#but it is one of the ONLY I have seen that doesn't condemn religion or queerness

[after-nine-at-the-oasis]

*sighh* everybody welcome the new blorbos

gay people, divorced people, crime people, and catholic people

[the-catboy-minyan]

why so many people don't recognize that their antizionism is antisemitic, in my opinion:

(disclaimer: this is not an educational post, it will not have sources for claims, and is not meant to be read as the objective truth. it is solely my observation and opinions. civil debate and criticism is encouraged in both the notes and reblogs, I will do my best to answer those and correct my post if necessary. edits will be highlighted in pink, if this is a reblog, press the original post to see the most updated version. English is not my first Language, I might have used the wrong words for some terms.)

The Meaning Of Zionism:

this section is meant to highlight the difference between

firstly, they falsely believe the term Zionism means supporting genocide or Netanyahu's government, when most Jews don't use the term Zionism that way. Zionism has many different meanings and subgroups, as Jews love to argue (/j but Judaism encourages debate and personal interpretation), but all meanings are built on the original idea of "Jewish self determination in their indigenous land/creating and maintaining a Jewish country somewhere in the world" (yes, technically believing giving Israelis land somewhere else to be Israel is a form of Zionism, I've seen that take). the methods for creating and maintaining the lands differ, so is the belief of what land should be considered Israel, but all forms of Zionism rely on that core belief. while Zionists may support those things, that is not an integral part for Zionism, and many Zionists oppose those ideas and condemn them.

in addition, they falsely believe Zionism is in favor of illegal occupation and apartheid, which only specific subgroups of Zionists (extremely right-wing Zionists) are in favor of. Zionism is, again, mostly about an end goal (establishing and maintaining a Jewish state (which currently means in Eretz Israel)), and people will have different opinions on how to achieve it, including extremist and racist opinions. all movements have people who hold extremist beliefs, and are usually condemned by other members of their movement, Zionism is no exception.

they don't see Zionism as Jewish. I mean, there are more Christian Zionists than there are Jews in the world! of course it's not Jewish! lets ignore the fact the movement started by a Jewish man, was widely popular in Jewish communities and is what led to the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.

now, let's for a moment ignore the misinterpretation of the term and assume that by saying Zionists, they refer only to people who support Netanyahu, illegal occupation in places like the west bank, war crimes committed by the IDF, etc. regardless of the Zionist's religion/ethnicity/race. (keep in mind that while that's their assumed intentions, their antizionism will still ultimately include self-identified Jewish Zionists who are strongly against these things)

Antizionist Activism and Beliefs:

have you heard accusations of antisemitism and the response "I'm not antisemitic, just antizionist"? this section will highlight the reasons why many antizionist actions or claims are seen as antisemitic by many Jews.

No Zionists Allowed: as in, excluding zionists from public, private, and online spaces. this tactic is used today to exclude many groups deemed problematic, "no [queer]phobes allowed", "no racists allowed", "no men misogynists allowed", etc. which is why on the surface, it doesn't seem antisemitic. yet this exclusion tactic is derivative from historical exclusion of ethnic groups, groups that were seen as evil/violent/sinners/subhuman were ostracised from society and denied access to public/private spaces. signs like "no blacks allowed", "no gays allowed", and, of course, "gentiles only".

Zionists Are Nazis: comparing any "evil" group to Nazis is common, they're so overly exposed to ww2 stories, especially ones that paint Nazi germany as pure evil cartoon villains, that they have no idea what the term Nazi actually means anymore. Nazism is based on race theory and antisemitism, it's the creator of the term antisemitism to make it sound more scientific instead of discriminatory, in Mein Kamph, Hitler wrote that almost every "issue" in the world is the fault of Jews. comparing the extremely antisemitic, supremacist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. ideology of Nazism to a Jewish movement for self determination is in fact antisemitic. (it is also wrong to throw the term Nazi around for any reason, but especially for a Jewish movement)

Zionists Control The Media/Government/etc: the belief that there's a secret organisation controlling the media is an old conspiracy theory, which comes from the genuine fear of your government feeding the people propaganda to sway their opinion in favor of the government to let it do what it wants. it's is good to believe the media is biased, as it's written by humans who are inherently biased, but to outright claim the entirety of media is untrustworthy when it's not hailed from a dictatorship is a harmful belief. this is what antivaxxers believed during the pandemic, what conspiracy theorists believed for centuries, and believe it or not, it's at least partially derived from the antisemitic belief of Jews controlling the banks and conspiracies like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Rid The World Of Zionists: again, there are many other activist groups that believe their enemy should be eradicated, that if they believe in or have done xyz, they deserve their rights to be taken away from them and to die. this is dehumanization, and an oppression tactic. the moment you say "this type of person doesn't deserve rights because they're evil", the moment people are gonna start getting falsely accused of falling into that type with the purpose of silencing them or getting their rights revoked. + the before point of political exclusion being derivative of ethnic/religious/racial exclusion. we've seen many people getting accused of being secretly Zionists for even mentioning the hostages.

Zionists Want Genocide/Are Bloodthirsty (a reminder that this is under the assumption that Zionists blindly support the current Israeli government and the IDF's war crimes): this is both straight up a variation of blood libel, and extremely hypocritical.

blood libel started as the antisemitic accusations that Jews kidnapped Christian children on Passover to creat Matzot, while no one beliefs are that extreme anymore, the underlying belief that Jews are violent and enjoy murder still exists, and was shifted to be about Israelis. the "it was self defense!" accusation that claims Israelis are just itching for their enemies to strike first to get the opportunity to respond violently and use self defense as an excuse, for example.

hypocritical as in, this goes hand in hand with the belief that Zionists should be killed. "Zionists support genocide so they should all die a violent and gruesome death" is a take I've seen MULTIPLE TIMES - and being said completely seriously, not in the comedic tumblr way of "my blorbo is cringe? wrong, killing you with hammers :3" - and is extra hypocritical when they very strongly oppose the idea of "Hamas are terrorists who committed atrocities therefore they should all die" (and ftr I don't claim they should support that).

there are people who believe that violence is necessary for an end goal, extreme violence even. that doesn't make them bloodthirsty or violent people, it makes them radicalized. there are some Zionists who believe the only way to maintain safety in Israel is to not only eradicate Hamas, but to eradicate Gaza, as they believe that all the people of Gaza are brainwashed to be violently against Israel and pro martyrdom (as in suicide attacks), and thus a threat to Israel's safety. there are some antizionists who believe the only way to free Palestine and bring safety to Gaza is to eradicate Zionists, as they believe that all Zionists are brainwashed to hate Palestinians and to be pro illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing, and are thus a threat to Palestine and their human rights. both of these beliefs are radical and false.

Zionist Blocklists: this is mostly an online problem, but Zionists have been doxxed IRL (and I don't mean individuals, massive lists of hundreds of alleged Zionists) for the same reasons those blocklists exists. people are gathering usernames of "Zionists" online to "warn other users" from interacting with them, with the disclaimer of "I'm not telling you to harass them, don't interact, just block". not only does it encourage to never hear the opposing side, thus pushing you further into an echo chamber of only voices that agree with you and never actually learning from the source what are the opinions you oppose, it ultimately creates a neat little list of people to harass because of the before mentioned dehumanizing belief that evil people deserve violence against them. suddenly sending death threats is easier than ever, and it's justified since these are allegedly evil people. you're not encouraged to double check if these people are actually Zionists, there's no explanation as to why they're on the list, you just have to trust the op.

Boycotting Zionist Companies: The Idea of boycotting companies or other organisations that support unethical causes is also, again, not new. People boycott companies that donated to anti-lgbtq organisations or that relied on slavery for their product creation. and yet the companies who are being boycotted are

Israeli companies, which are not necessarily supporting the Israeli government, it would be like boycotting every Chinese company because of the Uyghur genocide.

companies which helped Israel in some way, like McDonald's, which donated meals to Israeli soldiers during the start of the war (this is again a reminder that the majority of McDonald's income is real estate). there are arguments to be made to justify these type of boycotts, as they're similar to other justifications for different causes, yet unless these companies have directly funded the IDF's weaponry, the arguments for boycotting is flimsy at best.

companies which mentioned the hostages, like Paramount, which ran an Israeli ad for the release of the hostages. mentioning the hostages is not the same as condoning war crimes, it's recognizing there are innocent Israelis wrapped up in this conflict, just as supporting a free Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas.

organisations that allowed Israel to participate, like Eurovision. there's just no reason to disallow a country to participate in a songs competition due to being in a war.

events that happen "while Israel is bombing Gaza". American events like the Oscars that happen on a set date and have nothing to do with Israel have no reason to be boycotted just for happening on the same day a war is happening.

