) and many originate from Arab immigration between the end of the WW1 and the establishment of Israel.

Even if you claim that the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank are the actual indigenous population of this area (despite numerous archeological and historical evidence pointing otherwise, although they do have a long history here), you cannot claim that just because a person was born or even just lived on the other (wrong, in your eyes) side of a border they aren't indigenous to the area!

In Israel, there are also a lot of minorities who are persecuted in other parts of the middle east. Such as: Druze, Armenians, Circassians and more. They have to go to Europe too? No, just the Jews? Surely this isn't antisemitism!

And let's talk about the Jewish population in Israel. MOST JEWS DID NOT COME FROM EUROPE! There are Jews who came from diaspora in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudia, Ethiopia and a whole lot other countries through the middle east, south west Asia and north Africa. They have to go to Europe too?

And that's beside two other important facts: first of all, the Jews are indigenous to the levant. We are indigenous to the land of Israel.

And of course, do you now what happened to Jews all over the world, and especially Europe?

To name a few very notable examples: *The Spanish inquisition*, Kishinev pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, *The Holocaust*, what that happened in the Soviet Union and many more pogroms, expulsions and massacares. (There were of course also pogroms in the MENA countries, however *I* haven't learned about them. Two examples I am told is notable is the farhood pogrom and the Holocaust in North Africa).

All throughout history, the Jews were expelled and massacred from almost every place. You then expectus to just come back to those places as if nothing has happened?

You want us to come so badly. Can you prove that we are safe to come? That we *have a place to come to*? Because so far you haven't shown that.

That when you and the people around you see a Jew, you won't immediately turn them into the scapegoat of every problom you have and then rape and/or expell and/or kill them.

And also, how would that solve more problems than it will create? Exchanging around ~2 million refugees for ~9.9 million refugees? How would that help? And even if you only mean the Jews (which I can't see how it isn't antisemitic) it's ok cause it's Jews? (which is even more antisemitic)

So no, it would not solve any problems. The country of Israel won't go anywhere, the Jews won't go anywhere, because we don't have anywhere to go - we were born here and we are staying.

However, yes, just as well, the Palestinians will probably not go anywhere (*not talking about Hamas and other similar groups here*). The only way to solve the situation is to unpack and deescalate those decades of conflict and escalation and hate, which will take a lot of work.

[spot-the-antisemitism]

Hiya, same gentile Anon who sent the ask about Kippot (Kippot is the plural form of kippah right?) and Trump. I've got a bit of a tough question. 

It's easy to call out other gentiles / goyim who are being Antisemitic, using Zionist as a dog whistle, spreading disinformation, etc etc. But how does someone who isn't Jewish go about calling out and correcting the same kind of stuff when it's coming from other Jewish people*?

Such as “Please reblog these posts about Antisemitism, OP isn't a Zionist so it's okay to reblog” and “Don't support this Jewish creator because they're a Zionist, the rest of us [Jewish people] have our humanity intact” and other dehumanizing (or iffy) rhetoric directed towards other Jewish people (whether they actually identify as a Zionist or not, regardless of what specific branch of Zionism they believe in, etc). 

My typical go-to is to put people on blast, say they're using dog whistles, call them out for dehumanizing others. But what's the guidelines when the person saying dehumanizing things to a Jewish person is also a Jew? 

*I know some people will call out some so-called Jewish tumblrs as racefakers/racefaking, but I'm not exactly qualified to go around lobbing serious accusations like that. And even if I was pretty confident that someone was lying? I still wouldn't say that because 1) It's really not my place and 2) feels very icky to go around saying someone doesn't belong to X, Y, Z group because I think they have wrong opinions (or bigoted opinions). 

(oh and thank you for your earlier reply, the reason I say trying to be an ally instead of an ally is for a few reasons. Firstly because it felt a bit presumptuous as if I was saying "Look at me, I'm an ally, I can do no wrong and can never be Antisemitic ever again". Secondly because being an ally is always a work-in-progress imo, you always have to double-check yourself, listen and uplift voices, and so on. Also I'm asking all this on Anon, so hiding my identity, so debatable whether that still makes me an ally y'know.

- Same Gentile Anon who's trying to be an ally

Dear Gentile ally anon,

it's really not your place to make callouts of Jews OR fakeclaim them leave that to me

Now if this is an argument or a reblog and you want to call some token grifter on their shit go right ahead with "that's a dogwhistle" or "that's misinformation" but never condescend or goysplain to a Jew about antisemitism.

Usually the reaction will be "Yeah goy we know, stay our of this". Unlike gentiles like yourself Jews know they're being antisemitic and do so on purpose all while claiming that antisemitism doesn't count or that antisemitism is a punishment to keep bad jews in lie. Using another community I am a part this the way LGBT people misgender and harrass the "bad queers" to "protect the community"

Gentiles listen to gentiles so you calling other gentiles on their shit is productive, conversly Jews listen to other Jews so unless those Jews are part of the same community as you or are attacking your friend

you STAY THE HELL OUT OF THIS lest you make it worse

Let Jews callout Jews, you see something that's odd you send it as a receipt (although I DO NOT cover "zionists dni" because they're not worth my time and are too prevalent)

and hey Jewish values put safety over grand gestures of heroism. You're using your anonimity for good that's all that counts. Many of my regulars operate off sideblogs and I have no idea what their main is. consider getting a throwaway sideblog or hijacking a previous one for this

please write again,

Cecil

[jewishbarbies]

I know it's stupid and you don't have to answer but is being anti-zionist bad? I saw many Jewish saying that they hate Zionism and I thought Zionism were also Jewish? I am confused?

not stupid at all! a lot of people get confused about it bc it’s hardly clearly defined when discussed on social media and a lot of people just assume things.

there’s different kinds of zionism and i think that’s what mostly trips people up, because the majority of goyim don’t know there’s more than one. christian zionism is evil and disgusting and fetishy. there’s no justifying it. the basic definition of zionism in general is believing in the jewish right to self determination, specifically in the Middle East/israel. if you believe Israel is a settler colony and/or that jews don’t count as indigenous to the levant despite the 3000yr old evidence, then you’d be antizionist for sure no matter the kind. there’s a political kind of zionism that’s typically used by western politicians and evangelicals, and that’s also bad, but it can be hard to spot if you’re not jewish/educated/etc.

don’t get me wrong - there’s a lot of people who identify as zionists that have said disgusting things about palestinians/muslims/etc. and those people are just horrible people. but the core belief that jews have the right to self determination in the land they’re proven to be indigenous to is not morally wrong. it’s literally like telling people indigenous to the americas it isn’t their land, they’re not indigenous, and that they’re evil colonizers for wanting their land back. so, imo, being antizionist from that perspective is bad. if you’re anti christian/political zionism, I’m right there with you. but denying jewish indigeneity is fucked beyond belief. you don’t have to deny jews their homeland to support palestinians and vise versa. anyone telling you that you do is a liar and a moral fraud imo.

[healingmoth]

I’m very curious, seeing as you have family in Israel, how do you define antizionism and zionism? Because my definition of zionism is literally just the belief that Jewish people should be able to have our own sovereign state in our ancestral homeland (and so should palestinians ofc- i’m in favor of a two state solution with an overarching coalition) Are you in favor of some kind of two state solution, a one state solution with the state being called Palestine, or do you not believe that a Jewish state should exist at all? And with that, do you believe that muslim and christian countries should also not exist?

This isn’t an attack, I’m just very curious bc I don’t personally know a lot of israelis who consider themselves antizionist!

Jewish Zionism is a broader term than I think a lot of goyim like to believe. I don't think it is as simple as believing in the eradication of Palestinians/being against the liberation of Palestinans (which many goyim seem to, it's very confusing and reductionist). Some people might consider me a zionist because I believe that Jewish people should be living in Palestine/Israel and that space should be made for them, as well as believing in Jewish indigeneity to the region. I think it means different things to different people. However I, broadly agree with your definition from a politically relevant perspective. The complexity of this situation is nuanced, Jewish people are indigenous to Palestine/Israel however this does not necessitate an ethnocracy (term coined by Oren Yiftachel, please look up his work he is a brilliant Israeli political geographer, here's a video by him), especially because Palestinians are ALSO indigenous to the area.

Besides that, diasporic communities who have been so displaced for such a long time have the right to connect to the land and some right to even live there-- but they ALSO have a responsibility to respect the sovereignty of the indigenous communities who are still on that land. These people who still live there have tended to the land and kept it safe for generations, it is our responsibility to listen to their voices on how the land should be treated and respect their right to their homes as it is theirs ancestrally as well. Along with Muslim, Christian and other Palestinians who lost and are losing their homes, farms, families etc, there were Jewish Palestinians who's land was stolen too. Never forget these people should have sovereignty in this area.

Here is the sticking point, I think-- my rejection of a Jewish ethnocracy is what makes me an antizionist. I did not always consider myself as such, but I began to identify as an antizionist in my late teens because I realized that the creation of an ethnocracy is the issue. I think the conflict is less religious than people like to acknowledge, especially in Jewish circles since it is an ethnoreligion, but Israel is an ethnocracy and not a theocracy. It privileges Jewish people but it considers itself to be a secular state, though just like the US, religious ideals have also taken hold.

