YEUL'S DAILY WORDS
you are beautiful, pretty, handsome, good looking, cool, cute, lovely, blorbo material, squishable baby 24/7 do not make that eating shadow bite that confidence away bc i will battle them.
you can do it! i promise. mistakes are common, don't beat yourself up for making one, we can learn! its a new opportunity.
look at yourself in the mirror, make a pose, and say out loud,
"damn, i'm too good looking for this world"
because everyone is pretty and cute, handsome everything good, your unique points that you call flaws are all little things that makes you, you, and unique, cool.
even if you dont like who you are, i do. i do love and adore whoever you are(unless you did something illegal which i hope you didnt be legal guys, lets be safe). remember that i love you and you will and already love yourself too <3(and my grammar failed)
4 notes
·
View notes
I guess this might be why the UK seemed to go so antisemitic so quickly
I'm researching the 1947 pogroms in the UK. (Actually, I'm researching all the pogroms and massacres of Jews in the past 200 years. Which today led me to discover that there were pogroms in the UK in 1947.)
From an article on "The Postwar Revival of British Fascism," all emphasis mine:
Given the rising antisemitism and widespread ignorance about Zionism [in the UK in 1947], fascists were easily able to conflate Zionist paramilitary attacks with Judaism in their speeches, meaning British Jews came to be seen as complicit in violence in Palestine.
Bertrand Duke Pile, a key member of Hamm’s League, informed a cheering crowd that “the Jews have no right to Palestine and the Jews have no right to the power which they hold in this country of ours.” Denouncing Zionism as a way to introduce a wider domestic antisemitic stance was common to many speakers at fascist events and rallies. Fascists hid their ideology and ideological antisemitism behind the rhetorical facade of preaching against paramilitary violence in Palestine.
One of the league’s speakers called for retribution against “the Jews” for the death of British soldiers in Palestine. This was, he told his audience, hardly an antisemitic expression. “Is it antisemitism to denounce the murderers of your own flesh and blood in Palestine?” he asked his audience. Many audience members, fascist or not, may well have felt the speaker had a point.
...[The photo of two British sergeants hanged by the Irgun in retaliation for the Brits hanging three of their members] promptly made numerous appearances at fascist meetings, often attached to the speaker’s platform. In at least one meeting, several British soldiers on leave from serving in Palestine attended Hamm’s speech, giving further legitimacy to his remarks. And with soldiers and policemen in Palestine showing increasing signs of overt antisemitism as a result of their experiences, the director of public prosecutions warned that the fascists might receive a steady stream of new recruits.
MI5, the U.K. domestic security service, noted with some alarm that “as a general rule, the crowd is now sympathetic and even spontaneously enthusiastic.” Opposition, it was noted in the same Home Office Bulletin of 1947, “is only met when there is an organized group of Jews or Communists in the audience.”
The major opposition came from the 43 Group, formed by the British-Jewish ex-paratrooper Gerry Flamberg and his friends in September 1946 to fight the fascists using the only language they felt fascists understood — violence.
The group disrupted fascist meetings for two purposes: to get them shut down by the police for disorder, and to discourage attendance in the future by doling out beatings with fists and blunt instruments. By the summer of 1947, the group had around 500 active members who took part in such activities. Among these was a young hairdresser by the name of Vidal Sassoon, who would often turn up armed with his hairdressing scissors.
The 43 Group had considerable success with these actions, but public anger was spreading faster than they could counter the hate that accompanied it. The deaths of Martin and Paice had touched a nerve with the populace.
On Aug. 1, 1947, the beginning of the bank holiday weekend and two days after the deaths of the sergeants, anti-Jewish rioting began in Liverpool. The violence lasted for five days. Across the country, the scene was repeated: London, Manchester, Hull, Brighton and Glasgow all saw widespread violence. Isolated instances were also recorded in Plymouth, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and Davenport.
Elsewhere, antisemitic graffiti and threatening phone calls to Jewish places of worship stood in for physical violence. Jewish-owned shops had their windows smashed, Jewish homes were targeted, an attempt was made to burn down Liverpool Crown Street Synagogue while a wooden synagogue in Glasgow was set alight.
In a handful of cases, individuals were personally intimidated or assaulted. A Jewish man was threatened with a pistol in Northampton and an empty mine was placed in a Jewish-owned tailor shop in Davenport.
And an important addendum:
I've read a whole bunch of articles about the pogroms in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Eccles, Glasgow, etc.
Not one of them has mentioned that the Irgun, though clearly a terrorist group, was formed in response to 18 years of openly antisemitic terrorism, including multiple incredibly violent massacres. Or that it consistently acted in response to the murders of Jewish civilians, not on the offensive. Or that at this point, militant Arab Nationalist groups with volunteers and arms from the Arab League countries had been attacking Jewish and mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhoods for months.
I just think the "Jewish militants had been attacking the British occupiers" angle is incredibly Anglocentric.
Yeah, they were attacking the British occupiers. But also, that's barely the tip of the iceberg.
Everyone involved hated the Brits at this point. If only al-Husseini and his ilk had hated the Brits more than they hated the Jews, Britain could at least have united them by giving them a common enemy.
241 notes
·
View notes
i often think about why enver gortash and the dark urge gravitated towards each other like they did. what drew them together, after their first meeting?
was it the perpetual loneliness, the dangerous monotony of their lives, or even the deep carnal need for a person they could consider equal? was it only because of their mutual connection to the dead three, a power that tied them together only for convenience, a transitional pact made only for the end goal of batrayal? was gortash the one to initiate their first meeting, or did the dark urge slink his way into a young dukes quarters, intent on finding a new mark but instead finding opportunity?
did they quarrel, or did they have a mutual understanding, spurned on by their initial attraction to each other? was it an attraction of the body, or one of the mind — nay, the soul — that made them twist and warp themselves into shapes that only slot together?
i wonder how enver gortash felt when the clock ticked midnight and the dark urge, never prompt but never late, failed to show up. i wondered if he searched for his partner in crime, his closest confidante, before orin revealed her act. i wonder if he thought about abandoning the plan he and his bhaalspawn made together, only to pull himself together when he felt the push of the tyrants black hand on his back, forcing him to kneel.
i contemplate the nature of their relationship — their true genuine relationship, behind any facade or expectation — and if either one of them felt the loss of it in the days after the dark urges disappearance.
i like to think enver gortash mourned. i like to think that if the dark urge remembered, they would have raged. yet, there is no happy ending for these two, no matter the path the player chooses.
instead, there is only a “what could have been” and a series of questions to ponder.
457 notes
·
View notes