Starbucks. why is Starbucks being boycotted? it had done nothing in support of Israel, literally fucking none, it's being boycotted for supporting Palestine wrong, once, on October. it doesn't operate in Israel, it never said anything publicly in support of Israel, there's literally 0 reason to boycott it????????????

anyways. while there are different reasons and justifications for every company or event, there's this silly little thing that happened in Nazi Germany that was boycotting Jewish business, in response to the "anti-nazi boycott". the Jewish boycotts were unsuccessful on paper, but ingrained the Nazi idea of Jews being inferior.

The Harm It Does For The Jewish Community:

The Overlap: the majority of Jews are Zionists, not in the sense of supporting genocide, but in the Jewish meaning(s) of believing a Jewish state should exist or is in some way beneficial for Jewish safety. by excluding and silencing Zionists, the antizionist crowd are excluding and silencing the majority of jewish people. a Jewish person who wants to integrate back into their circles has to refute their Zionism in fear of being seen as a genocide supporter, a Jewish person who refuses to hide their beliefs will be labeled evil and be ostracized. actual right-wing zionists would stay away from these spaces anyways for being leftist/centrist spaces, thus the exclusion is effective only on leftist Jews who dare believe Israel should exist.

"Zionism Isn't Judaism": is a claim many antizionists make, yet time and time again we see synagogues, Jewish schools, and Jewish neighborhood get targeted by antizionist protests. Jewish spaces are being attacked, even if you claim it is by a minority, these are still actions that are largely ignored by the antizionist crowd and aren't being condemned. you know, by the people who believe that silence is violence?

Can't Have A Single Positive Opinion About Israel: you have an Israeli relative that enlisted to the IDF? they should have refused servitude and gone to jail, you're a genocide supporter. You've done a birthright trip and it was nice? ew, everyone knows every inch of Israel is full of illegal settlements and apartheid, genocide supporter. you talked about the hostages? propaganda, genocide supporter. Israel passed a pro lgbtq law? pinkwashing propaganda, genocide supporter. you don't think Israel is an occupying terrorist force that oppresses their own citizens and deserves to be burned to the ground? genocide supporter, from the river to the sea!!!

Eretz Israel (not the State of Israel) is an integral part of Judaism. most of our holidays are about Israel in some way, some our traditions require Israel as a place, we bury our dead with soil from Israel, we vow to never forget Jerusalem during our weddings, we celebrate our agriculture and our miracles which happened there, our ancient holy cites are there, so are our ancestors (for ethnic Jews). many Jews are going to have at least a single positive or even a neutral opinion about Israel, and see it as a Jewish land.

The Israeli Identity: since people see Israel as an illegal settlement, apartheid, genocidal, terrorist state, etc, they also see Israelis as complicit in those crimes. every Israeli they meet is going to immediately be a criminal, Israelis are not a "real Jews" (that makes half the Jewish population fake), in the case Israel is dismantled and Israelis are forced to "go back to where they came from", will those countries accept them with open arms? or will the boycotts continue? what about Mizrahi Jews which hailed from the Arab world? do you think they'll even be allowed to live after their country's crimes against Palestine? will the Houtis let them when their flag has "death to Israel" on it (most Mizrahis are Yemeni)? if citizens are the same as their government, would that mean every Russian immigrant is an evil spy who wants to murder Ukrainians? just some questions to think about.

in conclusion: I'm tired. I've been writing for 3 hours. bye.

[fatherfigurefusion]

Danganronpa: Another Iteration (or a talent-shift AU for DRA)

Haruhiko Kobashikawa, Ultimate Surgeon

The protagonist, and 1/3 of the three "brain cells".

Comes from a family of field medics.

Ending up garnering lots of attention from the media for performing flawless surgeries at the age of five.

Would much draw attention away from the whole "medical prodigy" thing, but would lay down his life to save people (savior complex protag, my beloved).

Is a bit too into the anatomy parts of medical textbooks.

Mikako Kurokawa, Ultimate Pilot

Was groomed from a young age to be an unstoppable war machine.

Was told from a young age that "actions speak louder than words", resulting in her not talking much.

Doesn't really open up to anybody, not even her servant/adoptive brother.

People are often unnerved by the pale six-foot-one girl with noticeable muscles underneath her uniform, and rightfully so.

Yuki Maeda, Ultimate Exorcist

Has powers straight out of an isekai/shounen manga, and the underdog protagonist energy to match.

In spite of his title, Yuki actually specializes more in being a spiritual medium and summoning/communicating with the spirits themselves.

Is headmates with Utsuro, a far colder spirit in charge of the actual exorcisms, who finds just about any other activity "boring".

Has an awful and traumatic past that lead to both his attachment towards the dead and his alter.

Rei Mekaru, Ultimate Lucky Student

Primary trial saboteur.

Okay, I have two different prompts for a Lucky Student Rei.

First prompt, essentially Teruko Tawaki (right down to the backstory), but she doesn't need to get backstabbed for her to turn her back on others.

Second prompt: the Nagito-esque Rei I outlined here.

Either way, a total menace.

Teruya Otori, Ultimate Professor

One of Haruhiko's supports and 1/3 of the "brain cells".

Highly-intelligent and would drop tons of obscure trivia in a conversation, to the point that you would leave knowing a whole lot of stuff.

Father was the principal/dean of a K-12 school, and decided to hire his genius son to teach people.

He especially loves teaching grade-schoolers, but that kind of leaks into his interactions with his classmates (they all have at least one gold star/lollipop).

Akane Taira, Ultimate Merchant

Classic rags-to-riches backstory, with her going from a door-to-door saleswoman to a street vendor to the founder of a popular market chain.

Perfect customer service voice that she only ever lets go of when angry.

Seems docile and polite, but would punch a Karen.

Basically Akane, but even more girlboss.

Yamato Kisaragi, Ultimate Butler

Has a FuyuPeko-esque relationship with Mikako (minus the romance).

The Kisaragis have been working under the Kurokawas for generations to come.

Instead of Love Live! references, he makes Black Butler and Hayate the Combat Butler references in his dialogue.

Always seems to appear out of nowhere and know exactly what you want/need. Even Mikako is unnerved by this.

Kiyoka Maki, Ultimate Inventor

Specializes in creating weapons (primarily artillery).

Has the potential to make a nuclear bomb, but would rather spend all day doing typical teen girl stuff.

Greatly prefers fixing up old technology, rather than inventing new products.

Gets really dirty by the end of inventing stuff (blame her hyper-focus), and hates it.

Kinji Uehara, Ultimate Sniper

Was adopted by an Italian mercenary group, resulting in him becoming an assassin from a young age.

Is still highly-religious, believing that the lifestyle he has lived has condemned him to a life in hell.

Has a protective attitude towards children, has struck up a friendship with Teruya because of it.

Keeps a distance from the rest of his classmates, not wanting anyone to know the truth behind what he does.

Ayame Hatano, Ultimate Priestess

Can confidently lead sermons, but can barely handle herself in normal conversations.

Regularly goes on tangents regarding her religion, which can veer into some unnerving territory.

Is commonly seen as an upright maternal figure, which always throws people for a loop when they see how she really is.

Due to her talent, she is nowhere near the workaholic she is in canon, and she often encourages her classmates to take little breaks.

Tsurugi Kinjo, Ultimate Sprinter

Still has his strong sense of justice, but it isn't filtered through the black-and-white insanity of the police force. More like a shonen protagonist.

Would gladly sacrifice his life, if it means his peers would survive and/or be avenged. Who knows where that mentality would lead, when in a killing game?

Juu was a former Olympian, who Tsurugi looks up to and seeks to surpass.

Carries the burden of a promise made between him and his posthumous best friend.

Satsuki Iranami, Ultimate Police Officer

Haruhiko's other support, and 1/3 of the "brain cells".

Was born to a prestigious legal family, but was unable to live up to their standards, with Keisuke being the only one willing to give her a chance.

Is more of a Peralta-type cop, rather than a Santiago-type.

Probably owns a prop flag gun that says "GOTCHA!" or "BANG!".

Mitsuhiro "Mitchie" Higa, Ultimate Clown

Fandom's treatment of Mitch be like. /hj

Would have a more sanitized personality, for the sake of the kids.

Imagine Mitchie taking clowning as serious as canon!Mitch takes soccer.

Hates mimes and any other circus performances with a burning passion. Would start the clown uprising.