Ideally I would be in favor of a one state solution that gives the stolen homes and land back to Palestinians, that the apartheid in Israel should end and makes reparations while also finding a way to not displace Israelis. I think the government should be made up of both Israeli and Palestinian people. I think the voices of Palestinians should be centered for a while as we rebuild after the genocide. This is (loosely) in line with how I think decolonization*** in countries should be handled in general, including on Turtle Island, in Aotearoa, in Hawaii etc etc

This is, given the situation, very unlikely and many left-leaning Palestinians and Israelis have said that only a two state solution is likely, and I trust the voices of those on the ground in this more than I trust US voices (which includes myself, I am not Israeli but my family is). I am committed to listening to Palestinian voices above all others as they have faced untold violence and displacement. I hope we find the most peaceful, just and fair end to this genocide as possible.

I am, in fact, opposed to ethnocracies and theocracies, they are both pretty terrible systems that harm the people who live in them, including the people who are part of the dominant class. I do not believe that ethnocracies or theocracies benefit anyone involved.

*** (sidenote: I do consider Israel to be a colonial project, but not just by Jewish people I think it is a colonial project mainly funded and spurred on by Christian zionists/nationalists as well as prominent military powers, most obviously the USA. There are more Christian zionists worldwide than there are Jewish people. Not Jewish zionists, Jewish people. That should tell you something about who is voting in favor of this and who is funding it. Also, tumblr is VERY resistant to linking the YouTube video of Oren Yiftachel, so here it is hopefully it works: )

[socialjusticefail]

It's interesting how in extreme leftists circles the two words Nazi and Zionist mean absolutely nothing, beyond "person I don't agree with." just that they figured out that they can now openly use zionism. It's not even like anyone is trying to make it a secret. Poc especially seem to relish in the fact that they can finally "kick out the whites" because to some of them it was always an insult that those they perceive and label as "white" would also face racism and discrimination.

Also, funny thing that "modern" racism was literally built on the fact to tell Jewish people, (and pale but not "central European" ethnicities like Slavs and the Irish) that they're not white. Like, Jewish people were always an outlier, because they're not white, your skint tone never mattered, people knew you were Jewish because there's more to it than just your skin.

People have decided that even though they'll constantly blame white people for "racism existing" (aka people using the system created to oust Jewish people), they'll kick out those that were basically the cornerstones of European racism existing the way it does/did, and then changed till now. Completely appropriating it to only fit the American standard of racial understanding, which oh just so happens to exclude Jews all of a sudden.

It's almost like a country built on insane levels of fundamental protestantism, letting those beliefs flow into every institution to the point even "non believers" follow that belief centuries later, would already have sowed the seeds for Antisemitism.

It's also laughable how people, activists, ESPECIALLY POC AND QUEER/LGBTQIA++ would dare use the "Well these Jews agree with my activism against the Jewish." Oh you for sure know that these very same people are the ones who tell you that you can't use the "But I have XYZ friends!!" would never fucking fly, but the themselves decided that it's ok when it's Jews? No fuck that, you do not get to use those arguments as a non-Jew. If this happens it's between the people affected, which is Jewish people, not some random POC or queer/lgbtqia++ person who wants to get some asspats and pretend they're not antisemitic.

I've seen POCs use terms like "blood money" as if they have any right to use the term, even as an "own" to zionists they dislike. If you're repeating antisemitic rhetoric when angry, if you feel like you're allowed to use any kind of insult, slurs and anything like that, you're an antisemite plain and simple. You do not get to wash your hands of it, no matter who you are. A non-black person calling a black person the N word in anger is just revealing their racism. A cishet person who insults a queer/lgbtqia++ person by using the F-word is just revealing their -phobia. If you use "blood money" or similar rhetoric against as Jew in anger, you're an antisemite. And nothing will change that, because that's what's deep inside you.

I feel like you identified exactly what is going on with the current discourse.

[expfcultragreen]

Even in supposedly antizionist circles people will say that if a jewish person is telling you to think something, you think it, or youre an antisemite, and further, that claiming anyone would ever misuse this, is antisemitic........except when its zionists which is different (but not to the zionists, who use the same logic exactly. Who adopted it from whom? "Believe jewish people about what is antisemitic and who is an antisemite" but you dont all agree so anyone who says it is what? An irrational & tyrannical operator)

If aggression is in impact everyone is aggressing on everyone and theres no start to it so???? Who owes who what

If someone says something nazish and im like that was nazish and theyre like "nuh uh because that hurts my feelings and im secretly jewish so YOURE the nazi touche infinity everyone knows that" .............who is the nazi? Is it both? Because if i fall into a variety of categories the nazis arrested too.........youre automatically anti-those-things for upsetting ME

For example,

Veganism doesnt makes you an antisemite even when it upsets your jewish roommate who feels persecuted by it and conflates that with being hated for being jewish

I could just say, i was fem-identified at them time and this is femphobia because youre clearly just afraid to live compassionately for fear of your masculinity being impugned, at possibly high personal risk

Or,

asking questions about ace history doesnt make you an antisemite (or homophobe) even when its triggering to random jewish bloggers for misty reasons that cause them to conflate being upset with being attacked for being jewish

But being conscriptive about sexuality is the bedrock of ace erasure/ denialist culture and exclusionism, and now we're steering into grim territory with the compulsory natalism and its corollaries homophobia (and queerphobia uwu🫶) and transphobia, but also, youd have to read a lot between "is it" to make it into a thing so i think youre a whorephobe because it was on my sexwork blog that i said it and you were mean for no reason and i got thrown out of housing over it, which, could have also been whorephobia why not. If im a whore and i feel persecuted or slighted then it must be whorephobia. yall might as well be pickton for all the grace i got.

Presumably the individuals who do this are so put upon that their ability to parse micro/aggression from anything else is dysfunctional and the last avenue of intervention that would work is confrontation by someone theyre already feeling attacked by so 🤷

Happens all the time with all kinds of intersections of identity; the more "willfully" autistic you are, particularly online where theres no tone or nonverbal cues, the more this will happen.......because theyre alllllll ableists (nazis)

[needlebeetles]

yes, the discourse that's included in that post is about using words like 'transandrophobia', and several transfem bloggers on here have talked about why it's a transmisogynistic framework. sure, use whatever words you want for Your identity, but once you start creating new ways to analyze oppression dynamics that don't hold up to scrutiny, you open yourself up for criticism of the ideas you're bringing to the table, especially if they are deeply transmisogynistic ones. as another example, no one can stop you from identifying yourself as an AFAB transfem, but if you start arguing that because you're AFAB you experience sex-based oppression on top of the misogyny you get for presenting as fem, and therefore you are more vulnerable to transmisogyny than a trans woman, trans women are allowed to criticize those ideas

going to assume this is about my tags on the “we should just kiss” criticism post. If this was about something else and I’m not responding with the correct context, please inform me.

before answering this post, I did do some searching for posts and generally on the internet about how the word transandrophobia was transmisogynistic and didn’t find anything, so if you have any links you’d like to share, please do.

obviously all theory is open to criticism, and should be, especially if it’s rooted in bigotry.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of the people who use words like transandrophobia tend to think that “androphobia” or “misandry” exists as its own force in the hatred of men and masculinity. It does not, and when one’s masculinity plays a role in the discrimination one experiences, it usually has to do with how gender roles affect other forms of bigotry, such as racism or transphobia. That being said, I do think that there’s a hatred and fear of people who are seen as women transitioning into men/masculine identities because of how society sees the bodies of women and those it deems women as resources under ownership by patriarchs and society at large, and that femininity being lost or altered threatens the hierarchy of gender, the desire for women’s appearances to all fit a certain mold, and taps into fears of men being superseded or dominated by women. For me, transandrophobia can be a useful word to analyze certain kinds of misogyny and transphobia, and I’m not going to instantly write it off the same way I would if I saw the words “misandry” or “reverse racism” being used genuinely.

