No title available
bliss lane
Stranger Things
todays bird
Product Placement
RMH
oozey mess
EXPECTATIONS
will byers stan first human second
Fai_Ryy
sheepfilms
Mike Driver
gracie abrams
Jules of Nature
official daine visual archive
blake kathryn
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
No title available
PR's Tumblrdome
NASA
seen from Spain
seen from Canada
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Egypt
seen from Canada
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from Portugal
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@the-library-alcove
New policy: No more arguing with Christianists, especially the ones who think that missionizing is a good thing. Autoblock on sight.
EDIT: Addendum: Antisemitic atheists too.
Less a DNI, and more just an exasperated sigh at this point, yes, I vet new followers for my own safety and I will automatically block missionaries, Christian apologists, antisemitic atheists, antizionists, Nazis (WTAF are you following me in the first place?), and TERFs.
The most important thing is they taught Kamala Harris a lesson.
I feel like a lot of people act as if the ancient Israelites are an extinct culture when we (Jews and Samaritans) are literally still here. Jews and Samaritans didn't "replace" the Israelites, but are a continuation of that culture.
And I think the idea that the ancient Israelites are an extinct culture feeds the supercessionist mindset of the general population with regards to claims on religious texts and practices, indigenaity of Jews and even Jewish identity itself.
I do not agree with veganism as a moral standard. If it is your personal moral stance, that is fine. If you think humans eating meat is inherently immoral, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re hopeless. Vegan ideology behaves more like a sect of evangelical Christianity than a dietary choice.
Veganism is better for the environment, but claiming that it's a morally superior choice ignores cultural and economic factors that make people eat animal products.
It is not inherently better for the environment. That is the thing. When you begin trying to explain that local, sustainably sourced animal protein is better for the environment than imported plant proteins that are farmed 3,500 miles away using slave labor, they start tuning you out. Down is better for the environment than polyester stuffing, leather is better for the environment than pleather. We should work on making animal agricultural practices more sustainable instead of trying to shame everyone into eating plant products that are also farmed unethically and unsustainably.
Veganism - vegetarianism, even - is only viable for
Wealthy people
People who live in a very small part of the world that produces enough protein-based plants year round to sustain the locals.
For everyone else, it's a diet based on colonialism and imports. The ancient nordic people were not omnivores because they disdained plants as real food; they were omnivores because THERE ARE NO EDIBLE PLANTS IN WINTER.
Repeat for desert regions that have several months of "it's too hot and dry for plants to feed people and still survive themselves" and rocky coastline areas with "if you don't eat fish & eggs, you won't get any protein because there aren't enough seeds or nuts and you can't grow things that produce them."
We do live in a society where most people can afford to be vegetarian. We have plenty of imported plants, including protein-heavy plants. But locavore beats the hell out of herbivore for sustainability and ethical environmentalism.
The top two ranking Democrats split in their votes, in a sign of shifting sentiment in the party.
New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is Congress’ most senior Jewish member, did not vote but told The Hill last month that it was “poorly drafted.” He added that it would have unintended consequences such as eliminating funding for U.S. Embassy operations in the country or for peace-building initiatives traditionally supported with U.S. aid.
Clark, the minority whip, had similar misgivings to Nadler, calling it “overly broad.” Nonetheless, she wrote earlier on Wednesday that she would be voting yes — “not because I agree with the entirety of the amendment, or the GOP’s cynical motivations for its consideration, but because I believe we must change course.”
So it was a vibes-based/stunt message vote then, Katherine?
What if it *had* passed the House? What then? I've not seen anyone bring that up so far in their discussions on this (not saying it hasn't happened, just that I haven't seen it).
I'm so glad that this extremely volatile geopolitical situation and humanitarian crisis is being treated by politicians like a moral litmus test and vibes central! God forbid we think about policy for more than two seconds! Who cares what happens in the middle east after we cut defensive aid? Who cares if this helps or hurts Palestinians? It's not about that! Obviously!
Massie is a Nazi. They voted for a Nazi bill that also targets Palestinians from a grandstanding conspiratorial Nazi who was raising his own profile with his conspiracy fandom. They were all stupid and morally bankrupt enough to do it because they went in fear of their staffers and their staffers' parasocial social media fandom and thought "If we cosign the nazi bill that won't pass it's meat for the base but won't actually affect anything" But see the thing is, Jewish voters and volunteers and donors saw you do it. And voters and volunteers and donors saw you do it while they watch the same people run D for Abdul El-Sayed's misogyny and Ro Khanna's pandering and the conspiracies around Jews both of them are pushing because it raises their profiles. And what every other minority needs to ask themselves is "When is it my turn? When do I outlive my usefulness to the ostensibly progressive party that has decided to chase the unicorn of 'gettable white socialist votes' by diving straight into conspiracies themselves? And even if you think I'm Acceptable Pejorative For Jews in Progressive spaces and you're A Good One, you SHOULD ask that out of baseline self interest. Because populist conspiracies don't stop with us. You can't "one of the good ones" your way out of a hungry panopticon-maw.