Kizuna Tomori, Ultimate Soccer Player

Would have a lot of issues with having a "gross" or "boyish" talent, thanks to Minako.

Would compensate for this with her hyper-girly personality.

Is highly competitive, and would do whatever it takes to win and get ahead in life.

Very Arei Nageishi-core.

Kakeru Yamaguchi, Ultimate Cheerleader

In contrast to the American-style cheerleader Kizuna is, Kakeru would be an oendan-leader.

Midori would be more athletic in this universe (although she still has her illness), and Kakeru cheers her at every event, like the good big brother that he is.

Big body = big lungs = loud shouts. Has a very hoarse and raspy voice outside of sporting events, because of it.

Is quiet to save up his voice for his cheers, and loves tea and cough drops.

Kanata Inori, Ultimate Lawyer

Her parents were murdered, when she was a baby, and she was taken in by the lawyer that prosecuted against and exposed the true murderer.

Her naturally polite and optimistic personality has made her the mascot of sorts for the Ando law firm.

Prime example of "A lawyer doesn't cry, until it's all over".

Could be considered an honorary member of the "brain cells", but she isn't a part of the polycule.

[mylight-png]

I just got a stupid reblog saying that "Hamas doesn't want to kill Jews it wants to get rid of colonialist Zionists" and shit. I've already addressed that, being indigenous to Israel, we literally cannot be colonists there, and the history confirms this. That is not the point of this post, however.

If the antisemites will not take my word for it, maybe they will listen to their beloved "resistance group" Hamas and when they are clear about their goals.

So, with that being said, let's take a look at their founding charter, shall we?

"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.' (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

Hmmm. Yes, they definitely only want to get rid of Zionists. For sure. That's why the word "Zionist" was mentioned so many times in this statement of genocidal intent. For sure. (Sarcasm, by the way.)

Let's take a look at another part, hm?

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps."

Right yes, their struggle is against the Zionists. Not the Jews. For sure. How could I not have seen this before? (Again, sarcasm. Obviously.)

They also mention Jews in addition to Israelis and Zionists as a group of the people they don't like, as well as Christians, such as here:

"'But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.'"

Uh. Who is gonna tell them that Jews do not seek to convert anyone? (They might just be referring to Christians, I'll give them that.) However, they still do very clearly vilify those who do not subscribe to their beliefs, and it almost seems as if they wish to violently convert them. Y'know, with the "thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah". Just saying.

So yeah. Hamas aren't your "freedom fighter" heroes. They are a terrorist group based in genocidal intent.

If you ignore this and fail to condemn them, maybe you just hate Jews. Just saying.

I feel like I'm being a lot more... Not blunt, but I suppose more sassy? With my tone? If that makes sense? But you know what, I'm so fed up with these people not bothering to read a document that is incredibly easy to find online. How can you support something you know nothing about?

So yeah. Hamas's original founding document says it all.

The Antizionism movement is founded, steeped, and marinated in antisemitism.

[dgcatanisiri]

I've seen it said on occasion that it was a refreshing change to have the Inquisitor be unable to persuade and change the minds of the characters around them, that the characters felt "more real" that a brief conversation shouldn't change their entire worldview.

This is bull.

First of all, no one asked for their entire worldview to change, just that they GIVE a little - argue with Vivienne about the merits of mage freedom, be able to point out that fear is learned as much as anything, that the fear of mages has been taught because mages are not allowed to be part of the world that the common folk experience, or even that her view of magic is not shared BECAUSE it comes from so lofty a position in society, as she is a First Enchanter, leader of the Loyalists, mistress to the head of the Council of Heralds. Or, here's one of my personal favorites, the vote to break away from the Circles may have passed by a narrow margin, but it still PASSED, and if Fiona had refused to accept that, she'd have faced a hundred minor revolts instead of a singular organized one, which would have meant that the few who went around, burniating the countryside, would be seen as representative of them all, while have an organized structure to the rebellion allowed them the ability to disavow bad actors.

It's asking Sera to acknowledge that there's more nuance than her definitions of the world offer, or countering to Cassandra that, particularly if she intends to take a position of top authority in the Chantry, she needs to be able to look beyond its dogma and realize that to those who follow a separate faith, the Chant of Light is a herald of death, an omen of doom, because it refuses to allow any who follow a separate faith. It's telling Solas that the Dalish have been forced to build their history from tattered scraps, and rather than condemn them for what they lack, he should acknowledge and appreciate what they've recovered with no more than a vague notion of what the original picture looked like.

Y'know, it's asking to be able to actually ARGUE with these characters, rather than be lectured to by them about how THEIR views are the only proper way to view things, even if those views fly in the face of our experiences as the players, or even just how we roleplay a singular character. BioWare tries to talk up a stance of grey morality and a desire for the answers to be more than black and white, yet here in Inquisition, you ONLY get their stance, and, if you don't agree with it, you are dismissed - which also causes a lot of problems with something like the approval metric, where if you DON'T agree with a character, you'll never manage to unlock their full content - I am generally rolling a male Qunari Inquisitor, and yet I have, in over a dozen characters, only ONCE managed to obtain the rooftop cookies scene with Sera. If you don't get these scenes of character development, then you don't get to have a full view of a character.

And then there's the second and bigger issue - With most of the characters being various flavors of Andrastrian, with most if not all of them buying in to the narrative of the Inquisitor as the Herald of Andraste, a position that is borderline messianic within their religion, why do they NOT listen to the words that the Inquisitor says? If Skyhold becomes a place of pilgrimage as Cassandra notes in the arrival at Skyhold scene, if the Inquisitor is a voice of authority in Thedas like everything the game tells us, why SHOULDN'T their words carry weight, especially with the people closest to them? Why is the Inquisitor NOT persuasive to the people who know them when they believe through much of the game that they have been touched by a divine figure?

It doesn't make sense for the Inquisitor to lack in persuasive ability when the whole game is about how they have become a powerful voice and figure within the world.

So, no. It is NOT a good thing that the characters effectively brush off any attempt that the Inquisitor makes to argue with their stances.

[jelzorz]

lady justice and Vestal Virgins: religion on the human side of the border

Hoping to keep this relatively short BC I'm like 90% certain I'm the only one who cares

We don't get a lot about religion in the show, particularly on the human side? The most obvious reference we have to any known religion is the royal family being pretty heavily Jewish coded but whether that's Judaism in terms of religion or culture or both is unclear. How far it extends in-universe is something different, and the only religious figure we actually get is Lady Justice, but again, how far she extends into the religion of Katolis is to be seen.

Some things we (I) have had to assume include:

That Lady Justice is a religious figure

That she's supposed guide morality and decision making

That she is served by her clerics

That Opeli and her torchbearers are the Katolis equivalent of nuns

However there are some things in canon we have observed that we can make note of including:

The role of fire in their religious rites (specifically funeral rites)

That fallen kings are supposed to be mourned for 7 days before a funeral

That Opeli, as high cleric, is the one who performs these rites (coronation and cremation)

That there are (minimum) five clerics (Opeli + the four torchbearers at Harrow's funeral)

I lied this got long

This meta has no point except that I've been listening to a podcast called The Ancients and there was a whole episode dedicated to the Vestal Virgins and also worldbuilding is fun, but there are some real-world practises we can note here.

I mentioned above that the royal family is pretty heavily Jewish coded which is inclusive of the the tradition to mourn for seven sunsets after someone's death, but Judaism, generally speaking, doesn't have an equivalent for nuns. Women in Judiasm don't have particularly large roles outside of the family (I think??? I did do a pretty good google before I wrote this but I'm not Jewish, so please correct me if I'm wrong), so it's probably safe to say that the coding doesn't extend that much into Opeli et al in their religious roles, HOWEVER, I do want to bring your attention to another group of women who bear some similarities: allow me to introduce the Vestal Virgins.

Vesta (Greek equivalent Hestia, at least probably) is the Roman goddess of the hearth, home, and family in ancient Roman religion. She is a virgin goddess but rarely depicted in human form, and more often represented by the fire in her temple. Sources say that her worship predates the Roman Empire (Kingdom, even!), and her temple (before it was moved by Augustus) stood in the very heart of Rome, a literal hearth of the city. She was served by six virgin priestesses who tended to her fire and guarded her sacred hearth, whose attire is described on Wikipedia as:

a long linen palla over a white woolen stola, a rectangular female citizen's wrap, equivalent to the male citizen's semi-circular toga.[69] A Vestal's hair was bound into a white, priestly infula (head-covering or fillet) with red and white ribbons, usually tied together behind the head and hanging loosely over the shoulders.