Edit February 2024: I don’t believe this anymore a lot of the “chill” transandrophobia theorists I followed turned out to be huge transmisogynists and also zionists for some reason + read some more theory and thought about it and I think transandrophobia tries to unify a lot of disparate kinds of transphobia and misogyny under one umbrella because it happens to transmascs but doesn’t acknowledge that the same phenomenon happens to non trans masc people. Like there’s straightforward antitransmasculinity, paternalistic transphobia (“you’ll ruin your body :(“ “our lost children” type stuff) and then what I’ve decided to call obligatory femininity (happens to both cis women, women, and those transitioning away from womanhood, where feminine attire, behavior, and body parts are treated as socially necessary and owed to the public if one wants to be recognized as a woman)

[underestimated-heroine]

as for the shit about Zionism, which I am not going to get into on that post, here's most of Lessons of growing up black and Jewish By Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

It was in this context that I attended a peace vigil organised by a new friend: a Palestinian German who also happened to be president of the Harvard Society of Arab Students (SAS) when the Intifada began. The peace vigil was largely unremarkable; nothing controversial was said by any of the speakers, who instead hoped for peace. My friend, the president, called for a moment of silence for all those who were dead. We bowed our heads. The moment was disrupted by a woman who began yelling. I don’t remember her words exactly except the phrase “you people”. And whatever it was she said, it established her in my eyes as a fellow Jew. I was filled with shame and with anger. How could any of us disrespect the dead like this? My best recollection is that I felt responsible for her behaviour, and I approached her to intervene. She, a white woman, looked at me and said, “You Arabs don’t want peace.” I was disgusted by her premises: the erasure of my Jewishness and the racist claim about Arabs. When I explained that I too was Jewish, she seamlessly proposed instead that I was self-hating. That was my entrée into black Jewish adulthood: at a peace vigil organised by Arab students, I was too brown-skinned to be visibly Jewish and was told that only a self-hating Jew would attend a peace vigil with Arab students. In hindsight, this was a preview of some elements of what life would be like in the post-9/11 world, where I would regularly be taken for an Arab on the street and felt my safety was constantly in question because of it. In Jewish spaces my presence was always a question mark too. My skin colour meant I did not fit into any preconceived categories. I experienced a profound ideological disconnect between the Judaism I found at Hillel, the Jewish campus organisation, and the lessons I had learned in a family of white Jewish labour organisers and black civil rights activists: enacting solidarity at all times, and identifying and struggling with the oppressed – honouring fellow Sojourners. In Jewish spaces I found that the primacy of Israel and Zionist ideology was preached side by side with otherwise progressive values; Palestinian humanity was nowhere to be found. I believe millennials such as myself were the last generation to experience this kind of propaganda without challenge. Younger millennials and Gen Z Jews have rejected compulsory Zionism in large numbers, and it is under us that the Open Hillel movement has shifted the conversation. Millennials and Gen Z take seriously the lessons we were taught about equality. We are also the most racially diverse Jewish generations in US history. Many Jews of colour interpret the language of Zionism through our experience with racism and colonialism, and we recognise the familiar supremacist logic that underpins it. An ideologically coherent Jewish left must reconsider the stories we have been told about safety, security and what it means to live without terror. We must take seriously the idea that none of us are free until all of us are free, and to understand that the “us” includes Palestinians. This means rejecting the supremacist logic of liberal Zionism, that it is possible to build a multicultural sovereign state where Jews are uniquely, legally entitled in ways that others are not. As a black Jew, I find it easy and rather natural to repudiate this premise, which has the same basis as American Jim Crow laws. Instead, a coherent Jewish left must return to core progressive Jewish values: standing with the oppressed, even if the face of the oppressor is Jewish. It is the duty of every Jew to do work mip’nei tikkun ha-olam, for the sake of repairing the world. We are commanded by Deuteronomy, Tzedek, Tzedek, tirdof, justice, justice you shall seek. The Jewish left must seek justice, peace and liberation for our Palestinian siblings. We must take seriously – as so many millennials my age did – the idea that “never again” means never again for anyone, ever.

I am not being mean to Zionists. ethnonationalism is a bad thing when everyone does it. no free passes. unfollow me if this does not entirely resolve your disagreement. good luck with your shit.

hello. i actually already unfollowed you after your response to my addition on that post, so no need to worry there. i've always appreciated your perspectives on things so it makes me a bit sad, but i don't want either of us to have negative energy between us going forward, which would be difficult now because it is very obvious you felt attacked by my addition.

that was not my intention at all. I truthfully had no idea you'd reblogged the post in its original form and was not speaking specifically to you, but trying to add to a broader conversation and warn others against doing something i, too, have mistakenly done. i am not "without sin" as you put it. that's literally part of the reason i made the addition.

this is a very fraught issue where a lot of harm could be done unintentionally--and I do know a lot of it is unintentional. but unintentional harm is still harm. that's something i had to have a talk with myself about while trying to speak out for Palestinian liberation. all i was trying to say is that we should all be more careful moving forward. that's literally it.

this was genuinely a great read! and one i completely agree with. In my pinned post, I have linked posts and in one of the indirect links I actually believe that person is cited but I may be wrong. In any case, the talking points are much the same.

I brought up defining terms with Zionism on THAT PARTICULAR POST because of how bad and inaccurate it was in its original form. another addition there pointed out that it read like some qanon shit and I'm sorry, but they were absolutely right. People are out of their minds if they think Zionism is never used as code for just "Jews" by white supremacists and the like. More importantly, they are ignorant and unresearched.

I also want to point out acknowledged that you don't want to guilt people and explicitly agreed with that sentiment. i truly believe that guilt only serves a function insofar as it helps us grow. again, all I'm saying is that I think many of us are being too trigger-happy with the reblogs for good reasons...but also some less-easy-to-pinpoint, ignorant, guilt-panicky bad ones. people are just not being as careful as they should here, not fact-checking. no one's perfect and of course that's okay, but Jewish people are begging us to be more careful with this stuff and I think we need to listen more.

good luck with YOUR shit.

[wxlfbites]

The Church of Satan

I can only imagine the amount of criticism and hate I'm going to get for this, so I just want to preface this post by saying that in 2015 I considered myself a LaVeyan Satanist for a while. I was a teenager and felt like what I was reading was exactly how I felt, it gave me a sense of justification for the views I had. I am not just some random, misinformed individual who only read anti-satanism propaganda. In fact, I've still actually never read anti-satanism propaganda. My opinions have been formed based exclusively on what I've read on the Church of Satan's own website. These are of course, my own opinions and people are allowed to disagree... I just think it might be something to think about if you're considering becoming a satanist.

THIS WILL BE AN EXTREMELY LONG POST

Firstly, I'm addressing the membership the Church of Satan is now implementing. ~ While the Church of Satan says that you do not need to become a member in order to consider yourself a satanist, it is clear that they encourage you to do so. It has registration and payment based memberships that allow you access to confidential information, rituals, and online chat groups you are otherwise not entitled to. Their website claims these memberships have always been in place, but I do not remember any such kind in 2015. ~ It is their policy that affiliated members are discouraged from exchanging member-exclusive information with non-members. They also express that if you are a non-member of the church, you should not expect members to keep up extended exchanges or promotion of your wares. Further, your membership is subject to rejection and retraction at their discretion and they openly state that when you apply for a membership, they gather information on you to ensure you are someone safe and trustworthy to allow in. ~ Whether or not it is intentional, they use guilt tactics in order to persuade people into becoming members. To quote some of these phrases on their own website: "Those who proudly carry our red cards identifying themselves as members have the strength and dedication to implement the tools traditionally associated with Satan". "Look to your other possessions and expenses (most people spend far more than this on general entertainment) and we’re certain you can do this if it means something to you to become a member." "We’ve discovered that most individuals can muster these funds if membership is something they truly desire." ~ They describe your membership card as a key that you must show and scan to other members to prove your affiliation. They make a few references to the underground secrecy that members may or may not choose to maintain, and so to protect their identities as members, these... calling cards if you will.. are used to discretely confirm ones membership in the Church. ~ They do not tell you where the money for your registration fee goes. In fact, they say: "That is up to the administration. It will be applied to whatever is most required at the time it is received. If you feel the need to know in more detail, then don’t join." Implying you don't have the right to know exactly where your money goes? ~ Their membership application includes inappropriate questions that no organization, religious or otherwise, should ever ask. These include: " Are you satisfied with your sex life? Describe your ideal of a physically attractive sex partner." "How many years would you like to live?" "In what organizations do you hold membership?" "Are you a smoker? If so, to what extent." "Do you drink alcoholic beverages? If so, to what extent? State preferences." " Secondly, how does satanism compare themselves to other religions and philosophies? ~ The Church of Satan declares themselves to be "a formidable threat to those who would halt progress in the name of spirituality and theism of any sort." "We are a group of dynamic individuals who stand forth as the ultimate underground alternative, the “Alien Elite.” ~ They state things like "Our members and officials will not serve as teachers nor as entertainers—we have neither the time nor the inclination.", "It is our policy not to spoon-feed information to students who are too lazy to do research." and "Your schedule is of no importance to us." so it's no surprise that the satanic texts they do not provide in full on their website, including the Satanic Bible, - which is there main text and one they highly encourage you to read - cost money. ~ They believe themselves to be the only form of satanism, stating: "People who believe in some Devilish supernatural being and worship him are Devil-worshippers, not Satanists.", "Anton LaVey was the first to define Satanism as a philosophy, and it is an atheist perspective." and “Theistic Satanism” is an oxymoronic term and thus absurd." ~ Statements like: "we stand in opposition to theist religions and their

inherent hypocrisy.", [regarding the word Shemhamforash] - "So, Satanists use it for traditional blasphemy’s sake.", [regarding someones question about their experiences with demons] - "Satanists do not believe in demons or other supernatural beings, nor do we believe in spells. Seek help from local mental health professionals to assist you to get over these delusions.", "We Satanists are all anthropologists to some degree and can find that not upsetting people who think in such simplistic and erroneous terms of “belief equals goodness and truthfulness” might be worthwhile to smooth the proceedings in which one is involved. Trying to teach them that they are mistaken in such a belief may not be worth one’s efforts." are pretty much self explanatory as to the lack of consideration satanism has for other religions as being true for others.

