#typical right wing antisemitism

[spot-the-antisemitism]

does context matter? when you're using incuous terms like 'wake up' or other numbers usually associated w jewish people as antisemitic, will the context matter or are they blanket antisemitism?

Dear anon

"wake up" is a blanket white supremacist dogwhistle when immediately followed by a canard how say "all arabs are terrorists" or "all black and/or hispanic people are criminals" or "all the Jews control the world including the arab terrorirsts and the Poc criminals"

Otherwise they're the just a glorious revolution wanting edgelord or a person who thinks we live in the matrix. No one uses "wake up to the ills of society" in an innocent way.

Some other common red flags that may or may not be racist depending on context are "embrace tradition", "it's ok to be white" and an obsession with people's sexuality and who is cucking whom.

yours,

Cecil

[a-very-tired-jew]

A trend that I have seen lately from the antisemitic anti-Zionist crowd is to latch on to the concept of Christian Zionists. I've seen a good number of the big accounts across social media talk about Christian Zionism as if it's the same thing as Zionism as it relates to Jews.

For example; take one of the GFM "verifiers" and big anti-Zionist blogger el-shab sharing from palistani (who is a raging antisemite).

This is one example and follows the standard I've seen across ProPal social media. They will typically introduce Christian Zionism as a whataboutism to distract from the fact that their movement is full of Nazis, antisemites, and supremacists. They will not explain the differences between Christian Restorationism Zionism and Zionism, nor explain how it came about, and then drop the "Christian" modifier and just call refer to it as Zionism from then on. This is part of how they are and have been spreading the "Zionism is a White Supremacist Colonizer ideology".

Most people don't know the difference between Christian Zionism and Zionism. Most people don't know that Christian Zionism is Christian Restorationism and that they changed the name of their belief/ideology to "ally" with Jews and garner support. But that "allyship" with Jews is conditioned on the fact that they need us to be in our homeland so that they can get their Second Coming Apocalypse ending.

That's it.

That's the whole thing.

We need to be in Israel so the End Times can happen and that's why they're (Christian) Zionists.

It has nothing to do with Zionism as it relate to Jews, Jewish safety, Jewish identity, Jewish indigeneity, and so on.

It's just another appropriation by goyim.

Now, End Times style Christians in the USA tend to be right wing bigots. They're typically the ones ranting about how *insert hated group* are a sign of the End. They push for legislature that is discriminatory and hateful. Many of them are White Supremacists and proud of it. This is a common tactic used by the mouth pieces of the anti-Israel movement; distract and redirect.

Do they have Nazis in their movement? Yes. But don't focus on that. Focus on this other thing that I'm holding in front of your face that is totally the worse thing so that you don't question why we have Nazis, antisemites, and other bigots in our group.

Jews are not Christian Zionists and cannot be. Zionism as it relates to Jews is completely separate with its own subtypes couched underneath it. But to conflate their Christian beliefs with a Jewish ideology is a fallacious argument that really shows how desperate antisemites anti-Zionists are.

After all these months it appears that people are listening to Jews about what Zionism actually is vs what these protesters have been telling them it is. They need to go "well what about this Zionism?! huh? huh?" as if it's another gotcha. But just like they've been defining Zionism as if it was Kahanism, this new talking point will just be another nail in the coffin of "it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism!"

[mariacallous]

It is a measure of the divisiveness and tolerance for violence in the United States that the possibility of civil war looms so large over the 2024 presidential election—no matter which candidate wins. It is even the subject of a hit dystopian thriller. Though an actual civil war resulting from the election’s outcome remains unlikely, a range of sufficiently alarming politically violent scenarios are nevertheless quite possible.

Former President Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records has sharpened frictions, with threats to the judiciary and his opponents immediately intensifying. “Time to start capping some leftys. This cannot be fixed by voting,” was one typical reaction tracked by Reuters on Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site. Far-right media personality Stew Peters said on his Telegram channel that “our judicial system has been weaponized against the American people. We are left with NO option but to take matters into our own hands.”

Meanwhile, our assessments suggest that elements on the far left in this country are also escalating militant threats. A call to “Fuck the Fourth” recently appeared on an anarchist website, heralding a day of action on July 4 targeting the ports of Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, New Jersey, and Baltimore. Additional summons to “Flood The Gates: Escalate” over the Gaza War both on college campuses and in communities across the nation this summer and fall are circulating on social media. At a pro-Palestine protest at the White House in June, one protester held up a decapitated likeness of President Joe Biden’s head, while crowds chanted “Revolution.”