So, like. We don't actually know if Opeli and her girls made vows of celibacy, it's just something we assumed? But like, if she has, then yeah, it would track. The Vestals also held some political power: they were personnae sui iuris, or sovereign over themselves for one, which was a pretty exclusive right for Roman women, and they represented the State of Rome themselves, and so could give testimony in trials without swearing the customary oath to the State, pardon the condemned by touching them, and were the only women able/allowed to address the Senate directly.

So like. There's stuff there. Vestals were powerful, politically involved priestesses who performed religious rites for the State of Rome. We should note too that Opeli and her torchbearers are women. We've never seen a male cleric, so we can only assume that this role is exclusive to women, and if we run with the idea that they serve Lady Justice, a female religious figure, then this would track also. It's not uncommon for female deities to only be served by female clerics/priestesses/what have you. The role the Vestals had in the politics and justice, in trials, in addressing the senate, and in the pardoning of the condemned, feels pretty relevant to Lady Justice also.

I did also also briefly mention the role of fire in Katolis' religious rites, specifically their funerary rites. Once again, we've only ever seen this scene in regards to their other ceremonies, but something else to be noted is how the novelisation refers to the other clerics:

So they're not just clerics, they're also torchbearers, which may or may not just be for the ceremony but they're referred to as torchbearers twice in this scene and not even once as clerics. We can probably assume that this isn't the only time they carry torches either, and that the flame represents something sacred to them.

A quick caveat: Fire being a sacred ceremonial thing is obviously not unique. Fire's been special to us as humans forever, because it's hard to make without the right tools, and if you stole it from like, a forest fire or some other existing source, then you would 100% treat that as something you had to keep burning a la sacred flames in many cultures—but it's the combination of priestesses and flames and red and white robes that make me wonder if there was inspiration taken from the Vestals.

Then there's the circlet. Very few people in TDP are ever seen with one. There are the rulers: King Atticus, King Harrow, and then King Ezran (Viren too, I guess, but he's a jerk); their consorts: just Queen Sarai to our knowledge so far; and then, for some reason, Opeli???

This has a couple of implications: the first is that she's on a separate ladder. Opeli demonstrably has a fair amount of power over the council and the Katolis army (see: 2x09). She can't overrule anything Ezran says (which is fair, as he is the King), but she seems to be the default substitute for the Kingdom of Katolis when he's unavailable. The second is that this is likely Katolis' way of separating the State from the Church and the Judiciary (which may or may not be the same thing in Katolis). If we refer, once again, to the Vestals, this also tracks: the Vestals performed the religious rites under the the Pontifex Maximus or supreme pontiff. The guys on the Senate were purely just the senate and left the religious stuff up to the guys (and girls) in charge of religion. Idk what the go is in Katolis, but it's pretty well implied from the way Opeli does the crowning of new monarchs that ceremonial things are her jobs, while ruling is the king's.

One last Vesta thing: Vesta (or Hestia) is the goddess of the hearth and home. When everyone else has gone, when everything has gone to shit, the hearth remains. She is, as Rick Riordan likes to call her, the Last Olympian. As long as Vesta's hearth is going, Rome still stands (which is why it's such a big deal when it goes out). And when our heroes are out on their adventures, who remains?

Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, Opeli is my favourite adult and I Love Her, your Honour. This exists because I like history and meta-analysis, but also because world building is fun and people rarely worldbuild on the human side of the border. If you're wondering about other goddesses that could exist in Katolis, Rome had Iustita (Justice), who often appears in a pair with Prudentia (Virtue), Clementia (Mercy), Pax (Peace), and Ananke (Necessity), among many, many others. Happy world building! Hope you found this fun and interesting!!

[all-the-fun-of-the-cirkus]

okay, so.

waltz.

rarely have i watched an episode and immediately come here to talk about, but i have a lot of thoughts i need to get out

so firstly, the title. obviously a callback to duet from the first series (still the best single chunk of star trek i've seen yet). that one was a two-hander between kira and marritza, the former already having condemned the cardassian and the latter struggling to work through what he did in the occupation, and this is the same with sisko and dukat. except marritza felt genuine remorse, accepted he was wrong, and that's what dukat can never do

he's awful, i know, but he's a fantastic character, because he is a character. he has a sense of humour, soft spots, humanising (so to speak) moments, he's a real, fleshed out person, who just happens to be, as sisko says, true evil. and that works because he truly, genuinely believes he isn't. and what's more, he needs everyone to see that too. we saw that with his relationship with kira, his banter with sisko, his constant bemoaning that the bajorans didn't accept him, it wasn't just posturing, or pr, he genuinely needs to be liked, and he can't understand why people don't, because as far as he's concerned, as people so often point out, he's the hero of the story in his own mind, and he can't be wrong

that's played out superbly in his hallucinations here; weyoun is his cold and clinical side, dumar his arrogance and pride, kira his doubt and self-loathing, and they criticise and needle him throughout, but in the end, crucially, they're all telling him the exact same thing - what he really thinks

and what he wants to hear is that he's the good guy, which is where the political metaphor gets interesting. this whole time i've interpreted the occupation of bajor as a holocaust allegory, obviously, the cardassians are the nazis, bajorans jews. and that is of course a big part of it, but the connection i didn't make until now is the british empire

dukat's big speech is fully "white man's burden," the bajorans as savages centuries behind cardassia, following backwards religion, no technology, who clearly needed civilising by their superiors, bringing into the light, and dukat was the kind father helping guide them into the light. and he really believes it's for the best! he tells himself he doesn't despise them, that he doesn't want to wipe them off the face of the galaxy, it's their fault for being too stupid to appreciate him, to see what he's trying to do for them, how he only wants to help them if they'd only stop resisting and submit to those who know better than they do

part of this is that he insists that he's "one of the good ones," that another prefect would have been harsher, crueler. and this is where it gets interesting, because he's probably right. a leader who didn't care about being liked might have killed more bajorans, worked them harder, starved them more, executed them more. dukat may, indeed, have been the lesser of the evils, and that's not really in dispute. what's really compelling about this is that the story never lets this be an excuse. so death rates dropped by 20%? that's great! why didn't they drop by 100%? so labour camp output dropped by 50%? cool, you were still keeping people in labour camps and enslaving them

and i find that uncomfortably compelling in the current climate. i'm not american, but i see full well what's going on there, and it disgusts me. because there's several genocides going on right now, and i'm going to focus on palestine, because the democrats are gleefully funding that genocide and protecting its perpetrators from any repercussions, brutally coming down on any protests. and when people understandably say "hey what the fuck," they remember there's an election this year and go "well is the republicans were in power this genocide would be way worse! you gotta pick the lesser of two evils!" and you know what? they're right! the genocide would probably worse if the republicans were in power! but the democrats committing a less-bad genocide doesn't mean they aren't still committing genocide! because the lesser of two evils is still evil, and sometimes there's no shade of grey

[sallyyysal]

meet Deimos! he's one of the main characters of a lil series I'm working on :3

He is the king of demons, he wants equality between angels and demons, and demons not to be seen as lowly creatures who bring despair and as humans' punishments for being sinners. He thinks that humans must be protected and saved despite their beliefs, but not all demons agree with him. God created them to be "the sinners' punishment", the ones who'd execute them once they arrive in hell. but by doing this, demons themselves were condemned to a life of despair, and many of them, especially the king himself, was not okay with this. as a king, his job was to make his people happy and protect them, it wasn't fair to him that they were destined to live like this while angels lived a"happy and corrupted life". After seeing arpina, God's first angel, let a teenager commit su1cide because "he's a sinner, if he refuses Father's life, he doesn't deserve it", he saved the little boy and he rebelled against her, telling her how he felt about all this. Things didn't turn out as he expected, and during a fit of rage, he called the angels corrupted, even calling them "angelic ba$tards" which led to a violent clash between the two. After beating Deimos, Arpina flies away, and before disappearing she says "not only you just interfered with an angel's job, you even refuse what Father gave you. As you didn't accept his gift, it is my job to take it back. I hope you realize what you just caused, king of demons.". A war has soon started, because angels started to attack hell to eliminate all demons under God and Arpina's orders so they could create another life form who would rule hell, so Deimos and his people fight for their right to be accepted as a human's savior and stop judging them for believing in a different religion or not believing at all. However, after many years, they discovered about a certain human who possessed "divine blood", a blood no human should have, but that could be a weapon that will declare the victory of the angels once they put their hands on it. so they started to look in the human world for that human, but some angels have succumbed to their selfish instincts (something unexplainable), so they started to kill humans without thinking, just to keep that blood to themselves to beat God and rule all the 3 worlds.

