The drowned god's heart is black ice

The Corvid lord 

stage 4 transformation

2018-2020

Parliament of Rooks by Abigail J Harding

You've probably seen people online spouting nonsense like "Israel killed most of its own people on October 7th. The Hannibal Directive proves it. Hamas didn't do the massacre - Israel did."

Let's go over what the Hannibal Directive actually was, its status on 10/7/23, and how stories about it have been dishonestly spun.

The Hannibal Directive was issued in 1986. Here's what it actually said:

"א. בזמן מחטף הופכת המשימה העיקרית חילוץ חיילינו מידי החוטפים גם במחיר של פגיעה או פציעת חיילינו. ב. במידה ויזוהו החוטפים והחטופים ולא נענו לקריאות לעצור, יש לבצע ירי נק"ל (נשק קל), על מנת להוריד את החוטפים לקרקע, או לעצור אותם. ג. אם לא עצר הרכב או החוטפים, יש לירות לעברם ירי נשק קל בבודדת, במכוון, על מנת לפגוע בחוטפים גם אם המשמעות פגיעה בחיילינו."

"A. During an abduction, the main mission becomes rescuing our soldiers from the captors, even at the cost of harming or injuring our own soldiers. B. If the captors and captives are identified and do not heed calls to stop, use small arms fire to bring down the captors or halt them. C. If the vehicle or captors do not stop, use aimed small arms fire to hit the captors, even if that means harming our own soldiers."

This isn't particularly controversial in principle. A captured soldier becomes a massive piece of political leverage, a tool for extortion, and a severe threat to national security - and accepting the risk of injuring your own people during a rescue attempt is a standard, tragic reality of combat. The underlying logic is standard across professional militaries.

Note that the directive as written applied specifically to soldiers. That distinction matters when we get to October 7.

From its inception, the directive was controversial within Israel. Some commanders refused to pass it down, as they were permitted to do under the Spirit of the IDF booklet. In 2011, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz clarified that the directive did not authorize deliberately shooting a captured soldier - it aimed to stop terrorists from escaping with them, not to kill the hostage. The directive was revised several times, with legal reviews consistently recommending every effort be made to avoid harming soldiers who were hostages.

In 2016, Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot officially cancelled it.

It was long gone on 10/7/23.

A Haaretz investigation, though, identified three specific instances where local commanders invoked a Hannibal-style order at points along the Gaza border: at the Erez crossing, the Re'im army base, and the Nahal Oz outpost.

The orders were primarily aimed at striking the gaps in the border fence and vehicles moving back into Gaza to stop the mass transfer of hostages. Because Hamas was taking civilian hostages, not soldiers -local commanders were adapting a soldier-focused doctrine on the fly, in chaos, without official authorization. That context matters for understanding what actually happened.

So what does the evidence actually confirm?

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry confirmed at least 14 Israelis likely killed by IDF forces. The Be'eri incident (where a tank commander ordered fire on a house holding hostages, killing 13 of 14) is the most documented single case.

These deaths are real, they are serious, and the officers responsible should face accountability - that's the only acceptable reaction to a friendly fire incident.

At no point has any investigation found that the IDF deliberately targeted Israeli civilians.

Every documented IDF-caused death on October 7 occurred in the context of combat decisions made to stop Hamas from dragging hostages back into Gaza. These decisions were chaotic, unauthorized, and in some cases probably a bad call. A commander who orders fire on a vehicle he believes contains Hamas fighters and accidentally kills Israelis in the process has made a bad decision, but he has not committed a premeditated massacre of his own people.

There is no evidence -NONE WHATSOEVER - that the IDF identified Israeli civilians and chose to kill them. This claim exists solely to launder the responsibility of Hamas (and others from Gaza) for the atrocities visited upon Israeli civilians on 10/7/23.

The total October 7 death toll was approximately 1,200 Israelis. That number is documented and forensically verified. The 14+ deaths caused accidentally by the IDF are worth investigating and accountability should be sought- but they are not an alternative explanation for the massacre.

That's how Hamas supporters spun it.

In July 2024, when Haaretz published an investigation into Hannibal-style orders at those three military sites on October 7, this was journalism. Israeli reporters, using IDF documents and soldier testimony, holding their own military accountable for specific decisions made in specific locations.

The article did not claim Israel caused most of the deaths. It did not claim Hamas was innocent. It reported on a real institutional failure at the Erez crossing, Re'im base, and Nahal Oz outpost.