These would-be violent extremists represent a microcosm of a U.S. political landscape that is increasingly willing to tolerate violence. A survey conducted last year found that 23 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Another more recent poll similarly found that 28 percent of Republicans strongly agree or agree that “Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track.” Meanwhile, 12 percent of Democrats agreed with the premise.

Among gun owners in the United States, these sentiments are even more prevalent. According to a survey conducted by the University of California, Davis, “About 42% of owners of assault-type rifles said political violence could be justified, rising to 44% of recent gun purchasers, and a staggering 56% of those who always or nearly always carry loaded guns in public

As the United States approaches its November election, the risks of violence will thus rise. This should not be surprising. Historically, violence is actually quite common in the United States, especially during election seasons. During the Reconstruction era, much of white supremacist violence directed against freed Black men and women was intended to intimidate would-be voters, ensuring that segregationist Democrats maintained their grip on power in the Deep South.

More recently, the 2022 midterms saw an assassination attempt target the speaker of the House of Representatives in an attack that seriously wounded her husband. The 2020 election, of course, sparked the Jan. 6, 2021, terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol. In the 10 days leading up to the 2018 midterms, there were no fewer than four far-right terrorist attacks, most notably the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. The mail bombs that circulated that same week showed that threats to politicians have in fact been particularly frequent during the Trump era.

Despite that disquieting pattern, 2024 appears to provide even more fertile ground for militant responses to electoral developments. Trump’s court cases, coupled with the insistence from both parties that—in Trump’s words—“If we don’t win this election, I don’t think you’re going to have another election in this country,” have painted the election in existential terms.

As the United Nations Development Program concluded from its research into election violence around the world, “A common cause of election violence is that the stakes of winning and losing valued political posts are in many situations … incredibly high.”

Rendering the threat yet more severe is the range of possible locations and individuals that extremists may target, spanning the duration of election season. But how might violence differ at various stages of the campaign? Before the election, extremists may be more likely to target politicians on the campaign trail, seeking to intimidate them into changing their policies or deter them from running in the first place. Presidential candidate Nikki Haley had, for instance, requested Secret Service protection during her Republican Party primary challenge, while prominent Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher hinted that he was forced into retirement by threats against his family.

Based on experience, the election itself will likely feature armed intimidation at polling places and threats levied against election officials. A database analyzed by scholars Pete Simi, Gina Ligon, Seamus Hughes, and Natalie Standridge found that threats against public officials are likely to hit an all-time high in 2024. The data initially jumped in 2017, the year of Trump’s inauguration.

In the weeks after the forthcoming election, depending on the results, extremists will likely direct their animus toward representatives of the government—especially on one of the many ceremonial dates accompanying the transition of power—such the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, for instance. An exact repeat of that attack is probably less likely; law enforcement agencies will be far better prepared this time, and the groups that led the assault on the Capitol have been effectively dismantled by seditious conspiracy charges targeting their leadership.

Although white supremacist and anti-government extremists will be the likeliest to lash out, in line with trends over the past decade, violence from the far left cannot be discounted. Stabbing attacks have repeatedly targeted right-wing political leaders in Germany, for instance, and the harassment and violence targeting American Jews on U.S. college campuses have highlighted a more militant political left that has historically been quite open to violent action, including in the United States. This violent fringe has frequently deployed armed threats against politicians in particular—never more seriously than the lone gunman who targeted the Republican team practice for the congressional baseball game in 2017, or the far-left extremist from California who brought weapons to the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to threaten him in 2022.

Salafi jihadi actors are also emboldened by recent successes in Afghanistan, Iran, and Moscow, and they may seek to take advantage of this particularly divided moment in the United States to elbow themselves back into the national consciousness. FBI Director Christopher Wray has suggested that his organization is growing increasingly concerned about the “potential for a coordinated attack here in the homeland, not unlike the ISIS-K attack we saw at the Russian concert hall back in March.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has similarly warned that “threat actors” will likely “converge on 2024 election season,” with foreign adversaries using influence operations to further divide the U.S. populace and create new sources of divisiveness and violence.

Is the violence likely to lead to civil war? Trump and many of his allies have repeatedly warned that another election loss—coupled with forthcoming trial verdicts—would trigger one or lead to revolution in the United States. A post on Truth Social shared by Trump, for instance, suggested that 2024 might resemble 1776, “except this time the fight is not against the British, it’s against communist Americans.” The threat doubled down on Trump’s previous warning that his defeat would spark a “bloodbath” in this country.