[thevagueambition]

Les Mis 1.1.4 thoughts

a lot of this post is about things that annoy me about christianity just fyi lol

Re Geborand, I'm reminded of something biblical scholar Dan McClellan has talked about (e.g. in this 2 min video) called the "prophetic critique" where various performances of piety are criticised in the old testament/tanakh. The context of that being that when the rich and powerful perform piety through these offerings and festivals while at the same time violating religious principles of mercy and charity, their offerings become sinful.

"There is M. Geborand purchasing paradise for a sou." is not quite the same thing, but it hits on this same idea of the public performance of piety with an ulterior motive in mind (whether social propriety or a ticket to paradise) not being paired with moral behavior

(I guess the text doesn't mention if Geborand starts behaving more morally alongside his charity, but how paltry said charity is certainly suggests not)

The bishop's use of local dialects contrasts with the FRev's dogmatic desire to define a french citizen as a speaker of standard french

Myriel's religious views frankly seem fairly similar to the sort of Christianity I was raised with (there are shitty conservative priests in my area as well, but not in my immediate community).

His virtue lies in correctly identifying the miserable as the inheritors of the earth and in acting according to his principles

The description of Myriel's beliefs does hit on a part of Christianity that deeply annoys me, though: the body as something bad which must be subordinated to the mind/soul ("Man has upon him his flesh, which is at once his burden and his temptation. He drags it with him and yields to it. He must watch it, cheek it, repress it, and obey it only at the last extremity.")

Why should the body be bad? It can cause you pain, of course. You can fall ill, you can get injured. But you can also embrace others, you can smell the smells of your home, you can eat your favourite dish. The body that hurts loves and feels pleasure, too. But then of course "pleasure" is exactly what's "dangerous" about the body – as if all pleasure was selfish and destructive 🙄

(I don't agree with the Descartean body/mind split in the first place. Imo you are your body. Your mind is part of your body.)

It relates somewhat to this other thing that irks me about Christianity -- and which I think might also actually be relevant to Myriel's development in this chapter, lol -- which is Christianity as a cope religion. It identifies the problems of the world -- illness, oppression, war -- and says "but if you're kind, if you dont break our rules, the afterlife will be wonderful." Like we don't have to fix the problems we have in the world because in the afterlife you will be free from suffering. Enduring the world piously is the goal, not making it better

(I'm aware that there are many Christians who don't think that way. My dad believes firmly in God and (his own personal interpretation of) the Bible and that's certainly not how his morals shake out. But that is an element in many permutations of Christianity)

Anyway where I think this might actually be relevant to Myriel is re "It is wrong to become absorbed in the divine law to such a degree as not to perceive human law." One interpretation of that is that if you focus exclusively on piety and the solace of divine judgement, it precludes you from perceiving injustice and brutality in the world and acting against it. An injust ruler may be condemned in the afterlife, but you should do something about him in this life, too

I think Hugo is probably right in saying that the death penalty is the sort of thing one can't be neutral on once one has seen it in action

Becaise it's one of the few pieces of leftist theory I actually have read and (mostly) understood, Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence (Zur Kritik der Gewalt) it probably occupies an outsized prominence in my thinking on several things, buit in it Benjamin argues that the death penalty is the ultimate form of law establishing -- that the threat of violence(/force) behind law is what makes that law into a reality rather than a piece of writing and that in control over life and death being the ultimate form of violent power to hold over someone, capital punishemtn is useful for a legal system less because of its literal function and more because it so concretely manifests the law

"The opponents of these critics [of capital punishment] felt, perhaps without knowing why and probably involuntarily, that an attack on capital punishment assails not legal measure, not laws, but law itself in its origin. For if violence [...] is the origin of law, then it may be readily supposed that where the highest violence, that over life and death, occurs in the legal system, the origins of law jut manifestly and fearsomely into existence. In agreement with this is the fact that the death penalty in primitive legal systems is imposed even for such crimes as offenses against property, to which it seems quite out of "proportion." Its purpose is not to punish the infringement of law but to establish new law. For in the exercise of violence over life and death, more than in any other legal act, the law reaffirms itself." (online PDF version of source)

[electric-rabbits]

TMG ask! Now some of my favourites that come to mind: Lakeside View Apartment Suite Game Shows Touch Our Lives Guys on Every Corner Mobile Heretic Pride (back atchu!)

hehehe thank you sm for the ask I'll be sooo annoying about it!!! Let's goooo Lakeside View Apartments Suite- This is one of those songs I listened to so many fucking times I ended up squeezing all of the endorphins out of it. But the line that breaks me is

And just before I leave I throw up in the sink One whole life recorded In disappearing ink

Just. I've never struggled with addiction myself, but I've done some work with damage reduction, and whenever JD writes about addiction he does such a great job at it- never moralizing, never failing to recognize the value on all the things we do to survive, but also noting the suffering that it may cause. The loss of agency and of history that this line shows, this alienation from your own existence... Yeah.

Game Shows Touch Our Lives- This ENTIRE SONG. The WHOLE THING. But that's not the game so

Thunderclouds forming, cream white moon, Everything's gonna be ok soon Maybe tomorrow, Maybe the next day

This is the tragedy of Tallahasse. The listeners know how twisted this is, this idea that (once again) the Alpha Couple can only be at peace when they are fully alienated from themselves and from each other; but they have hope. For a second there they think maybe their love is still there, and maybe they were happy someday, and maybe they can be happy again. But the clouds are forming, and we see the storm coming.

Guys on Every Corner- Fun fact! Bleed Out was the first TMG album launch I've followed- I've been listening to them since the days of In League with Dragons, but I only started following their socials and stuff during the pandemic, so here we are

They look like nothing They look like your neighbors You won't remember their faces later

It's a fucking panopticon! He's got guys on every corner!!! It doesn't matter if that guy really is one of his guys, because he could be. Any guy could be. You'll never be safe.

Mobile- Listen. Listen. Eduardo Galeano once referred to the christian god as "The god of the christians, the god from my childhood" and that's the relationship I have with catholicism. I'm an atheist and I've been for years, but JD really does write directly to that childhood and brings the material and the mundane into it, and it gets me good every time.

Lord, if you won't keep me safe and warm Then send down the storm Send down the storm

GAH! The passive suicidal ideation, the way this asks god "If I was not enough to be chosen, to be good, then can you at least punish me properly. At least let me face down your wrath. Your punishment is better than your indifference. I'm on a balcony in Mobile, Alabama, waiting for my god to finally kill me, but he is too forgiving to do so, and too vengeful to love me as I am.

Herectic Pride- THIS IS A SONG ABOUT QUEER JOY AND I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR OTHERWISE

And I start laughing like a child And I mark their faces, one by one Transfiguration's gonna come for me at last And I will burn hotter than the sun

In christianism, we get told again and again that we must forgive those who do us harm. This was one of the hardest things to unlearn in my life after leaving religion. This idea of being sacrificed for being seen as profane, as dangerous, as demonic, and then taking that not as martyrdom but as a chance to strike back??? Showing that those things they condemned in you are your strength?? They may fucking break my bones but I will make them pay. I will make them pay.

[muutosarchive]

👻 GHOST - do they believe in ghosts? what are their "ghostly experiences", if any?

For Secundo, Terzo, and Judith.

I was also gonna ask for Copia but we know about his canonical ghostly interactions so.