Within two weeks, that article had been shared over 16,000 times on X, almost entirely by accounts using it to argue that Israel, not Hamas, was responsible for the October 7 massacre.

Hamas supporters have elevated this sort of dishonesty to an art form: they take legitimate accountability journalism, remove every qualifier, delete the specific scope, and present it as proof of something the article explicitly does not claim and try to make the IDF responsible for the crimes committed by Hamas and other Gazans.

The people doing this aren't engaging with the Haaretz investigation. They're borrowing its brand as a prop to make the absurd allegation seem credible. It isn't - and anyone who actually read the article knows that.

The claim that Israel killed its own people on October 7 isn't a good-faith misreading of a complicated story. It's a conspiracy theory.

It takes a documented atrocity with 1,200 named victims, forensic evidence, and survivor testimony, and replaces it with a fairy tale where the Jews did it to themselves.

That's not skepticism. That's not "asking questions."

The people spreading this libel aren't engaging with the Haaretz story or the UN or any of the investigations they pretend to cite without having read them. They're using the language of accountability journalism to run interference for a massacre.

~6,000 people including Hamas, other militant groups, and Gazan civilians burned families alive, took 251 hostages, and committed widespread torture and sexual violence on October 7. That happened. The Hannibal Directive didn't make it happen. Israel didn't make it happen. Hamas made it happen.

They filmed themselves doing it, they livestreamed it, they called their families to brag about it, they celebrated it in Gaza, their leaders praised it and promised to repeat it. They want the credit for their massacre.

It’s about anti Zionism my ass.

But these people don't think they're being antisemitic, they think they're arguing for a group of people being oppressed by an apartheid regime, which they are. The main issue at play is that the genocide in Gaza fosters antisemitism in people who are not antisemitic, because Zionists are belligerently intent on inextricably tying Israel to Judaism.

When the Zionist propaganda says Jews = Israel, and the news shows us that Israel = genocide, people will inevitably think Jews = genocide.

I love how even in your mealy-mouthed lukewarm defense of Jews you can't conceive that the people accusing random Jews of killing children aren't actually trying to innocently criticize Israel, and they're not only being antisemitic by accident

these bigots aren’t unique.

very few if any bigots sit there and say to themselves “my hatred is baseless and I’m a bad bad hateful bigot”. literally everyone who is bigoted thinks they’re standing up for what’s right by being bigoted, and then balks when it’s called bigotry.

they have all sorts of ad hoc arguments and reasons, whether nonsensical or polished, for why they’re actually just a “truth-teller” “on the right side of history” or why it’s everybody and anybody’s fault but their own—the people they hate are the real problem.

She played bass on 10,000 songs, including the most-played track of the twentieth century. She was paid $55 per session. Her name never appeared on the albums.

Gold Star Studios, Los Angeles, 1964. A woman in a cardigan walks past the receptionist, a Fender Precision bass in her hand like a briefcase. She doesn’t sign autographs. She signs a timesheet.

Her name is Carol Kaye. In three hours, she will record what will become the most-played track of the twentieth century. She’ll pocket fifty-five dollars and head to another studio, on the other side of town, for the next session.

The record label will never put her name on the album.

Between 1957 and 1973, Carol Kaye took part in roughly 10,000 recording sessions. Not as the featured artist, not as a guest, but as a hired hand. She was part of an anonymous collective nicknamed The Wrecking Crew—elite studio musicians who actually played the instruments on your favorite records while the famous bands posed for promotional photos.

The work was relentless. Three albums before the day was over. Stale coffee in paper cups. No rehearsal. The charts arrived minutes before the tape rolled. If you couldn’t read a chart and nail the take in two tries, you didn’t get called for the next session.

Carol could do it on the first try.

She started playing guitar in grimy bars at fourteen because her family couldn’t pay the electric bill. Music wasn’t a romantic dream for her. It was survival. It was a job—factory work with better acoustics and lower pay.

But she was faster and sharper than almost everyone else. She corrected charts in pencil while the producer was still explaining what he wanted. In one session in 1968, she told a famous producer his arrangement sounded like a dying dog. She chose her own line. They kept her version.

That descending bass line that drives the Beach Boys’ “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”? Carol Kaye. The propulsive groove of “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”? Carol Kaye. The acoustic-guitar intro to “La Bamba”? Carol Kaye. The iconic theme from Mission: Impossible? Carol Kaye.

She invented techniques on the spot, out of sheer necessity. When the bass sound was too muddy for AM radio, she stuck felt under the strings and used a hard pick instead of her fingers. The tone cut through the static like a blade. It became the sonic signature that defined 1960s pop.