It's hungry, and you're meat.
actor Bryan Cranston joins the lovely Borrowed Spotlight project, but there’s something that should be noted: his comments are full of “free Palestine” and the usual emojis/gifs.
read the caption. nowhere does it say “Jewish” nor even “Holocaust.” you have to know this is a photograph with a Holocaust survivor to even make the connection because of how carefully (cautiously?) he worded it, using only the words “survival” and “war,” never overtly stating anything else. I commend him for taking part in this, yet notice how guarded he had to be to post it.
this elderly man, who lives in the United States, who survived the Holocaust, has nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict in the Middle East.
every single person harassing Bryan Cranston with “free Palestine” is making something clear - and it’s not care for Palestinians. it’s relentless, obsessive hatred of Jews.
What are your thoughts now given that the Gaza War is largely over?
that it was never about gaza. not really.
if it was about gaza. if gaza was so terrible. if i truly believed my actions had consequences, that people in power might listen to me.
fuck. i'd do anything to have even the slightest chance of stopping it. i'd demand the hostages go back, because sure, it's probably all a lie. sure, it's probably just an excuse. but what if it isn't?
what if I could have stopped a genocide, and I didn't, because I was so convinced it was a bluff? that they wouldn't stop when the hostages were returned? how would I be able to live with myself, knowing that?
(and is the return of the hostages really so horrible on its own?)
if it was about gaza (if it was about human suffering it wouldn't have focused on gaza. two million people is a lot but it's not so much, there are eight billion people in the world, in the first six months of 2025 more children starved to death in one state of nigeria, than people starved to death in two years of the gaza war). if it was about the well-being of gazans. then I'd beg and plead for a ceasefire. for a pause. then I'd demand that there be some sort of asylum program, and wouldn't reject out of hand Israel's (alleged) proposal to transfer the population, because sure, it's not good. it's awful.
But when your choice is leaving behind your life, or facing genocide--well, Jews are experts in that choice. you leave. you say goodbye and you hope to one day come back and you get the hell out. if you care about the risk of genocide, you don't beg america to close ellis island. if you care about the risk of genocide, you don't plead for the st. louis to be sent back simply because you refuse to bow. because in a genocide, there aren't easy choices. yeah, these people are being forced out of their homes. yeah, it's unfair. yeah, it's awful.
do you want to negotiate with the genociders? no. no, you really, really, don't. you hate it. you grit your teeth and you do your best to save as many people as you can and you go home and you wash your hands and you feel so very very guilty and you worry about the people you couldn't save and the agreements you're getting into and god you hate this life. but. at the end of the day. you'll have saved lives.
what does it say about them, that they value martyrs more than mothers? value propaganda more than peace? that to avoid the taint of working with who they may genuinely believe to be genociders, they will take the risk of condemning two million people to death?
the haavara agreement sucked. it was terrible. but. at the end of the day, it saved jewish lives. at the end of the day, jews that would have been killed, weren't. and what's your reputation, in comparison to that? what could possibly be worth giving it up? some imagined moral purity?
now that the gaza war has ended, we can see clearer than ever that they don't care about gazans. they never did. they just wanted to be able to kill us with impunity. to cheer on our deaths. to have an excuse for saying that they were good to want the (((zios))) to die.
One repeated refrain I keep seeing from the Pro-Palestinian crowd, from the most virulently Jew-hating to the most Jew-sympathetic, is pretty straightforward.
"Well, after 75 years of how the Palestinians have been treated, can you blame them for the 7/10 attack?"
And the response that I've been itching to give to that...
"So, you're saying that the Nakba was acceptable back in 1948? Because after 1000+ years of mistreatment by Muslim Arabs, including multiple massacres and ethnic cleansing in living memory, that means that the Jews were justified with the Nakba--indeed, they were restrained, because they could have easily done so much worse, and the Palestinians Arabs hadn't had any mistreatment yet at the hands of the Jews. There was a clear side who had been the victims (the Jews) and a clear side who had been the victimizers for over a thousand years, as the Muslims been the ones doing the mistreatment to the Jews. If you're saying that 75 years of marginalization justifies mass rape and murder, then the Israelis in 1948 would have been justified in killing every single proto-Palestinian Arab by that same metric.
"No? That's different? How? How is it different? Explain to me how it's different without using the word 'colonizer', because a vast number of the Jews who lived there were unquestionably native and had never been living elsewhere. Sure, they were just a portion of the Jewish population as a whole, but so are the Palestinian militants. Would someone whose family had been butchered in the 1929 Hebron Massacre not be justified in taking out their hate on other Arabs? Because that's the standard you're promoting now. How is it different?
"On what ethical grounds is it okay to say that the Palestinians deserve to get to rape and murder for 75 years of marginalization, and yet that the Jews simply displacing them but allowing them to continue living, sparing their lives after 1200+ years of brutal suppression... that act is somehow the most horrendous and monstrous act in the entire history of mankind, as some Pro-Palestinian activists have explicitly said?"