𝐎𝐂 𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐉𝐈 𝐀𝐒𝐊𝐒! / / @dilffactory

so regarding secundo, i haven't really written it much but in my head (also thanks to sam) i can't get over the idea of secundo having personally summoned alpha, not to mention his summonings being a task that is embarked on by him alone. yet, i also believe his empathic nature attracts the dead to him. secundo, due to his religion, initially believed that our souls will be sent to the fire to rest eternally. now, when he does encounter spirits he infers it as a sort of purgatory. i'd say probably in his days as a cardinal he's dabbled in ouija & communication practices, yet at the same time i feel like due to his sensing of auras and the abilities he has -- he's kind of got one foot into the spiritual realm. i believe just as human auras flock, the dead will feel safe in that he is a man to be trusted with their feelings. sort of a conduit of emotion, i feel as though it would be highly regular for secundo to just see ghosts. in his moments alone in the graveyard, perhaps -- or just walking by, he might see one weaving through the tombstones. or, maybe in the back pew during black mass. he acknowledges them, perhaps they acknowledge each other.

i think terzo has the capacity to believe in anything mystical. in my head he's a very pro-fortune kind of guy. he'll read your palm, your cards... he's no secundo, he has to make his own premonitions.. but he will. perhaps due to jealousy, secundo tells little people about his afflictions yet terzo does know, & it infuriated him for years (and still) that his brother is more 'special' than he. i feel like if he wasn't a satanic clergyman he'd probably be a scammer, doing all that shit above / seances to channel marilyn monroe or charlie chaplin or some shit. or like, pretend to be a medium. but, i think he'd probably actually tried to do seances as a teenager, & maybe beyond. perhaps he'd even try it now, if someone asked him. tbh i'm already way off topic but i also, in my head, imagine him being able to do small little magic tricks / party tricks, like the dove gag & perhaps making things appear from behind your ear, & slide of hand. has terzo ever seen a ghost? no. at least not one he knew was a ghost. i think he's seen anomalies caused by them, such as using a planchette on a ouija board, or with flickering lights or moving / floating items. he's even felt phantom touches, before. but he is aware that there is no one without the other, & that this makes anything possible. he is not sure if ghosts are ghosts, or something else undefined. though he does not banish the idea, nor try to explain away his experiences.

she's still figuring out what she believes. in the ghost verse, in main verse -- in every verse, she's on a journey to find out what she really feels instead of letting biases of the world decide for her. her head is really jumbled up, not knowing if she can trust the one thing she's known her entire life. one side saying god is the only way to salvation, while the other almost condemns her for her faith alone. saying that after being educated, if she stood for the church she was an evil fool. religion itself believes in possession, though this is more in the demonic sense. yet there are also things like guardian angels, or being chosen by a saint. i think she believes that the people we love are watching over us from somewhere or another, but to what extent she doesn't know. i think she wants to let the world surprise her, as she doesn't like dealing with definite things. she's much happier being open to all possibilities. but with her view point expanding, & seeing all the interesting things she has? the things without explaination? i think she believes in ghosts, yet i don't think she's ever had an experience. if not something minor, an overlooked.

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

Anti-Zionists are appropriators and con artists par excellence. While insisting that the Jews have no legitimate claim to Israel, they beg, borrow, and steal every vestige of Jewish identity they can in order to whitewash their anti-historical and anti-Jewish invective.

The most pathetic aspect of anti-Zionism is its falsification of Judaism, while simultaneously accusing Zionist Jews of misusing said faith. It's even more pathetic when they resort to citing extremist and fascist Jews like the Neturei Karta, a sect rejected by almost all other Jews. (The Neturei Karta laundered the Jew-hatred of Iran's Ayatollah, visiting him in spite of Iran holding a cartoon contest that mocked the Holocaust.)

The fact that the Jewish religion centres around the fulfillment of religious promises in the Land of Israel obviously decimates anti-Zionist canards, but that doesn't stop these posers from attempting feats of mental gymnastics that would astonish the KGB. Perhaps they just cross out any references to Israel in their prayer books.

Notice that anti-Zionists, including anti-Zionist Jews would never dare to appropriate any feast day from Islam and make it political. Despite the overwhelming number of crimes against humanity committed by extremist Muslims inside and outside of the Middle East, we never hear anti-Zionists inventing an Eid for the sole purpose of condemning Muslim nations.

Nor do they ever decide-- or would ever dare to decide-- that Arab nationalism is invalid on account of the violent history and continued violent and genocidal behaviour of Arab nations such as Syria. This despite the glaring fact that the number of people killed by extremist Arab nationalism and Islamic terrorism far outweighs the number of people killed by Israeli wars and Jewish extremists.

It is this last fact that leads me (and probably others) to believe the hysteria against Israel displayed by Arabs and by Westerners is a concerted effort to deflect attention away from Arab and Muslim terrorism. Because after considering all of Israel's wrongdoing, any objective review of the Middle East could only ever conclude that Islamic terrorism is by far the biggest threat to peace and civilisation. Yet the effort to defeat said terrorism is puerile, while the effort to destroy Israel is monumental.

I suggest that this is all deliberate, and anti-Zionists are the poltroons hired to provide intellectual-sounding justification for Arab and Islamic terror against the Jews. If all the upheaval in the Middle East can be blamed on the Jews for daring to have a homeland and defend it, then everyone can convince themselves that Islamic terrorism is just "cause and effect", rather than a uniquely evil phenomenon that threatens civilisation. Therefore, all one has to do is allow the terrorists to murder the Jews, and the problem all goes away.

To their consternation, millions of Jews have the temerity to refuse to be murdered, and, even more audaciously, to exact punishment upon anyone who does murder them. And whenever Jews are being harassed and abused, anti-Zionists are nowhere to be seen-- unless of course you're looking at a pro-Hamas mob celebrating the slaughter of Jews on October 7, 2023.

Remember that a key pillar of anti-Zionism is that the Jews were living comfortably in other countries, and so had no need to resurrect a Jewish state in British Mandate Palestine. In fact, many Jews in the late 19th century were indeed conflicted about the Zionist movement, with some feeling that resettlement would undermine the rights they had recently obtained in European nations; still others had religious conflicts with the largely secular and atheist advocates of Zionism.

But when almost all Jews in Yemen were expelled by the Houthi terrorist group (with one remaining Jew reportedly in prison), not a single anti-Zionist raised the alarm. Not a single anti-Zionist helped any of those Yemenite Jews, whose presence in Yemen is only around 1000 years younger than the Jewish presence in Israel. Where were they all, exactly?

The same for the persecution of Ethiopian Jews; it was Israel, id est Zionist Jews, that did the rescuing. The anti-Zionists-- who love claiming that they represent "real", or as one Substack user told me, "right-thinking" Jews-- did nothing.

The fact that numerous Yemenite Jews fled to Israel utterly destroys anti-Zionism, and is a point that I have yet to hear any anti-Zionist address.

This may because another pillar within the anti-Zionist movement is their hallucinatory belief that Zionism is a "white colonial settler project". The fact that the Mayor of Jerusalem, Youseff al-Khalidi, acknowledged in 1896 (so long before the British Mandate was established) that nobody could contest the rights of the Jews in Palestine because it was 'your country', has to be ignored. The fact that leader of the Arab Revolt Emir Feisal acknowledged the Zionist movement as not only justified, but beneficial to Arab emancipation from colonialism, has to be ignored.

The fact that Jewish attempts to resettle Palestine date back to at least the 16th century also has to be ignored.

The fact that Jews in Europe reserved Hebrew as the language of liturgy, has to be ignored. Many Jews are of European descent, yes. But Hebrew is not a European language. It is a Semitic language, related to Arabic, thus proving that the Jews are Middle Eastern in origin.

Even more devastating to anti-Zionist canards is the fact that for a while, Jews and Syrians spoke the same language, Aramaic. There is a Syrian variety of Aramaic, which, if I am not mistaken, is still spoken today. Meanwhile, Jewish religious texts, including the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, and the current Jewish prayer book, all contain portions in Aramaic. This similarity could only be possible if the Jewish connection to Israel exceeds around 2000 years.

Between 50-51% of Israelis today are descendants of immigrants and refugees from neighbouring Middle Eastern and North African nations. Israeli Hebrew favours the Sephardic pronunciation used by Jews in Spain, Portugal, and North Africa for centuries. Israel also favours many Yemenite Jewish traditions, as the Yemenite Jewish community has to be one of the oldest outside of the Jewish State.

Meanwhile, the Ashkenazi Jews that anti-Zionists pelt with racial slurs such as 'European coloniser' actually share up to 80% of their DNA with... Arabs. I remember one Ashkenazi Jew from Hungary telling me that when he looked into his family history, he noticed several of his ancestors were quite brown-skinned with thick, dark brown hair. Yet Hungarians are white-skinned. This obviously suggests the migration patterns of Jews from the Middle East and into Europe, where, though marriage and acclimatisation, they gained European ethnicity in addition to being Jewish.

However, you will notice that a large number of Arabs are also white-skinned, especially in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. (Also in Saudi Arabia. Islamic texts praise Islam's founder Muhammad for his white skin.) Many Egyptians also have European ancestors. I remember reading an article from an Egyptian who was refuting Netflix's suggestion that Cleopatra might have been black African, in which he noted (with disapproval) that Egyptians often express pride about having French ancestry.

Yet mysteriously, we never hear these Arabs being accused of being "white European colonisers" or conducting "settler colonial projects", despite their collaboration with the British Empire in order to topple the Ottoman Turk Empire. Anyone who bothers to read real history will find that the Arabs were actually keen on collaborating with colonial powers when it was beneficial; when the German Nazis occupied Iraq, they met with widespread support from the Arab Muslims.