~ This statement: "Knowing this, if you choose to affiliate with any pseudo-Satanic or anti-Satanic groups, you may well find yourself disaffiliated from the Church of Satan. Forewarned is forearmed." might sound harmless at first glance, but this kind of reminds me of an isolation tactic where cults discourage their followers to read or engage with opposing or differing opinions because it might open their eyes to the truth of things?

Finally, here are some statements that I personally don't find are morally or ethically okay?

~ In terms of kids worrying about their parents approval the Church says: "Satanism teaches that, so long as you live with your parents, you are in “their lair” and must show them respect". Which... is literally the same shit abuse victims hear all the time..... (example "you live in their house, they're your parents and you should love and respect them no matter what")...

~ "There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong." is a statement I just .... wish I were making up at this point.

~"The emotional drive to “change the world” is a common stage of early adult development typically beginning around age 16 and lasting until around age 24. Usually, individuals who become aware as to how the world actually functions—rather than being lost in a fantasy wherein they will be some sort of savior figure—come to realize that idealism (such as changing the world) is less important than the principle of getting what you want for yourself.",

Also! Um.. they are fully aware and okay with people who uphold discriminatory political views....

To quote their website regarding politics: "Our members span an amazing political spectrum, which includes but is not limited to: Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Independents, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Zionists, Monarchists, Fascists, Anarchists, and just about anything else you could possibly imagine."

And to justify this, they say: "Members who demand conformity from other members to their particular political fetish are welcomed to depart.”, "For a Satanist to expect, much less demand, consensus on any given issue, beyond basic advocacy of individual liberty within local laws, is an enterprise which is probably as masochistic as it is insane.", "Some naïve idealists seem to think that the Church of Satan as an organization risks irrelevancy if it does not become an advocate of certain political positions—usually their own pet issues which are assumed “must” be shared by other Satanists. This fear is based upon the assumption that the Church of Satan needs to change the world or risk “fading into obscurity.”

Again, all of this information comes directly from the Church of Satan website itself. It it not "propaganda". It comes from their own mouths. You're free to disagree with my interpretation and views of the above. But if you do agree, I'd love to know.

The things above make me uneasy. They give me huge cult vibes and are actually disappointing to read as someone who once considered themselves a satanist. As an omnistic pagan now, I do believe that all religions hold truths within them and can say that there are certain things within satanism I do agree with. But overall, I feel like calling satanism a religion is a stretch and should be joined with caution if it's something you are really interested in. I am only one person, I can't tell anyone what to do. But if you were considering becoming a satanist but hold values and views that the things in this post opposed or were opposite to, then maybe satanism isn't right for you. It's definitely not right for me.

I hope this post was educational at the very least. I hope that it might help people make a decision either way if they were interested in joining the Church.

[cloudbxrry]

hello, and welcome to my blog! You can see some of my info in the blog description, but this is for rules and additional information. If you do not agree with the rules here, you can leave.

ALSO, I am cynophobic (scared of dogs) so do NOT try to send me pics of dogs. Cute puppies are ok, but just don’t send your fearbeastpics. Also, please do not come onto my blog to just send hate abt how I’m scared of your “little fluff muffin who can do no harm”. I am not sending hate to your dog, or any dog. Only putting this here just in case. Idk why anyone would send dog pics, but I guess I want to be sure idk lmao. • Black Lives Matter

• I believe that many cops are kind, but DO NOT support police brutality or racist cops.

• Stop Asian Hate

• Fuck Donald Trump

• All lives matter

• Pedophiles are NOT part of the lgbt+ community

Trans men are men and trans women are women

Non binary and Agender people are valid, including those who use neopronouns

You do not need dysphoria to be trans

Terfs and any other people who exclude/gatekeep trans people are not welcome to interact with me, my blog, or my content

Queer is not a slur. It is perfectly acceptable to identify as queer

I support ace and aro people, who are queer and part of the queer community

Love is not inherently romantic. I support platonic and queerplatonic relationships, as well as those who do not wish to be in any relationship • Lgbt+ rights

A relationship does not need to be monogamous. I fully support people in polyamorous relationships

I support bi, pan, and multisexual people, who are queer and part of the queer community

Pedophiles are not part of the queer community and are disgusting humans that are not welcome on my blog

Incest is never okay in any circumstance, even if it’s between foster or adopted family members

All religions are valid and welcome on my blog

Indigenous lives matter

Free Palestine

All races are valid. Racists are not supported by me in any regard

Nazis, white supremacists, alt-right members, zionists, and any other members of discriminatory groups are not welcome here whatsoever

Disabled lives matter, and this includes both mental and physical disabilities

Women’s rights are extremely important and I support feminist movements

Sex workers deserve respect, safety, and security

Wearing a mask is extremely important. Everyone should be wearing masks in public no matter what

• Your mental illness does not give you the right to be an asshole

• Do not use harmful slurs

• Do not post/talk about nsfw content on this blog please. I am a minor and am not comfortable with those types of jokes

These things are not up for debate. If you don’t agree with all of these, my blog is not for you and I am asking you to not interact with my blog. Unfollow me, block me, do whatever you must.

If you do agree with all of these, you are welcome and accepted here with open arms. My blog is a safe place for all people. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Thank you.

(credit to mayflowers07 for some of the rules on here, I am not very good at wording things and I didn’t want to offend anyone/forget anything

These were already said, but If you are racist, queerphobic, transphobic, homophobic, biphobic, a “battle-ax Bisexual” (as in being a Bi that does not supporting omni, pan, or other multisexual people), Aphobic, or bigoted in any way then you are not allowed on this blog. It is a safe place for people of any race, religon, neurodivergant, cynophobic, and mentally ill people.

A BIT ABOUT ME:

(most of this is in the blog description)

Name(s): Ari or Nova

Pronouns: She/They/He/Void

Hobbies: Reading, writing fanfic, sports, drawing, memeing, stalking tumblr /lh

I do Grit Ninja (look it up on google if your interested, it’s a gymnastic/parkour thing lmao idk how to describe things)

My favorite ship is Cremini/Alyssa (my and my friends OC’s, they are dryad cottagecore lesbians ❤️) I have adhd (undiagnosed), depression, anxiety (getting diagnosed), and am a Bisexual Agender person.

MY (CURRENT) FANDOMS:

• Dream SMP (only the fandom. I have never watched the streams and my attention span wouldn’t allow it. I have been lurking in the fandom for a while tho)

• Hermitcraft

• 3rd Life

• Evo SMP

• Percy Jackson (especially TOA)

• Warrior Cats (kinda)

OTHER TOPICS I WILL POST ABOUT:

• ADHD/Neurodivergant stuff

• Depression

• Anxiety

• Therapy

• Abuse/Child Abuse (and Ptsd/C-Ptsd)

• School

HOW THINGS WILL BE TAGGED ON THIS BLOG:

Answering questions will be tagged #Ari Q&A

My Art will be tagged #myart

Picrews will be tagged with #Aricrew

Things with my and my friends OC’s will be tagged #AriOCs

Updates on therapy (starting in 9 days!!!) will be tagged #Ari therapy

My rants (I rant A LOT) will be tagged #Ari rants

Serious content (s3lf h4rm, depression, anxiety, gender dysphoria, suicidal thoughts) will be tagged #Ari srs

Random, more lighthearted things will be tagged #Ari speaks

MumboJumbo angst things will be tagged #Mumbo Angst Society

(Will use tags to tag this post to demonstrate)

Backround info to the Mumbo Angst Society:

I had noticed there wasn’t a lot of mumbo angst, and I was confused because he has just so many angst options! So I posted abt that and @ mayflowers07 in the post, and they responded (small fanenby noises bc fanfic writers are awesome) and said “Well this is a pleasant surprise! Thank you op, I am honoured to be the sole provider of the Mumbo Angst Society.” So now im calling it the Mumbo Angst Society ok.

Will add more to this over time :) have a good day!

[goddess-complex]

what exactly do u think a zionist is

On paper, it’s someone who believes in and supports Zionism- defined as ‘a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann’.

i think it’s good that the Jewish people, who suffered devastation in the atrocities of the Holocaust (and endure surviving forms of anti-semitism) have somewhere where they can live free of that bigotry and violence. i recognize that Jewish emigration to Israel has saved many, many lives. i recognize the Middle East as the birthplace of Judaism. i am not ideologically opposed to the idea of a Jewish state. But I do not support the displacement and subjugation of the Palestinian people who have called that land home for generations, or the willful lack of regard that Israel has for UN policies protecting Palestinians. I’m not colorblind to the racial dynamics at play as well.