"Explain to me how 75 years of mistreatment justifies mass murder, but 1000+ years of legally recognized second-class brutal near-slavery doesn't justify displacement of your former oppressors."
"My family thinks because im a leftist it means im radical but like whats radical about that? I just want everyone to hug, no bad things to happen, free healthcare and be nice to everyone" - the coldest, rudest most judgemental person you know.
Yeah. This. It's the refusal to acknowledge that the world is messy and complicated, that tradeoffs are a thing, and that people can disagree in good faith. Because only a Bad Person could possibly disagree with "healthcare and hugs."
ive been trying for a while to find the right words to articulate the way goys, and especially the current-left goys, treat and talk the holocaust, how they see being a victim of this massive tragedy that destroyed over half a people as a mark of specialness, or privilege, how it grants you martyrdom for the cause of social justice- except when it's jews, of course, because then they're using their victimhood to manipulate people and are acting like it's only about them. and the way they fight over this whole idea of 'who suffered the most during the holocaust [except the jews]', as if the question of who is the biggest victim is a question of who takes the trophy for 'group to be most oppressed'. but anyway i just had the thought that goys seem to treat the holocaust as if it's the golden apple thrown by marx with the inscription 'to the most oppressed' going on. that's the best way i can describe it.
martyrdom is a great way to put it
"but anyway i just had the thought that goys seem to treat the holocaust as if it's the golden apple thrown by marx with the inscription 'to the most oppressed' going on."
I wish this wasn't so accurate.
Jew haters really be like “Nobody actually hates Jews. you’re lying and exaggerating. Btw you’re to blame for every bad thing in this world. fuck you and die”
The thing about so many left-leaning conspiracies about Israel is like. Why would they be doing that. I just saw a video where someone claimed that “the recent pistachio trend” is being manufactured by Israel to push pistachio production out of the Middle East. And it’s like ???? What. Why would they care about that. They don’t even get the profits. Dear god antisemitism has just rotted people’s brains right through.
excuse me but
The Fuck What
This just in, Dubai chocolate was invented by... Israel!!
The real punchline to this is the country probably most responsible for pushing it as a global craze is...
The funny part about "Dubai Chocolate" is its global origins and... dare I say "Chocolate-washing" name.
Dubai chocolate blends Middle Eastern flavors and milk chocolate, featuring creamy pistachio-tahini filling with a delicate kadayif crunch.
This innovative treat was invented in 2021 by Nouel Catis Omamalin, a Filipino pastry chef, and Sarah Hamouda, a British-Egyptian engineer living in Dubai. Together, they founded Fix Dessert Chocolatier, an Emirati chocolate company that first launched the bar under the playful name Can’t Get Knafeh of It—a nod to the beloved Middle Eastern dessert knafeh, which inspired its flavor profile.
For all the mockery about "Spiritually Israeli" Dubai itself is a vastly more artificial and 'soulless' city with vastly more ethical issues associated with it. But hey "Tel Aviv Impressed" teeheee Jews, right?
not the 25K views on this
are people just getting more stupid by the day
except you literally just made that up
what is happening
beyond parody
This is what makes me so insane - the Netanyahu government is absolutely pushing through horrific legislation and doing whatever it can because the elections are going to be a struggle and the Israeli public is sick of it, and so shit like this will help give them a boost!
Why would Democrats want to help Netanyahu this way? I don't get it!
For all that the 1800s etiquette guides are--obviously--derangedly sexist from a modern perspective? They're also mindblowing in how casually they will assert things that MODERN DAY CONSERVATIVES would scream and cry and shit their pants about.
"People back then always married young it's natural!!!" Every single 1800s guide I've ever met casually mentions that, of course, you really shouldn't get married before you're at least 20, and waiting until 25 is usually better.
Or, like. Okay here's a long segment:
Just firmly going "it is crazy sexist to blame The Wife for overspending when thirty seconds of asking questions will immediately establish that her husband was outright lying to her about how much money they had. Talk to your wife like a normal person."
Or--okay, here. A section on being honest and not writing love letters in secret, because that's usually a good sign that there's something untoward going on....
....except that he then immediately acknowledges that sometimes, the reason you're hiding this from your parents is that your parents suck. That there are parents who frankly have not earned the right to approve or disapprove of your partner.
(I realize the phrasing there sounds a lot less strong than my summary, but--trust me on this. When you're familiar with the narrative voice of these kinds of books, this passage is downright radical. The mere acknowledgement that if you treat your kids badly, it's your own damn fault when they don't talk to you? I've genuinely never seen that before in this genre. Don't freak out over "properly trained", either. It's just a linguistic shift--at the time, "training" was used the way we would say "raising" a child today. )
"Delete all the nudes and sexts after a breakup or you're a piece of shit" has been the standard expectation since EIGHT. TEEN. EIGHTY. FIVE.
"Men and women being friends with each other is literally normal. Don't be a controlling freak."
Anyway I was wrong the publishing date is actually 1882 so like.
"If you have to abuse a child to keep order in your classroom then you're a bad teacher."
So like @ the modern Republican party, are the "traditional family values" in the fucking room with us right now--