But these facts hardly get a fair mention, if at all. Meanwhile, anti-Zionists love to carp on about the Zionist collaboration with the British Empire. Curiously, they also love pointing out and condemning terrorist attacks committed by Zionists.

Well, I think it's important for Zionists not to be afraid of acknowledging the negative aspects of the movement during the violent 1940s. The case for Israel stands firm; it is based on inalienable rights of national self-determination for the Jewish people, backed with piles of unchallengeable, and often unacknowledged, historical evidence. It is that the same rights be accorded to the Jewish people as are accorded to other nations. If we are now going by the standard that the wrongdoing of Zionists would render that right invalid, then it should be applied to any other national movement, including the 1917 Arab movement for a nation in Syria.

Since the anti-Zionists won't apply those same standards to the Arab movement for national independence (or any other national independence movement), then I don't take any of their ostensible moral outrage over Zionist wrongdoing seriously. Nor do I have any respect for their false conclusion that Israel's foundation is therefore immoral.

But notice that many of those terror attacks were committed against the British, which would mean they were "anti-colonial" in nature. In fact, the violence was undoubtedly triggered by the British White Paper of 1937, which arbitrarily banned Jewish home ownership beyond designated lines. This despite the provision of a Jewish Palestine in 1922, and the formal British approval of a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Be that as it may, I am not an anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian, which is why I do not excuse terrorist attacks. (Anti-Zionists conveniently fail to point out that the Haganah condemned the terror tactics used by the Irgun and Lehi. David Ben-Gurion acknowledged that it was both necessary to support the British during World War Two, while also opposing the British because of the White Paper.)

I just find it curious how the anti-Zionist loves to pick and choose a position without even bothering to check its consistency.

I also find it even more curious-- nay, morally repugnant-- how the supposed anti-Zionist condemnation of terrorism vanishes whenever confronted with the far more egregious and despicable terrorist attacks committed by the Arabs since before the reconstitution of Israel in 1948. As far as October 7, 2023 is concerned, the anti-Zionists have proved themselves to be morally bankrupt cowards and enablers of evil.

It's one standard for the Arabs, another for the Jews.

According to the anti-Zionist universe, the Arabs are brown-skinned, which automatically has to mean that they are downtrodden and axiomatically correct; the Jews are white-skinned, which automatically has to mean they are the oppressors and axiomatically wrong. This profound display of myopia is the shaky foundation upon which anti-Zionism builds its creed, including its pick-and-choose mentality about terrorism.

It is high time that more Zionists stood up to the campaign of distortion, falsification, and useful idiocy of the anti-Zionist movement. This is especially necessary when the anti-Zionists love trotting out Jewish friends and supporters, as if this proved that anti-Zionism were true. That people find this convincing only shows the ruinous effect of identity politics on people's reasoning skills.

There are Jews who say wrong things. There are Jews who have repugnant beliefs. Identity is not proof that one is correct. I laugh at the puerile cliché of "As a Jew..." that is always trotted out whenever it comes to defending the Palestinian "cause". As far as I am concerned, hiding behind one's identity to back an opinion only suggests the weakness of that opinion by itself. I would feel ridiculous if I always prefaced my support of Zionism by saying, "As a British Zionist..."

Defy the intimidation, mental gymnastics, mob mentality, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and speak up. Don't allow lies and fraud to go unchallenged. Anti-Zionism is just another department at the Faculty of Antisemitism. Don't be fooled by the pseudo-intellectual language.

antizionist jews stop making every jewish holy day about palestine and how evil you think other jews are for NOT making it about palestine when it has literally nothing to do with the holy day challenge

[liljakonvalj]

I’m not a Christian (although I was raised Christian and live in one of the most Christian/Conservative states in the US) but it is so incredibly comforting to see a Christian spread love and unity and acceptance. I wish all Christian were like you. Thank you for using the bible to spread hope instead of hate.

Thank you for your message anon, I'm actually blushing.

But it also makes me sad that you seemingly haven't met more christians like me, I'm not unique in my views, but I've seen too many people online share your experiences. It is disheartening that people who say they share my religion -at least to me- seem to live in direct opposition to what I believe to be core values of christianity.

Not to preach to you, but this got me thinking of the verses that in Sweden sometimes is called "the little bible" ie the core message of the Bible:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." - John 3:16-17 KJV (bolding and italication by me)

To me, my faith is built upon a God who loves each and every one of us. More than we can realize. And that love is unconditional. It doesn't matter what mistakes I do, who I am or who I surround myself with. Nothing I can do or be will make God love me less. Of course I can do things that can disappoint God, but I can never lose their love.

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:35-40 KJV

In Swedish the word for neighbour (nästa) actually is closer to mean "the one next to me". But what does neighbour mean?

In Luke 10 Jesus get asked that very same question and he replies with a story - the good samaritan. A story of how a man gets beaten up, robbed and left for dead by the side of the road. Twice righteous and upstanding men of society walk past him, until a samaritan comes by. The samaritan helps him, way beyond what would be expected of a stranger. And Jesus concludes the story by asking his questioner: who was that man's neighbour? And the answer is of course the samaritan.

Nowadays - due to this story - we view the word "samaritan" as something positive, but at the time Jews and Samaritans were not friends, quite the opposite actually. It is quite remarkable that both the times the Samaritans are brought up in the gospels they are examples of good. That says more about Jesus than the general consensus at the time.

I read an article years ago that raised the same question: who is my neighbour nowadays? And the answer was basically: all who in some way come in contact without whom my decisions affect: my coworker, the worker at my supermarket, the immigrant, the stranger online commenting on my post, the person sewing my jeans in Bangladesh etc etc. To all these I should strive to give as much help as possible.

And of course that doesn't mean I should need to give up all my belongings to help a stranger, but it means looking at each person I meet as an equal, someone with intrinsic value and someone I have more in common than differences with. Someone I should try to look at with the loving eyes of God, instead of the judging eyes of man. It isn't always easy, but it's what is Right.

TL:DR christianity is at its core a message of love, hope and acceptance. God loves you, and you can never do anything to lose that love.

[hells-sirenqueen]

Hello again, my queen. Ever since our last conversation, I've been restless. I took the time to review everything I've been taught about religion up until just before meeting you, and I've come to the conclusion that Big G generally sucks a lot, doesn't he?

It feels awfully like everything he's done regarding humanity has been a plot to elevate himself in the eyes of the masses. During the old testament, he's just going around causing problems and blaming humans for forcing his hand, and yes, honestly, humans aren't the best, but shouldn't an all-powerful being be able to make up with a better solution than just drowning everyone and everything except maybe 5 people and a pair of each animal?

And, additionally, if he's all-knowing, shouldn't he know better than to put the tree of the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden? Setting up this test of obedience while being fully aware that the ones tested will fail and then blaming them when he could have prevented the whole thing is flat out manipulative.

And after fucking it all up for humans, he proceeds to casually send out his son to fix everything and in the process of that, assist him into brainwashing multiple other people into believing he's the good guy in all of this. He caused tons of problems just to have Jesus fix everything and make everyone forget he's the one causing the problems! And he blames us for all the things he's supposed to be able to prevent. Because it's a test? That's so stupid.

If he was The Heavenly Father That Loves All™, he wouldn't be testing humans by throwing them into deep water. He'd be offering guidance and helping prevent the bad things that happen, since he can, just like an actual patent actually does with their children that they actually love, wouldn't he? But he's doing pretty much the opposite thing and then he twists the narrative to make himself out to be the best, on top of everything else! I think I'm so done with God...

PS. I love that nickname! It's so cute! Thank you your majesty!

"Welcome, my darling Kit, to my reality. God isn't all that great, now is he? I'm pleased to see that you've come to your senses and realized what an actual sham God is. He really isn't helpful or loving. Just a self-proclaimed diety that likes to stir drama and only desires to be seen in a positive light because apparently,'God can do no wrong'. Pft..yeah right.

I've been done with God for years, eons even! You'll likely be condemned to Hell for cursing Big G like that, but I personally find that as a win. Once you enter Hell, you'll be a Sinner, and I'll personally make sure you're well taken care of. Don't let that stick in the mud make you feel down, darling. You can always trust me, your beloved Queen of Hell." ♡

[yowlthinks]

12 Months of Shakespeare: July

For July I picked a play I have never seen before: the Merchant of Venice. While searching around for a recording I was somewhat stunned that there seem to be no recent adaptations, but then I found out that there is a mid-1970ies film version with Laurence Olivier in the main role, so decided to stick with that: it seemed to be a real classic and besides I have never seen Olivier act, which was clearly an omission on my part that needed to be rectified. (Thank you, National Theatre, for putting it on Youtube)

So nearly a week ago I have finished the play with mixed feelings.