I don’t think Israel should be dismantled, or never should’ve been created in the first place, and I dont agree with the violent and bigoted groups that operate on that basis. I also do not support the imperialism and militarism which was necessary to make and keep Israel what it is.

Everyone who I’ve personally known (or, impersonally, know of) who publically identifies as a Zionist and speaks on it ardently defends Israel from pretty much all criticism, including its ongoing expansion and its military. Their attitudes of blind patriotism and nationalism remind me too much of die-hard American patriots for me to feel comfortable supporting what they support.

i am aware that Palestinian lands were “won” by Britain after their defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WW1. im ideologically at odds with Britain’s imperialism (and all imperialism), which is the basis of their ability to divide, rule and give away lands which don’t really belong to their country (even for altruistic reasons, like re-homing refugees and persecuted/ marginalized people.) Which is not to say that giving parts of Palestine to Jewish immigrants wasn’t a choice with lifesaving consequences. but it must be acknowledged that it was a case of land-granting by an imperialist state- something that is historically fraught with issues of injustice and inequality- and that’s exactly where we are now.

My ancestors on both sides of my family were victims of American chattel slavery and Native American genocide. I grew up black American and I’m firmly and unashamedly on the “far left” of American politics. It’s from this place I form my views.

As I understand it, Zionism is comparable to the American concept of manifest destiny- the idea that someone’s God has decreed that a persecuted religious minority deserves a protected homeland for themselves, and takes or is given lisence to a geographic area to call their own- at the expense of whatever peoples already live on that land. I disagree with manifest destiny as well.

If the reality was different, if Israel was some kind of utopia where all races and religions and nationalities enjoyed equitable peace, dignity, freedom and wealth under the flag of the Star of David, any criticisms of Zionism / Israel would be meaningless bigotry. But Israel perpetuates the same social ills as other Western democracies, maybe even more starkly noticeable because it pretty much blatantly operates as an apartheid state.

Has the establishment of Israel helped heal or ease the suffering of Jewish people at the hands of religious bigotry and violence, or provided some hope and safety to this marginalized people? I would think so, and I believe that is a good thing. But it does not make Israel faultless or beyond reproach.

The fact that Israel is a religious state doesn’t mean that any and every criticism of the state inherently comes from a place of bias against the religion - i see that take frequently, especially amongst people who I know to identify Zionists, including Christian conservatives / evangelicals who have (quite frankly imo, nefarious) religious interest vested in Israel.

Is there a solution here that doesn’t involve war and suffering and/or apocalyptic Biblical prophecy? Is there a solution that means everyone involved gets to live happily and be free and be equals? I believe so and I hope so, but I don’t have the answers. I think BDS is a good start.

So, that’s how i understand Zionism and zionists, thanks for asking. peace to all & happy holidays.

[polly-chan]

The theology of Attack on Titan

I am not a theologian, so my knowledge may be wrong and is based on books I have read so far. Please don’t blame me.

I have already written two posts on possible theological reasons for Attack on Titan. Continuing to read I found several other issues that seem interesting to me. It will certainly not be my last destination in this regard, but I like this topic too much and I wanted to introduce it anyway. 

First of all, Ymir Fritz is introduced as a mythical ancestor similar to the one of the Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Despite her design, which recalls Norse mythology, her place in the three monotheistic religions is indisputable because the ethnicity to which she refers. Eldians are an allegory of the Jews and not only under a theological point of view, as Paradis is an allegory of the State of Israel from a political point of view. King Fritz seems to be the bearer of a Zionist-like ideology, since he took a land for his own needs but with other ethnic groups present on it: this is because the Eldians - like Jews - evidently felt they could not live with other populations and the need to take refuge in a part of the world to live in peace. The power of the Giants in Marley's vision (placed in a WWII setting is a bearer of Nazi ideology) could symbolize the great Jewish financial power of those years. 

Eldians also call themselves "the people of Ymir", as Jews define themselves as God's people. The Eldia restoration movement is convinced that it is chosen by the forefather Ymir. In the biblical tradition the giants are called “Nephilim” and are the consequence of a carnal relationship between fallen angels (i.e. the legions of the devil) and mortal women. There is no need to specify that from a religious point of view, the carnally union between the spiritual world and the physical world is considered blasphemous and can only generate curses. Other theories see giants as historically existent people with an extraordinary strength, just as Ymir is experienced both as a spiritual and mythological being and as a historical figure. Her being the Abrahamic progenitor is based on her historical dating in the universe of Shinjeki no Kyojin, i.e. 2000 years before the events narrated and the birth of Eren (which in the series represents the messiah), exactly as the figure of Abraham is dated 2000 years before Christ. 

 The various depictions of Ymir see her entertain some kind of relationship with a demonic figure and her name varies in the literature from Ymir to Krista. Therefore, it is not to be excluded that the monster and Ymir had some relationship, from which the curse of the giants was generated and that, therefore, according to the biblical tradition, it was a relationship between a demon and a mortal. There is no doubt, in fact, that the giants are a curse and is confirmed by the testimonies of different characters in the series. Even Frieda is described as "possessed" in some moments, as if she suffers a demonic possession: whoever is possessed by the power of the giant lives a state of such profound desperation (which someone in theology defines as "the dark night of the soul") that does not leave other solution but suicide. 

In almost all the confessions of Christianity, original sin is the one that Adam and Eve, forefathers of humanity according to the biblical tradition, would have committed against God, as described in the book of Genesis. This is in fact the genesis of the Jewish religion and its people, such as the relationship with the demon of the earth and the sin committed by Ymir (of which the apple is a symbol in rock painting). In any case, Jews do not believe they have inherited the "guilt" from Adam, but only the consequences of his reckless choice. In the same way Eldians do not have a real fault for the sins of Ymir (even if they have decided to expiate it), but they suffer the consequences. In any case, Adam is recognized by some currents as the one who brought death into the world through his disobedience. Another issue is the concept of expiation proper of the Marley's Eldians, who pretend to take on their shoulders the sins of their predecessors in order to extinguish them definitively. In the Jewish doctrine, unlike the Christian one, there are no sins that can not be expelled and everything can be extinguished through repentance and sacrifice. This is what Marley's eldians do and in particular we are made clear by Gabi in her speech with Kaya. In this sense also the number 13, which are the years of life remaining to those who inherit the power of the giant: the number 13 is the number of death and rebirth and who lives under the number 13 has the possibility to conclude what is left unfinished by its predecessors. 

Ymir, however, is used by the peoples according to the cause and nothing is actually known about her and her truths. It could also be considered a founder really existed, unlike Abraham which is part of the myth and not historically proven. Unfortunately nobody knows the truth and probably nobody will ever know it. I have already mentioned in a previous post that for me Attack on Titan is the story of a people passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament. This is based on the religious vision within the walls, which is much more similar to the old beliefs than to the new ones. At the beginning of the series, when the giants break through the walls, a man makes a speech about how they are deserved, because they have sinned in different ways. The concept of "bad people happen bad things and good people happen good things" is a custom, probably dating back to a pagan period, in which if a lightning struck your home was because you had sinned against the gods and were punishing you. This concept is discussed in the book of Job, in which this upright man is struck by one misfortune after another and not because he has sinned against God; rather, he is described as his most faithful servant. Representing Eren a messianic archetype, and being the protagonist and therefore the one who is destined to resolve the story, the idea is about a travel from from the ancient testament of Abraham (Ymir) to the new testament of Eren. The division of the world of Eren in black and white, as a matter of fact, is continually discussed and criticized and must learn to love his enemy and understand it, and this is the supreme teaching of Jesus Christ himself. Eren, however, is a bridge between the religious vision of Christianity of Messiah chosen by God (since it would seem that all events are controlled by Ymir or a higher spiritual force) and the atheist one of Buddhism, in which through its path will ascend how to be perfect (eliminating its narrative flows). Moreover, it would also seem to be in common with the Davidic messiah, who opposes and defeats the opponents and even the first King presents similarities with the figure of David (David fought against the giant Goliath, but he was a man like Marley's men): the final Jewish goal is realized in a Davidic monarchy that the messianic advent should restore. The oppression of the giants settled on their land deprives the liberals of the eldians of Paradis like Roman people settled Palestine in the times of Christ. The Jewish messiah refers to a human leader, a physical descendant of the lineage of King David, who will rule and unite the people of Israel and lead him to a messianic era of global peace, and this is also what Grisha and Dina saw in Zeke. The Jewish messiah, unlike the Christian one, is not considered divine. 

 The departure of the Eldian people as people of the Old Testament is also underlined by the original Nine giants: as the Jews originate themselves from the twelve tribes of Israel, it seems plausible that the Eldians originated from the nine giants. The third ending, then, represents a mass exodus (where the diaspora is the symbol of the Jewish people and its sufferings) in the desert and towards a light. The desert is a place of expiation. The end of the ending shows a painting by Ymir with the Giant Nine, but there is a fracture on her face. Giants are considered chaotic beings, but the term "chaos" has not always meant disorder and originally meant fracture. 

