The fact that a convicted terrorist can lead a political party and a paramilitary militia is a travesty.
The fact that on their first date he took his wife to visit the grave of Terrorist Baruch Goldstein is also a travesty, the fact that the match still went ahead after a date pilgrimage to the grave of a Terrorist is also baffling. Everyone involved made bad decisions.
Ben G'vir also bragged about stealing hood ornaments from Prime Minister Rabin to "make sure he knows we can reach him", immature and threatening. He's a far right whacko, and always has been.
The British Museum has been forced to postpone a lecture on Ancient Israel and Judah, as part of a newly established Jewish culture month, after finding that "a significant proportion of registered attendees were individuals intending to deliberately disrupt the event".
What exactly are we to believe motivated this 'significant proportion' to plan to travel to the British museum (in central London, presumably at their expense), to disrupt an educational lecture?
It seems unlikely that any would-be protestors cared much about the content or veracity of the lecture. Likewise for the speaker: Dr Paul Collins is a well-regarded scholar and curator in ancient Near-Eastern studies, and to my knowledge all his previous talks, including on Iraqi, Syrian and Kuwaiti history and archaeological heritage, proceeded uneventfully.
So, what then about this particular event provoked a response?
The key is the symbolic aspect of the lecture - namely, the fact that the British museum chose Ancient Israel and Judah as a topic to mark Jewish Culture Month.
The prospective demonstrator finds the association of Jewish culture and history with Jewish sovereignty and self-governance entirely unpalatable.
The reason for this is self-evident; they are opposed to Israel in the present, and so they extrapolate an ahistorical and pathological opposition to 'Israel' in the past.
To be charitable, the intended message of the planned protest is that British institutions should limit themselves to certain acceptable topics when discussing Jews - coincidentally, the times and places when Jews were powerless and vulnerable. (Less charitably, the message is that institutions in Britain should refuse to acknowledge Jews at all).
But the unintended message is much more revealing. The ideology that instigates and drives actions like this one is hollow, reliant on ignorance, and unable to hold up when faced with the truth. If the arguments of antizionism are valid, they would be no less valid for encountering and incorporating history. Only by censoring and restricting what history is permissable to teach, can antizionism dogma preserve itself.
The choice now facing the British Museum, and wider British society is simple: to give in and allow the ideologues to have their way, leaving us all more ignorant and intellectually poorer for it, or to rise to meet the challenge by raising the priority of teaching about Jews and Jewish history to the public. It's clear enough now that Britain is in dire need of it.
A statement from the British Museum regarding the Jewish Culture Month event.
Anyone who tries to tell you that Jews hate goyim or “outsiders” and that Judaism as a religion encourages that.
Is either someone who has never actually looked at how Judaism functions and is spreading misinformation ignorantly.
Or is a fucking liar who is looking for an excuse to continue hating Jews.
And either way the outcome is functionally the same.
Anyway no, Judaism doesn’t “hate outsiders”. Like pretty explicitly Judaism doesn’t have that whole “if you are not one of our religion you are less than us and going to hell” thing that some other religions do have.
'Transfem DIY HRT' and 'Transmasc DIY HRT' are a pair of zines aimed at teaching transgender people how to safely self-administer DIY Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).
Both zines are 100% free to download here from Little Mouse (who also made the zine). Print, share and distribute to those who need it!
The information contained in this zine is collated from, and openly available from, DIYHRT.info.
Heads up guys, some of the info for testosterone in the zines is incorrect.
Specifically regarding the bloodwork, you do NOT want to test your T levels right before your next injection, you want to take it approximately halfway between your injections. Trough levels (T levels immediately before your next injection, when your T is at the lowest point) are useless. It doesn't tell you what your T levels actually are, and does not provide a frame of reference for adjusting dosage if you need to. Taking your blood levels approximately halfway between dosages allows you to see what your T levels actually look like for the majority of the time, before it starts to work out of your system.
I think the confusion is caused because the zine is based on weekly T dosage, but T is generally taken every 2 weeks* and you should take your blood levels one week after your shot if you're on a 2 week schedule.
*every 2 weeks is standard for a couple of reasons:
1) injections suck and doing it every week sucks.
2) T in the US until recently could not be handed over by a pharmacy and therefore injections could not be done at home and instead had to be done at at doctor's office. The 2-week schedule allowed for less doctors visits and less expense.
3) perisex cis men also have a hormone cycle (albeit one not as visible as those of perisex cis women) and having your T high and T low be about 2 weeks apart is thought to mimic that natural cycle. This may or may not actually be true, but it was part of the prescribing basis for a long time.