The text is truly brilliant, on part with Much Ado About Nothing, and Portia's parts are undoubtedly the best. The plot overall is captivating and (added bonus!) no fake deaths are involved.

The acting was... well, very 70ies, for sure, but overall quite nice. Not sure why they put it in Victorian times, but hey it is an interpretation as valid as any other "time shifting" one.

My main unease/annoyance with the play is that basically it is still a product of its time. For all the Christians in the play to keep banging on how they are so much more kind-hearted, gentle and guided by the principles of mercy, there is not much mercy they show to Shylock when the tables turn in court. They literally proceed to take not only all of his assets, but also humiliate him and rob him of his religious identity. Not exactly the kindest thing to do. (And of course it always shows what a great religion Christianity is, if you have to force people to convert to it). What I am jot sure about though, is whether Shakespeare wanted to underline exactly that thought (the no difference in vortuousness), or was he genuinely saying karma's a bitch.

I think Shakespeare showed more or less how things stood and how unfair and discriminatory the laws were at the time. Not sure he condemned it, though, or just took them as is, but you can see the discrimination highlighted in the play, yet those discrimating face little repercussions for their actions. In fact, they win.

The Merchant of Venice is quite different to all the other plays. I like that it has strong female leads (the takedown of marriage candidates between Portia and her maid was a highlight), it is just the ending that doesn't sit well with me (and is obviously the reason for so few late adaptations). For the first time since my little challenge started I am struggling to rate a play out of 10... but I guess I would give it 7.5/10

[followthestarpath]

My beef with every organized religion

This might seem blasphemous but honestly it's just my observations and if that makes me a heretic, then so be it. I still believe in God. I guess it's just in a different light.

Christianity

Well I was actually baptized when I was 8 and attended church regularly but I was always secretly agnostic. It didn't make sense to me how so many things in the Bible contradicted what we were learning in school. (I think I blame Santa for jumpstarting my urge to question everything).

When I went away to college and went through my own self discovery, only then did I feel comfortable enough to reveal my agnosticism. The first person I ever told was a Muslim and his response was that I have to believe in something or else I'll go to hell. Safe to say, I went back to keeping it secret.

Since the beginning of mankind. We have used religion to justify colonialism and Genocide. If Jesus and his followers happened in one side of the world, how would people on the other side know? If it's your job to spread the good word of The Lord, then why would you slaughter people who have never heard of Him? How could they by anything other than heathens if you don't even get them the option.

Also I can't handle the circular reasoning. Where does it say you can't be gay? Ok, well who wrote that down? Where's the proof? Oh okay. If we ever get time travel, I will bet a million pesos that Peter, Paul, and whoever were buttfucking each other in an orgy.

In Matthews when Judas betrayed Jesus, he kissed him to reveal his identity to the angry mob. To which Jesus replied, "Friend, why have you come?" which to me does not sound like something someone would say if their friend kissed them for the first time.

Why does it say it's wrong to get information from the stars? Cause it's witchcraft? Oh okay, well why is that bad? Cause the book says so? But how did the three Wiseman know Jesus was born?

Astrology was started by royal astronomers hundreds of years before the common era and they were pretty much one in the same. It wasn't until Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD that it became taboo.

The Book also talks about slavery and it doesn't condemn the philosophy of it at all. It's right there in the The Ten Commandments. Everyone knows, "thou shall not kill", "though shall not steal" and maybe a couple more but what about the rest? You don't just get to pick and choose which parts to listen to.

(Fuck, why is this so long? )

My point is that if I blindly follow someone's advice on how to navigate the world from two millennia ago, that would be dangerous in any field. And I also think that if a stranger said not to listen to anyone else but them and follow them to live for eternity, I would think they were a super villian.

If your truth is so Supreme, then there shouldn't be anything against exploring other options because they would come back every time. Or does God think we're all idiots that would get lost if no one was there to guide us?

If I wrote a paper in college and my sources were from even 50 years ago, the whole paper wouldn't be credible. So how did we all choose to follow this book with no amendments ever?

And is Catholicism so big that the Vatican needs to be considered its own country? That's gotta be gluttony or pride or something.

Judaism

My main critique is that anytime someone mentions that Jews control the world, they immediately get canceled and labeled as antisemitic. But I don't understand why that is taken as such an insult. And the fact that it goes down like that makes the claim seem that much more accurate. Have you seen that documentary Three Identical Strangers? All I'm saying is that they came off real shady.

Not to get too political, but during the current situation in Gaza, Israel is seeming to play both, victim and abuser.

Islam, Buddhism, Christianity (again)

My perception of a lot of religious stuff is that someone found one way to do something, wrote it down, and somewhere along the line, it became the only way. Because Muhammad thought pigs were dirty, people shouldn't eat pork? Because Buddha didn't do drugs that means that no one should else should try them. Jesus turned the other cheek so I'm not supposed to defend myself against enemies? Spoiler alert: that did not end up being well for him. I'm all for peace and love but at no point in time will I ever not fight back against people attempting to nail me to a cross.

Atheism

I never meshed well with nonbelievers who only care for what science says. We used to believe the earth was flat, you could fly to the sun, and that flies were born from rotten meat. There's a reason why the Big Bang and gravity are still considered theories.

Paganism adjusts and upgrades frequently. Back when tarot was developed thousands of years ago, the major arcana was proposed as 22 cards represented by the 12 zodiac signs and 10 luminaries. Even though we had not discovered 10 luminaries yet. Uranus wasn't discovered until 1781, Pluto in 1930!

Astrology updates with the times the birth chart house associated with work used to represent slaves and the house associated with friends and community now includes social media. When the outer planets were discovered, they filled in the missing spots and made everything more even. It's kind of like when the Texans joined the NFL.

So what I do enjoy about science is that it is constantly reviewing information and reconsidering the truth. So now we know for sure that the earth is super round, the sun is hecka far away, and that flies are flipping disgusting. That is something that none of the big three seem to be open to (and even four if you wanna count Buddhism)

Mattafack...

Buddhism (again)

For a long time, I thought my ideals aligned with Buddhism. Cause I'm all about peace, meditation, and being one with nature. I really appreciate the idea of reaching Nirvana as a goal but their actual ultimate goal is to ascend past samsara and basically erase yourself from the ether. You aren't supposed to desire anything and should never be upset cause that's poison for your spirit. That is the only way to beat suffering but I feel like that's like chopping off your hand cause you can't stop sucking your thumb. I much prefer Shintoism because it simply just is and that's it. And maybe even Hinduism? I'll dig more into those.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Growing up, I never understood why Jehovah's Witnesses weren't allowed to celebrate holidays. After researching, the best answer I could find is because they contribute most of them to paganism paired with the belief that celebrations displease God.

Now I really appreciate them not pretending that there isn't a direct correlation of Christmas to Saturnalia and Easter to Ēostre (which is why the date is so dependent upon the equinox and full moon and why there is a rabbit that lays eggs) but to dwindle down birthdays as paganism just seems like a reach. Sure the pagans kept track of the sun but if that’s your thinking then you might as well ignore the whole Gregorian calendar.

There are some good points like refusing to join the military and pleging aligience to flags cause fuck war and nationalism but everything else just seems so stiff. My personal philosophy is to celebrate as much as possible. Shoot, one of my resolutions is to celebrate more small victories. So if that sends me to hell then so be it, I won't have any regrets.

Anyway shuning people for not living in your same truth, restricting simple pleasures, and trying to convince strangers in book stores that they need to conform to your ideals if they want to live forever seems like a pyramid scheme wrapped in a cult. So it's a no from me.

Speaking of cults...

Latter Day Saints

Mormons, oh boy. Seems like a ploy to just have a bunch of wives and sex. If there is a greater goal than that, I can't tell. Not for me.

and of course,

Scientology

I bet you could make up some random conspiracy like "scientology planned 9/11" and it would probably hold some validity. I already gave my views on science and my communist ideologies just won't even let me think about this too long.

Amish

Not a cult but I honestly don't get it. I googled "why don't Amish use technology" and it came up with an FAQ from the Amish community website so then I was even more confused.

Everyone and everyone else

This sentiment goes across most religions for me: if having fun is a sin and the only way to reach salvation is to eliminate them all when I go to heaven, will I have fun then? Or will it be the same restrictions? I gotta chew on that one for awhile.