About a possible conclusion of the series, I like hazard a theory. According to some biblicists, the struggle between Gog and Magog described in Ezekiel should take place at the end of the days, where this term means an event with catastrophic consequences at the global level, such as to cause the destruction of the earth and the human species. The threat of the giants inside the walls that will devastate the world can not be left to a mere quotation, but given the cumbersome presence in the series it is highly probable that this will actually happen at the end (moreover the walls will somehow have to be turn down). Gog and Magog up to the legendary populations of Asia, cited first in the biblical tradition and then in the Koranic tradition as wild and bloody people, source of looming and terrible threat or however identifiable as negative entities. These are the two mutually contrasting factions, as Marley describes eldian people with millennia of rapes and devastation behind them and which threatens the world with the giants, while eldia from Paradis sees the Marleyans as people without hearts and bloodthirsty who unleash on the island giants without brains and really violent. 

The assumptions are those for an apocalypse, in what was initially presented as a post-apocalyptic manga 

[ameerawritesstuff]

ok i totally understand why you'd be bothered about the flag stuff but in light of Israel literally being an apartheid state rn and committing genocide on the Palestinian people, would u not agree that the star of david could be interpreted as support of Israel?? it's unfortunate but true.

Complicated and valid question!

So, first off, I gotta make one thing clear:

While I am Jewish, I am also an American by birth and have never been to Israel. 

I try and stay as educated as possible but I definitely don’t know as much as someone who is Israeli or Palestinian about all the details. I know more than the average American and I have a million problems with Netanyahu plus numerous others. I just want to get that out of the way so it’s clear I have no agenda of defending Israel or Netanyahu’s regime.

Okay, so, to the question about Stars of Davids on rainbow flags being banned at the Dyke Marches in 2017:

First off, the same flag had been flown by Laurel Gauer for over a decade in the Dyke Marches. Only in 2017 she says she was verbally harassed by other marchers and then told to leave by the organizers. The Dyke March said in a social media post: “This decision was made after [the expelled marchers] repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Dyke March Collective members.”

Here’s the issue with that: Zionism is a nuanced thing. It means a desire to “re-establish a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel.” It does not mean you support only Jews living in that territory or being citizens. There are many Zionists who believe in a two-state solution as well as an independent Palestine. Zionists like, you guessed it, Laurel Grauer. The woman kicked out of the Dyke March who is openly for both the two-state solution and an independent Palestine. (source)

Now, let’s take a step back. 

Was her flag even a Zionist symbol? 

Not really, no. The Star of David really just means “I am Jewish and proud of my identity.” Literally. That’s it. It has been used by Zionist movements and groups and Israel but it was also used by the Nazis to identify all Jews whether they cared about Israel or not and the reclaiming of wearing that symbol pridefully is super important to the Jewish community. We had to hide our Jewish symbols for so long, it’s huge that we feel safe to show them. The Star of David is everywhere and is independent of Zionism. It’d be like saying all maple leaves are signs of support for Justin Trudeau. It’s just not true or even practical.

Is the confusion understandable? 

Eh, somewhat but only if you have literally never met a Jew, seen a holocaust film, or tried to educate yourself on the subject.

Ultimately it’s the same kind of argument as “well, there are Islamic terrorists so wearing a hijab makes people uncomfortable!” One person’s misinformation is not grounds for erasure.

Now, finally, and I mean this with the utmost of respect: 

Stop asking every Jew what they think about Israel. 

You know why I know as much about Israel as I do? Because I constantly am made into the sole resource for random non-Jews who decide googling is too hard. You know where I get a lot of my info? Google. Jews aren’t born with this innate knowledge of Israel anymore than African-Americans are born rapping. You know that scene in Sorry to Bother You where a bunch of white people expect Cassius to rap for them just because he’s black even though he has no clue how to? It’s like that.

Again, I hope my answer was helpful and came across informatively and didn’t seem condescending (because lectures often do via text) and hopefully everybody learns something! :)

[freedomss0n]

Words by Hiba Krisht. Hiba is Lebanese and Palestinian, as well as a scholar and brilliant writer, so when she talks about Palestinian welfare and discourse about Palestine, everyone should listen.

"I'm at the point where I can't see how focus on the Israel Palestine question re: Chicago Dyke March is anything other than derailment. I'd also like to say that perception that pro-Palestine sentiment here is being silenced *as a general trend* very much does not sit well with me because I believe the silencing to be happening the other way around, and think this is in fact a longstanding destructive feature of discourse surrounding the Palestinian cause. Also, I believe most of those engaging in defense of a pro-Palestinian liberation stance right now mean well but do not understand how much its framing decenters actual Palestinian welfare.

I will elaborate on both counts. I'm agitated from all sides about this and I can't do brevity so bear with me I guess.

First, the derailment. It's of particularly troubling sort because it falls into a larger pattern of whataboutism where what *should be* a case of clearcut antisemitism cannot ever be identified and unilaterally condemned by the left without also being hashed and rehashed in exculpatory ways "because Israel."

This is ESPECIALLY troubling when: - There is a persistent phenomenon that's almost like a lefty inversion of the concept Israeli exceptionalism. Like a reverse- exceptionalism, whereby discussion of Israel's transgressions are held to singular standards of scrutiny to the exception of other nations/populations with comparable and/or far more deplorable histories and actions and crises. And in that I am including all the unspeakable injustice and destruction the larger MENA region has wrought to Palestinians, and how accountability seems no concern there, in part *because* of eternal return to obsessive, unilateral focus on Israel as the central Palestinian issue.

- Cases of anti Muslim bigotry aren't held to the same scrutiny. The fact that people will demur about antisemitism but not anti-Muslim bigotry betrays a terrible lack of self awareness re: double standards. I mean, if you want to go 'head and make weak arguments about how religious symbols are politically wielded, I'm going to have to start wondering why you aren't referencing the much more appalling and deadly scope of human rights abuses committed under Muslim banners whenever the question of banning Muslim symbols comes up. Which would be a clearly terrible argument, but maybe it's worth reflecting why the same argument suddenly makes sense when it comes to Jewish symbols.

- Casual antisemitism often manifests as (among other things) conflations between Jewish symbols or beliefs / various Zionist ones / various Israeli nationalist ones. We ALREADY know the Dyke March incident to be an iteration of this problem. Now think about how fucked up what happened next is: the ban of a Jewish symbol at a public event based on a bigoted conflation is called out as anti-Semitic. Then, as a kind of precondition for defense against or acknowledgement of such anti-Semitism, people on the left apparently see fit to hold Jewish people accountable, individually and as a group, for *the same bigoted conflations targeting them*, basically needing Jewish people to declare their politics and/or unilaterally renounce Zionism -- essentially acting as gatekeepers despite being outsiders operating from apparently rather reductive and narrow presumptions of Zionist politics, since they somehow have the arrogance of assuming they understand and can judge what any given Jewish person's Zionist adherence entails and means based on the label alone??? Who the fuck else does this? Who the fuck else has to go through this? Do we have to establish and approve of the political and ideological leanings of Muslims in order to defend them against anti-Muslim bigotry, or do we engage in whataboutism re: the scourge of political Islamism in the Middle East to determine if Muslims have the right to display their religious symbols in the west?

Now the Palestine thing. And necessary conversations. And silencing and whatnot.

Even points that are so reasonable and evident they may well be tautologies by now, like 'Palestinians are entitled to basic human rights', bear a different weight when made in these contexts. They don't exist in vacuum, but carry the shadow of a discourse that already has huge issues with privileging particularly anti-Zionist or anti-Israel Palestinian advocacy no matter how tangential to the conversation, and never mind what else is minimized and derailed in the process.

I am not doubting the sincerity and concern of my friends who are struggling to express pro-Palestine sentiment while being confused by hostility right now, but I would urge a more thorough consideration of the relative space taken up by the respective conversations thus far, and to not confuse long overdue push-back from folks who have every reason to be frustrated and sick of derailment and semantic squabbles over definitions of Zionism every time anti-semitism comes up.

If it seems like there is rejection from the left when you want to assert a pro-Palestinian stance here, it is less likely to be because people have a problem with pro-Palestinian politics as such, and more likely to be because there is a salient point regarding how cavalier antisemitism already is today and how these patterns of derailment every damn time end up gatekeeping attempts to counter an insidious kind of racism that can and must be discussed without forcing marginalized people to jump through the Israel Blame Game hoops to defend their humanity. The Israel Palestine thing needs to stop hijacking conversations about antisemitism. Palestinian welfare does not suffer if people refuse to derail conversations about anti-semitism, but conversations about anti-semitism certainly suffer when what-about-Palestine pops up.

And that's all besides the fact that no matter how well-meaning, this Palestine-specific whataboutism does not contribute anything appreciable to Palestinian welfare and is so oblivious in some ways it's kind of heartbreaking to try to navigate through. I firmly believe that the kneejerk way the Palestinian Cause is held up like a trump card whenever convenient and the infuriating reverse exceptionalism with which the conflict is treated has been a firm factor in prolonging the crisis and exacerbating Palestinian suffering. I'm struggling to find the words for why it troubles me so much to see all these conversations stuck on questions of whether anti Zionism is anti Semitism because don't forget Israel and what about accountability for Palestine.