4) because the half-life of cyprionate is 8 days, HALF OF IT is still in your system after 8 days. Taking a second dose at that point messes with the dosages and results in you stacking your dose on top of half of your previous dose, resulting in you taking 150% of the amount you're trying to take.
If you have severe emotional weirdness, menopausal symptoms, or other general issues the last 2-3 days before your shot consistently, you may want to switch to weekly T injections, but because of the half-life of cyprionate you may need to be moved to another type of T.
The cops very clearly planted evidence on him because they had to make an arrest because all eyes were on them and whoever actually did the deed was making them look stupid.
Why would the real killer hero have kept the weapon on his person and traveled two states over while carrying it and a manifesto in his bag, conveniently turning the crime into a federal matter? The same guy whose bag they found in a park, filled with monopoly money? Why did the police turn off their bodycams, take Luigi's stuff, drive a block away, turn their bodycams back on, go back into the restaurant, and then arrest him?
From the moment of his arrest, even left-of-center media has been presuming his guilt without examining anything (e.g. calling him "the killer" instead of "alleged" or "accused") and then when I say he didn't do it, the nearest person chimes in with some quip that tells me they think he did do it but should go free anyway. Don't get me wrong, I would have the same attitude if he had done it. But he didn't. It makes me feel like the only sane person in the world, even among my staunchly leftist friends.
yes we all know about medieval jesters waging psychological warfare in times of combat, but wait there’s more!
at the beginning of battles they would ride in on horseback, juggling swords or lances, and taunt & bait the opposition. soldiers would get so angry they would break rank & weaken formations just to try to kill the fool
How Wikipedia defines Zionism has significantly changed over the years. This has contributed to the misunderstanding of what Zionism actually is.
Just look at how it's described in 2026 (now), in 2016, in 2006 and in 2004 (below the cut).
2026/Now: "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonization in the region of Palestine, which roughly corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism—itself central to Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."
2016: "Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land). Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, called Hovevei Tziyon. Soon after this most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire."
2006: "Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times in history. While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe."
2004: "Zionism is a political movement among Jews holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focussed on the establishment of a Jewish homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there."
the “sources” for some of the most extreme & totalizing claims on the page are literally just a small handful of people claiming this or that is what Zionists wanted, repeating a buzzphrase with almost the exact same wording, and not citing evidence from the mouths of Zionists themselves that they wanted that.
one of said sources, Rashid Khalidi, is a former PLO spokesperson. like, actively produced propaganda in an official capacity for the PLO.
another of the sources claims that “as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” was a position that “enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations” (emphasis my own), which is just… an utterly batshit and easily-disproven statement for anyone who has ever met a Zionist (or for that matter, a Jew) or read the writings of the early Zionists.
at best the most extreme claims get a [ disputed - discuss ] slapped on as a band-aid, but I have seen much better-sourced edits to significantly less impactful pages removed far faster for far less. there is no reason claims that easily debunked or from a PLO propagandist should even be considered.
This is so silly but I'm watching a short video essay on sincerity in cinema and the creator is talking about how he watched Lord of the Rings for the first time at 17. He explains that he'd grown so used to the 'ironic' meta style commentary in the movies of the 2010's that as he was watching the opening narration of LotR, he spent the entire time waiting for the joke to come. For someone to take it all back with a zinger line. He listened to Blanchett describe and explain the backstory, and he waited for the other comedic shoe to drop.
And he kept doing it. Scene after scene.
He spent the film expecting someone to make a joke about how unserious things were or to break the fourth wall or do some other self referential type thing.
Now, maybe I'm just at that point in my cycle or maybe I'm too delicate in general, but I literally teared up hearing that. Straight up cried a bit. It is so fucking sad that sincerity and genuineness is being bred out of people.
People say all the time 'this generation can't take anything seriously!' and really, is it any wonder? Younger people have been trained out of it. You are no longer encouraged to be genuine or show emotion or be honest. You are actively punished for it. In fact, you are almost guaranteed to suffer for it.
That is so fucked up. I'm sorry to go on a bit of a random ramble rant but it's so fucking gut wrenching to see younger people lose that element of themselves. You can't express your passion without being told you're 'crashing out' or 'cringe'. You have to live in this neutral state of fear of perception, and god forbid anybody step outside of it!
You're told you should only consume and succumb and be ironic and emotionless and cool.
Listen, if you're following me and you're like.... 25 or under, let's say. Please. I beg of you. Do not fall for this rhetoric. Please, for the love of all things, feel. Feel and create and be honest with yourself. Indulge in things that make you happy. Be sincere. Wear your heart on your sleeve. Do not let this hyper-capitalistic, hyper-consumerist, self-centred, individualist culture take that from you.
Bleed yourself into the work you create. Live. Don't fucking let anyone tell you different.