Punditry, however, is not prophecy. Despite the warnings from scholars, policy wonks, journalists, and others, civil war is in fact unlikely in this country. Geographic distinctions between would-be warring factions today run urban-rural rather than north-south, robbing any potential seditious movement of the geographical safe haven it would need to engage in nationwide conflict. But political rhetoric and the proliferation of threats is almost certain to lead to some level of violence.

Making the threat even more serious is that the Biden administration carries little-to-no legitimacy among most hardcore Trump supporters—who still persist in believing that the 2020 election was stolen. The vice grip that these conspiracy theories hold on many mainstream Republicans means that any response by the Biden administration will be regarded as illegitimate—whether that response is deploying additional law enforcement or even the National Guard to polling places or seeking to educate the public about the veracity and integrity of U.S. elections.

In other words, the United States finds itself in a security dilemma, where any defensive measures designed to safeguard the electoral process will in fact likely be interpreted as an offensive strike—that is, to ensure a repeat electoral fraud. As the aforementioned White House protests have demonstrated, Biden also has little legitimacy in the eyes of the far left, meaning that particular movement would not likely be sated by a Democratic election victory.

Countermeasures will need to focus on education and law enforcement preparation. In particular, the Biden administration should champion education tools that reassure the U.S. public about the resilience of its electoral system from hacking or cheating while also pioneering digital literacy measures that might help protect Americans from disinformation and conspiracy theories shared online, including through artificial intelligence.

In particularly high-risk areas, which might include swing states, the administration should also consider raising the law enforcement presence to deter violent actors from targeting such locations. Successfully stopping violence, however, will require a bipartisan commitment to accept election results and publicly praise the integrity of the election and its many officials—which seems completely unrealistic at this stage.

Americans are therefore left with a political landscape defined by existential rhetoric and violent threats, with very little that the government can do to effectively counter these charges. Accordingly, the threat may be less of another civil war than of the total breakdown of the democratic electoral process that has defined the country since its creation.

[papirouge]

This was under a stupid radfem Zionist post, but I thought the tags extremely revealing in something that I clocked for a while in Zionist posts: they constantly put emphasis on the LEFT wing of antisemitism. Almost like antisemitism was "worse" when it came from a leftist which has to be the weirdest thing ever (peep the "progressive are the biggest antisemites")

I'm Black. And when I call out racism, it would NEVER occur in my mind to put a hierarchy between racism coming from leftists vs rigthoids. Racism is bad, point blank period.

By constantly putting "leftists" before antisemitism accusations, those Zionists are really telling on themselves that they don't really feel threatened by just antisemitism - they do feel threatened by the Left "antisemitism" = calling out the nationalist racial suprematist project that's modern day Israel.

I also find extremely interesting that whenever they see actual antisemite takes ("death to Jews" etc) from pro Palestine people they immediately assume that person is a leftist, when the support for Palestine can come from a diversity of people and political groups. Let's not forget that a handful of Arab countries are openly judeophobe and are not leftists or progressive. And even Zionists know this since they constantly mock queer pro Palestine leftists telling them they should go to Palestine (they somehow lump with every other judeophobe Arab nation in a very typical racist "savage Arab" essentialism) and see how badly they will be treated for their progressive politics.

Right wing antisemitism is actually a leverage for Israel existing. (Right wing) Antisemites hate Jews and want them as far as possible, away from their idealized pure White country. Right wing Antisemites and Zionists are objective allies. That's why Zionists hate leftists so much and hide behind the "antisemitism" excuse when they actually no issue allying with (right wing) antisemites for the greater good of Israel.

[creature-wizard]

What exactly is New Age? Some things I've read make it sound like cultural appropriation witchcraft (which is complicated, because something religions/cultures have a bit of overlap or similarities that showed up through parallel evolution) and some things make it sound like Scientology 2.

In a nutshell, New Age comes out of Theosophy, a perennialist spirituality that proposes that Earth and humanity are on a path of spiritual evolution, and that we are about to enter the next phase. Depending on who you talk to, you might hear it referred to as the New Age, the Aquarian Age, the Age of Aquarius, the Fifth Density, or Fifth Dimension. This is called "ascension."

Unfortunately, all of this was deeply influenced by Victorian age understandings of evolution and cultural advancement, which were racist as all fuck - you know, that whole thing of assuming that evolution progressed in a linear fashion, that some races of people were more objectively advanced than others, and that the "natural order" of things is that the more advanced will wipe out and replace the less advanced.

In New Age thinking, reaching the next stage in our cosmic evolution requires people to convert to New Age spirituality. Those who don't convert are to be purged. A number of New Agers have professed belief that the purpose of climate change is purging the unevolved/unenlightned. A number of them believe that "regressive entities" (essentially, those who reject New Age teachings) will be executed.