Please. Please. Please try to understand that an anti-Zionist pro-Palestine liberation stance is not one that needs championing in the left, that nobody fucking lets us forget Israel when we try to talk about Palestine, and nobody stops talking about Palestine when anyone mentions Israel, and it hasn't done shit for diaspora or territory Palestinians except turn us into a handy slogan. Establishing a stance of basic advocacy for the rights and welfare of the Palestinian people is not what the discourse lacks, it is what the discourse needs to *move past* already. Everybody is well-versed and comfortable with the Israel Blame Game-- it drowns out and supersedes everything else, and it's everything else that Palestinian advocacy desperately needs.

This is something that frustrates me to no end because it's not reducible to something like Israeli conduct being dealt with disproportionate scrutiny in the left *as such*, but as a function of urgency and relative space. When Israel overshadows discourse about Palestinian welfare even though it is Arabs who are responsible for the most staggering and horrific ongoing Palestinian abuses, we have a problem. And it can never be talked about or addressed because only Israel's actions are viewed with agency and significance, and attributing Palestinian suffering to anything else is instantly condemned as insidious detraction.

So you can see how it is frustrating to go through the whole 'is pro-palestinian anti-zionism anti-semitic' rigmarole when it is so often a distraction from more functional questions of Palestinian welfare.

Fact: There are kinds of anti-Zionism that are pro-Palestinian rights and that are also anti-Semitic. Fact: There are kinds of anti-Zionism that are pro-Palestinian rights and that are not anti-Semitic. Fact: There are kinds of Zionism that are consistent with upholding the rights and freedoms of Palestinian Arabs, and, fact: there are kinds that are categorically not.

Educated opinion: Not only is anti-Zionism the established and normative stance across most of the Middle East, but, if we're being honest, probably the most prevalent and established type of anti-Zionism in the discourse is that which engages in solid pro-Palestinian advocacy while also falling into both gross and casual anti-Semitism. This is definitely the case in the broader discourse on the issue in the Middle East, and what's more, there is next to no self-awareness of the anti-Semitic assumptions, myths, and bigotries, not to mention the historical revisionism, threading popular and political anti-Zionism in the MENA region and popular Palestinian and Lebanese culture as well. This is a problem, and one that will never be addressed as long as pro-Palestinianism and anti-Semitism are presumed to be wholly non-overlapping binaries by well-meaning leftists. It is both possible and necessary to acknowledge and mount critique of anti-semitic elements in pro-Palestine discourse while maintaining Palestinian advocacy. Acknowledging anti-Semitism in the discourse is not going to undermine the Palestinian cause. Again, people don't need to be perfect moral agents to justify a defense of their humanity.

Educated opinion: Leftist discourse centering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is overall entrenched in rigid, binary thinking and overwhelmingly leans pro-Palestine but in unfortunately too-basic, reductive ways. It already has an ideological rigidity problem. The discourse is such that to be pro-Palestine is to be above all transcendentally righteous: the lines of oppression and blame are clear and brook no further complexity; it is the cause no reasonable person can deny or fail to center in any conversation, and Palestinian advocacy is almost synonymous with condemnation for the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people and aught else.

It is troubled with issues of allegiance and abstraction-- maintaining certain principled stances re: the Cause is treated as an almost inviolable tenet for anybody who can claim to care about Palestine, despite the fact that the central narrative of the Cause pits the immediate welfare and prosperity of generations of living, breathing Palestinians against the memory of a Palestine that has not existed for decades and an abstract future promise of a right to return to a place that never again will be. The narrative may have once been in service of the people, but it has not been so in a long time. And it is only the narrative that is treated with sanctity by the most vocal champions of Palestine, and if it comes at the expense of Palestinian lives like in Yarmouk, so be it. Palestinian advocacy is more about condemning Israel than it is about supporting Palestine, and that is the problem.

It's beginning to feel like despair, seeing how pro-Palestinian discourse is framed in terms of the questions of Zionism and anti-Zionism over and again, constantly centering and recentering the question of Palestinian welfare as a foil to Israeli aggression in broad nationalistic and/or existentialist terms, assuming unilateral causes, ascribing agency very selectively to regional actors, brooking no interrogation of Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim agency in the conflict, and obsessively resistant to moving past the past.

It's been decades and Palestinians continue to suffer large-scale crises in basic resources, public health, trauma, and disenfranchisement, and they have largely been allowed to persist in the name *of* Palestine, at the hands of Arab regimes that shrug off all accountability in Israel's direction, though for fifty years diaspora Palestinians in the larger Levant have been purely at the mercy of the Arab states housing them. We do not need to hear tired pro-liberation stances when it is those very stances that are used to justify keeping us holed up in Lebanese and Syrian refugee camps, stateless, in suspended animation, without civil rights or wealth or upwards mobility, dying slowly of poverty and deplorable living conditions and isolation if we're lucky, and if we're unlucky, until a guy like Assad comes along and murders, maims, starves, and makes refugees out of a whole city of us-- and yet it is in the name of liberating Palestine that Assadist discourse proliferates, being anti-Israel, and Palestine's catastrophe is only and ever subsumed into the crimes of Israel and not of those of Syria or Lebanon or Assad or Hamas or the PA or Fatah or the GCC states or anybody else. When I want to talk about Palestinian advocacy, I want to talk about Assad and the nearly 200,000 Palestinians in Yarmouk camp that are now dead or gone or starving under siege and I want to talk about how the Lebanese state has made pariahs and a lost people out of *generations* of diaspora Palestinians practically quarantined in refugee camps because of petty sectarian concerns and I want to talk about the Palestinian political elite grievously frittering away resources and opportunities that could have prevented significant Palestinian suffering and death because of political feuds and a reckless privileging of a jihadi cause over popular welfare-- but I cannot, because the justifications, distractions, conspiracy theories loop incessantly back to Israel. Which cements *my* concern that these conversations are not really *about* Palestinian welfare at all."

[jokerepair74-blog]

How To Identify A Globalist Criminal

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

In my work analyzing the behavior and motives of globalists I often hear people question the validity of the label. Sometimes this is done by those who are purely uneducated about the background of what I can only call an organized cabal or criminal syndicate. Sometimes it is done by dishonest people who are seeking to sow the seeds of doubt. To be clear, yes, globalists are a very real group with a very real agenda, and this agenda is not morally or rationally sound.

The argument then arises - “If globalists are a real threat, then we should identify them one by one...”

This argument is often a ruse which insinuates that if a person points out the facts surrounding a crime on the part of globalists, his position is still not valid until he names them all in succession. This is a classic Alinsky tactic; to demand that the researcher catalog every person involved in a conspiracy or present a perfect solution to the criminality which may or may not be available, otherwise they should shut up and stop talking about the problem. The intent is to get us caught up in the weeds debating the extent of who is involved or whether one solution is superior to another.

Acknowledging that a specific agenda exists is the first step before anything else can be accomplished.

Obviously, one cannot outline a long list of globalist names in every essay or article. This would make each article dozens of pages long and is counterproductive. Naming names might be helpful in some circumstances, as I have done in the past such as in my article 'Globalist Disinformation Spotlight On – Mohamed El-Erian'. I welcome readers to examine that article because El-Erian is a good example of what a globalist is and the kind of ideology they espouse. It is my feeling though that it is more important to focus on the behaviors, rhetoric, institutional affiliations and beliefs of globalists, because these elitists often hide in plain sight.

Not all of them publicly call themselves “globalists”; some of them do. However, they ALL have the same character traits and they all support the same agendas.

First and foremost I suppose I should address the so called “elephant in the room”; it is important to note that there is a concerted disinformation effort by a small group of people lurking in the corners of the liberty movement to push the notion that globalism is a purely “Jewish conspiracy”. And, as our social and economic structures grow more unstable, people look for easy answers and the idea is starting to gain some traction.  Their claim? It's all about the Jews, all the globalists are Jewish or somehow secretly related to Jews or are married to Jewish partners, etc. This is simply false, so let's get this out of the way...

The Jewish conspiracy narrative, I believe, is 4th generation warfare, a psychological operation, an attempt to mislead liberty movement activists away from a much deeper and darker issue. It also may be an attempt to attach the movement to white supremacy or white identity groups as if they are interchangeable. Frankly, I do not care what other people believe as long as they keep to themselves and leave others alone. If someone takes special pride in their pigmentation or culture, great, I wish them the best of luck. It is true that some cultures function better than others, but this has far more to do with the superior cultures being more free.

Just because we have a distaste for the race-baiting insanity and hatred of white people or western culture displayed by the social justice left, this does not mean we need to swing to the other extreme and become zealots ourselves. I actually think the ability to discriminate at times is highly useful, but such simplistic divisions based on bias and broad generalizations make us weak, not strong. It makes us easy to conquer, not a formidable opponent to the globalists.