Bassists spent years—decades—trying to crack the secret of the Beach Boys’ gear to get that sound. They were studying the wrong people. They should have been studying Carol.

She received no royalties. No residuals. No gold-record ceremony. No credit on the album sleeves. When “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’” hit number one, Carol was already back in a studio cutting a soap jingle.

The biggest bands mimed her bass lines on TV variety shows. New York marketing departments decided a mom in classic clothes didn’t fit the rebellious-youth image they were selling. So they simply left her name off the album credits.

For thirty years, almost no one cared. The truth only began to surface in the late 1990s, when music researchers found the same union contract numbers on thousands of hit records. The very documents meant to preserve studio musicians’ anonymity betrayed them.

Think about it. Every time you heard “Good Vibrations,” “River Deep – Mountain High,” the Righteous Brothers, Nancy Sinatra, or Sonny and Cher, you were hearing Carol Kaye. She composed the soundtrack of an entire generation’s youth.

And yet the records still say nothing. She’s now over eighty. She wrote instructional books. She trained countless bassists. She is finally starting to be recognized by music historians who uncovered the truth about The Wrecking Crew.

But she never got what she deserved: her name on those albums. Credit for the music that defined an era. Recognition that those bass lines everyone associates with the “Beach Boys” were, in fact, Carol Kaye’s.

Fifty-five dollars a session. Ten thousand sessions. The most-played track of the twentieth century.

Didn't think that I'd have to post this exact comparison again, didn't even think I'd have to post it once, and yet I stand disappointed again.

On the left: a sign in German on a street in Bavaria, reading: "Jews are unwanted here." Photo taken by an American in 1937.

On the right: a message from a hotel in Bavaria, Zum Hirschen, sent to Israelis who tried to book a stay, reading: "Sorry, there are no Jews allowed in our hotel." June 2026.

Again, the incident has been "handled": Booking.com took the hotel off its platform and the hotel itself was contacted by the Israeli consulate in Munich. The hotel at first denied sending the message, but later stated that it was indeed one of its employees that sent it. It is yet unclear if the case will lead to formal proceedings.

Let me point out that one small detail. They didn't said Israelis weren't allowed, they didn't say Zionists weren't allowed. They said Jews. Now Bavarians aren't new at the scene of antisemitism, in fact they are very experienced, but nowadays, we don't say Jews when we're being discriminatory, no, we say something else. You're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud! (For those in my comments who don't understand sarcasm, that was it.)

This joins many concerning cases across Europe and the UK (not to mention the US!) that reenact the nostalgic scenes of the 1930s and 1940s. (Again, sarcasm). I haven't yet made a post about the spa in Spain that refused a Jewish woman on entry on account of her Magen David necklace. And here Europe strikes again, in the very place the Nazi party rose to power. All those woke westerners that are so proud to chant about punching Nazis, and where are you now? Aren't you ashamed? Wouldn't even recognize one if it was saluting in your face.

The problem is that nobody is going to do that because every attempt to do so is an attempt to compete with the superficial elements of what Pokemon is now, rather than following the how and why that led to Pokemon to become what it is. The objective they are chasing is how to compete with Pokemon, which is no objective at all. The only way to create a true competitor is to build the equivalent to Pokemon again from first principles.

Its not the best but its one of the most memorable by far

Little Guy

Concept art for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Shivering Isles DLC

Smut but very intimate.. just cradling Dean in your arms while you take him. Always had this idea floating around in my head of being on top while holding his big head with my small arms. So my chest is pressed under his chin and he just burrows his nose in my shoulder..

I love your blog sm and couldn’t wait to give you my first ask💕💕

⋆｡ ˚ hold me like this

summary ˚˖𓍢ִִ໋ dean, aching for touch he rarely asks for, lets you cradle him close while you ride him slow. pairing ˚˖𓍢ִִ໋ dean winchester x reader ( f ) wordcount ˚˖𓍢ִִ໋ 713 genre ˚˖𓍢ִִ໋ soft smut!! warnings ˚˖𓍢ִִ໋ explicit sexual content, touch starvation, intimate sex, emotional vulnerability, soft dom reader, gentle penetration, slight size difference emphasis

notes ˚˖𓍢ִ໋ ִ❀໋ consider supporting my work .ᐟ

you’re on top, thighs bracketing his hips, and the motel room feels smaller than usual. just the low hum of the heater and the sound of dean breathing against your skin. he’s so warm beneath you, broad and solid, yet right now he feels fragile in a way that makes your chest ache.