As for who they reckon as "regressive beings," you'll find it's typically the same people targeted by QAnon and pretty much every fascist movement - Jews, queer people, liberals, etc. New Age has always been heavily conspiratorial, because it's an easy way to justify why nobody ever heard of or believes in the "ancient wisdom" you're teaching, and it's always attracted and interested people with extreme right wing views - William Dudley Pelley and Hermann Wieland come to mind. Not every New Ager is equally hateful, but if you start looking through influential New Age literature you'll more often than not find it pushing antisemitism and/or Aryan idealism in some way.

New Age also incorporates ancient aliens, which itself was a pseudoscientific idea cooked up by people who refused to believe that ancient POC could have built anything they reckoned as "civilization" by themselves. This in turn influenced the whole starseed narrative, which essentially teaches that advanced alien souls are incarnating into human bodies to help "raise Earth's vibrational frequency" (New Age speak for "convert people to New Age beliefs"). The whole reptilian alien myth they believe in is pure antisemitism.

New Agers also cherry pick and misrepresent other people's spiritual traditions in order to fabricate "evidence" of their beliefs. Anytime there's a story about gods or angels banging humans, they'll claim it's about "alien genetic experiments." They'll ignore the animistic elements in many myths, because they just don't really comprehend that animism was and still is an entire thing for many cultures. Any time two myths are even vaguely similar, they'll claim they're talking about the same thing. (And of course, they believe that they, personally, know the correct and true interpretation of any myth.)

Since they're perennialists who believe that all religions are secretly the same under the surface, they think cultural appropriation is fine and dandy. They tend to idealize Native American and Eastern spiritualities the most, so that's what you'll usually find them appropriating and misrepresenting.

New Agers also tend to claim that science supports their belief, but they have a very... shall we say... misinformed conception of science. They butcher quantum physics to hell and back. They essentially understand "spiritual energy" as a form of radiation - and not just some kind of mystical, unknown form of radiation, but actual forms of radiation that we know about like light and electromagnetism. Supposedly, high vibrational energies are always morally and physically good for you, and low vibrational energies are morally and physically bad for you. Based on their own logic, touching the demon core should cure you of all illnesses and open and cleanse your chakras immediately.

Since New Age's endgame is eradicating all other forms of religion and spirituality, it is inherently genocidal. If you took out the parts that were problematic, it wouldn't really be New Age anymore.

This, I hope, sums things up for you. If you want more information, I recommend checking out my pinned post and my resources page.

[saspitite]

okay seriously. i cant find a single fucking video about like, say, a furry content creator/influencer that details their genuinely bad actions without said video also shaming their kinks and acting as if their kinks are just as bad, if not worse

continued below the cut, mainly because i dont typically talk about this stuff (and theres gonna be some mentions of stuff like antisemitism, n*zis, homophobia, etc. plus its a mildly long rant. oh and talking about kinks too. youve been warned)

i wanted to do a little more research into the Free Fur All nazi fur con because i find the right-wing side of the furry community to be quite the enigma, especially when right-wing fur cons inevitably happen. so i was like, hey, might as well start with a youtube video to get the gist and maybe get pointed in the direction of some other sources! but holy shit the videos i found constantly brought up how there were scawwy diaperfurs and thats what made them TRULY degenerate (/sarc). like seriously the fact that some of the associated people wore diapers overshadowed like 80% of the video. yeah sure its strange for the average person but like, you're talking about nazis. racists. homophobes. apparently some of them were also accused of being predators. but of course we also need to focus on them wearing diapers because wearing diapers as an adult is the worst crime in all of humanity (/sarc)

and this happens in so many other situations too, like trying to find info on furries that did some heinous shit is difficult because people will dig up the fact that they like scat or something and then rave about that for thirty minutes, and then "oh yeah this guy is also a white supremacist"

not to mention if someone dares to have a Weird Gender, might as well mock that a little too, right? /sarc

stop focusing on the wrong things. you're talking about horrible people- white supremacists, nazis, abusers, pedophiles, and so on, but you feel the need to put an emphasis on the kinks that some of them may have, for what purpose??? do you think someone wearing a diaper makes them magically predisposed to like, commit hate crimes?? and dont even try to bring up pedophilia as if thats plausibly related to wearing diapers in any fucking way. i hate when that word gets horribly misused.

another tired rant from me but i hope someone at least mildly understands what im getting at. its just annoying

[lego-man-speer]

Nuremberg Defendants: Part 4, Julius Streicher - Editor of Der Stürmer

The next part of my Nuremberg Defendants series! Click the links to read my previous posts (+ my post about Rudolf Hess)

Rudolf Hess

Alfred Rosenberg

Joachim von Ribbentrop

Baldur von Schirach

-Julius Streicher was born on the 12th of February 1885 in Fleinhausen. He was the youngest of nine children, the son of a primary school teacher.