Here are the facts:

The vast majority of globalists are not of Jewish origin and are not zionist in their political affiliations. While there are sectors of globalist institutions that have more Jewish people than others (such as the Federal Reserve), this does not indicate a majority or any sort of broad “Jewish conspiracy”. On the contrary, the directorial boards and memberships of most globalist institutions have a small minorities of Jews, and are majority Anglo in origin. One can simply look at the board of directors of groups at the top of the globalist pyramid like the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, or World Bank and verify that this is the case.

We can also examine the attendees of past globalist summits like the Bilderberg Group, or the World Economic Forum in Davos and see that again, some Jews might be involved, but are not a majority or even in the highest positions of authority. While the Rothschild family (Jewish) gets a lot of attention as being a major power center within globalist circles, we can see they are but one influence among many.

These people herald from all over the world, and are of every ethnicity and national affiliation one can imagine. So, the broad brush of white identity conspiracy becomes rather useless in helping us figure out who the globalists truly are. It actually misleads us and points us in the wrong direction, and perhaps this is its underlying purpose.

The fallback argument is that they might not be majority Jewish, but they are all “zionists”; which, again, is simply not true. Zionism is definitely a globalist scheme, but more of a side venture designed to manipulate some Jews and evangelicals into zealotry, to be exploited in supporting efforts like war in the Middle East. Zionism itself actually makes Jewish centers like Israel less safe and more prone to destruction. The globalists only care about Israel or the Jewish people in general in so much as they can be used as a tool for other more important efforts.

And, while I have criticized the actions of the Israeli government on many occasions (and been accused of being an anti-semite for it), this is not the same as attacking the Israeli people. Globalism threatens them just as much as it threatens others.  I welcome readers to look over the rosters of many of the top globalist organizations; they will find a minority of zionists, not a majority.

If it's not about the Jews or zionism, then what is globalism really all about? It is vital that we look at the intent, actions, motivations and beliefs of these people. Hyperfocusing on their genetic backgrounds will get us nowhere.  How do we know when we are dealing with a globalist? Let's look at some of the real and universal elements that make globalists an organized and identifiable culture, separate, distinct and destructive...

Globalism As An “Inevitable” Future

Globalists will often claim that globalism, the centralization of all governmental and economic power, is an inevitable byproduct of “progress”. They will state, without any evidence of course, that globalism represents a pinnacle of evolution in human society. Therefore, anyone that stands in the way of globalism is standing in the way of progress, which is apparently a cardinal sin in the new world order.

But centralization of power is nothing new, and dreams of global empire ruled by self appointed “elites” goes all the way back to Plato and his “Republic”. Utopia by the elites for the elites is a tale as old as mankind. It does not represent evolution, but regression to an ideology that human beings have been struggling for thousands of years to escape from.

We should also make the distinction here between globalists and useful idiots. Globalists are people in a position of power adequate enough to help affect the the changes and agendas they describe. Useful idiots (socialist/communists) might espouse globalist rhetoric, but they have no power. They are exploited as a blunt weapon by globalists, but they are not globalists, and will not likely benefit from globalism in the end.

End Of Sovereignty

Globalists treat the idea of sovereignty with disdain. Their attacks usually revolve around nationalism and they will incessantly pontificate on the virtues of open borders. They can also sometimes be caught criticizing the concept of individual sovereignty, but they do seem to fancy the idea that THEY are unique and superior individuals. Individuality and freedom are meant for them, but not for the rest of us.

Single Economic Authority And Monetary System

A key element of globalism is economic centralization which makes perfect sense when you understand that trade is the root of human civilization and survival. Trade is almost as important as the air we breath and the water we drink. The consistent plan presented by globalists is that the IMF in particular must become the bottleneck point for global economic management, and that all the world's major currencies will be absorbed by the IMF into their SDR basket system.

This would give the IMF the ability to dictate currency exchange rates on a whim, allowing them to homogenize currency values until they are so similar that a single world currency becomes a natural next step. This final product would be a cashless society, based on a digital blockchain-based currency or cryptocurrency.

Single World Government

Globalists all argue that the answer to most of the world's ailments is one world governance, or the end of nation states and cultural divisions in the name of “peace”. The UN is so far the impetus of this effort, but it is shadowed by various organizations like the IMF, BIS, World Bank, as well as dozens of think tank organizations like the CFR, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, Darpa, etc., etc. A practice model for this type of government can be seen in the European Union, which is controlled by a supranational bureaucratic machine run by mostly faceless officials who are not elected and who do not answer to the public.

Globalists have different terms for the shift into a single world government or single currency system.  They call it a "global reset, or a "new world order", or a "multipolar world order".  But all of these marketing labels are basically referring to the same thing.

Close Association

Any politician that works closely with globalist institutions or think tanks is likely a globalist. Any politician or government official that associates regularly and cooperates with known globalists is probably also a globalist.

Environmental Crisis As Hegelian Threat

Not all globalists hit on this topic publicly, but most do.  The strategy, which was planned by the Club Of Rome along with top globalists like former UN Director Robert Muller, was to create the idea of an environmental threat so potentially devastating that the only option would be for the public to accept global governance as the solution.  Global warming and "climate change" became that existential threat.

It does not seem to matter how often or how brutal the climate change argument is debunked by real data; the globalists desperately push the ideology.  It is a primary key to everything they hope to accomplish in terms of centralization, and their timeline is set for the year 2030.  Globalists also seem to enjoy fabricating fake moral dilemmas which force people to choose between one evil solution or another.  The fake moral dilemma here being that if we do not accept global centralization and elitist management of the planet, we are risking the destruction of our environment on an apocalyptic scale.

Psychological Similarities Of Globalists

Probably the most overwhelming epiphany I have come to in my 12 years of analysis into globalism and the nature of evil is that globalists are in fact tied together by a root mental illness or psychological aberration. This occurred during my research on narcissistic sociopathy, or what some circles might call “psychopathy”. Criminology indicates that not all criminals are full blown narcissistic sociopaths, but most full blown narcissistic sociopaths are criminals. Some are simply more successful criminals than others, and this usually depends on their ability to blend in and mimic or manipulate normal people.

Full blown narcissistic sociopaths (or psychopaths) make up around 1% of any given population, but are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes or criminal enterprises. The lion's share of justice system resources are used in dealing with these people, as they are four to eight times more likely than the average person to use violence in daily interactions or as a tool to gain advantage, and twenty-five times more likely to end up in prison.

There is a long list of character traits that make a narcissistic sociopath, but the defining features are a complete lack of conscience and empathy, a propensity for moral relativism (the ability to rationalize any and all destructive behavior), a desperate need to be adored or admired by everyone around them, a feeling of being “more special” than most people, a feeling of superiority, delusions of grandeur or an inherent right to manage the lives of others, an obsessive need to control and manipulate, impulsive desires and deviant sexual inclinations, and elitist associations (they will only associate with people they feel are like them and are “equally superior”).

A defining fact of narcissistic sociopathy is that these traits are inborn, not a product of environment. In some cases environment can play a role in activating these traits, but if a person is not born with them, they generally do not adopt them later in life because of a traumatic environment. The following documentaries linked here and here are an excellent overview of high level narcissistic sociopaths.

Narcissistic sociopaths defy all forms of treatment and cannot be reformed. They have no concrete personality beyond these traits, therefore, if you remove the traits, they are left with nothing else. They are almost anti-human; while most people are born with unique personality combinations, narcissistic sociopaths have none, so they mimic the personalities of those around them, mirroring behaviors and collecting or stealing quirks.

Their primary drives are to fulfill their fantasies of superiority and godhood, as well as an endless quest to satiate their dopamine addiction. The more deviant the action, and the more successful they are at getting away with it, the more dopamine they generate and the more satisfied they feel. This leads to an endless cycle, seeking out more and more exploitation of others which becomes less and less satisfying, which leads to even greater deviance.

I came to realize in my studies that these characteristics described almost exactly the observable behaviors of globalists. The difference being that globalists were so high functioning that they had actually built a society of narcissistic sociopaths that operated like a kind of cult, or a corporate entity. The only other historic example I could compare it to would be the mob, or other gangs which have blended into the surrounding normal society and operated in their midst.

I do not know if a society of narcissistic sociopaths with its own tribal customs, mythologies and beliefs has ever been recorded before. While psychopathic people have been known in the past to organize into groups for mutual benefit, the globalists are something different. They are an anomaly; a well maintained culture of parasites that has blended almost seamlessly within normal society in order to feed off of non-psychopathic and empathetic people. The best fictional representation I can think of is the vampire. They are so similar I sometimes wonder if folklore creatures like vampires were based on narcissistic sociopaths as a way to warn people of their presence.

Globalists are indeed a culture, a secretive and occult phenomenon that wants so badly to be recognized and worshiped, but fears public scrutiny. Their motivation at bottom is to condition or tear down normal, moral and free society until it becomes a place in which they can openly be what they really are without fear of judgment or consequences. They want to terraform civilization and make it a habitat that will accept them; a habitat for monsters surrounded by willing victims.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-21/how-identify-globalist-criminal