-From 1904 Streicher would follow in his father's footsteps and become a primary school teacher. He was known for his short temper and dictatorial demeanour.

-Streicher married twice in his life. In 1913 he married Kunigunde Roth. Their marriage produced two children, Lothar and Elmar, and they remain wed until Kunigunde's death in 1943. In 1945 Streicher married his former secretary, Adele Tappe, and they remained wed until Streicher's death.

-When the First World War broke out in 1914 Streicher served as part of the 6th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. He was awarded both the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd class and was commissioned as a Lieutenant. Despite these awards he had poor behaviour in his military record. When the war ended he returned to teaching.

-In 1919 he joined the Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund (German Nationalist Protection and Defiance Federation) - a right-wing association that aimed to agitate the new Bavarian Socialist Republic. He also joined the German Socialist Party, but his anti-semitic rhetoric roused opposition against him, thus forcing him to leave. In 1921, Streicher joined the NSDAP and persuaded many of his followers to merge with the party also.

-After taking part in the Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923, Streicher was suspended from his teaching post. For the next few years he would lead a local organisation of the temporarily outlawed NSDAP. From 1924-1932 he held a seat in the Bavarian Parliament.

-He founded the weekly newspaper Der Stürmer (translated as “the attacker” or “the stormer”) in 1923. The newspaper reached a peak circulation of 600,000 in 1935. His newspaper was characterised by its anti-semitism (with frequent caricatures of Jews) and pornographic obsessions. A very common theme was the sexual violation of ethnically German women by Jews (in a speech he was quoted to have said that “the semen of a jew gets into a German woman's blood during sexual intercourse and thus poisons her soul”). He would use this to publish semi-pornographic pieces and images of degrading sexual acts. Streicher's unusually vulgar anti-semitism was criticised by many within the Nazi Party, however the content of his newspaper played an important role in labelling Jewish people as sub-human, and this would pave the grounds for future atrocities against Jewish people.

(Some excerpts from issues of Der Stürmer, featuring the typical antisemitic caricature.)

-Hitler declared Der Stürmer as his favourite newspaper, even going so far as to have each weekly issue posted in glassed-in display cases for public reading.

-His publishing firm made him a multi-millionaire. Along with his newspaper, the firm released three anti-semitic children's books, used to indoctrinate the youth into Nazi ideology.

-With Streicher's pornographic obsessions, it should come as no surprise that Streicher was rumoured to have been a sexual deviant himself. Rumours were spread by Göring accusing Streicher of having raped political prisoners. He was also rumoured to have been having extramarital affairs.

-His disagreeable temperament made him an enemy to many in the inner circle (especially Göring - he had forbade his own staff from reading Der Stürmer), and some party leaders did not consider him sane. His reputation as Gauleiter of Franconia (a position he had held since 1925) gave him the nicknames 'Frankenführer' and the 'Beast of Franconia'.

-Streicher's fall from power began during the aftermath of Kristallnacht in 1938. The Jews within his Gau were coerced into selling their properties or to cede their businesses to Streicher or to people named by him. The compensation payments were in many cases less than 10% of their real value. Later at the meeting of leading Nazi functionaries (12th November 1938) an investigative commission was set up which found corruption - the commission was concerned over the fact that Streicher personally enriched himself. He was also punished for spreading rumours that Göring was impotent and that his daughter (Edda Göring) was not conceived naturally. Streicher was also accused of adultery, several attacks on other Gauleiters and striding through the streets of Nuremberg while cracking a bull whip.

-On the 16th of February 1940 he was stripped of his party offices and withdrew from the public eye after being brought tot he Supreme Party Court and judged to be 'unsuitable for leadership'. He was prohibited by Hitler to enter Nuremberg, but was allowed to retain the title of Gauleiter and wear the uniform. The role of Gauleiter was not filled until 1944. During that time Hans Zimmerman (1940-1942) and Karl Holz (1942-1944) served as acting Gauleiters until the role was officially filled by Karl Holz. He held the role until his death in 1945. Despite Stretcher's fall from power, Hitler still considered him a good friend.

-Streicher was arrested on May 23rd 1945. He was found in his 'escape location' in the Alps. He presented himself as a painter named 'Sailer'. He was captured by American troops, led by Major Henry Plitt (who was Jewish). News began circulate that the biggest Jew baiter had been arrested by a Jew. While under allied interrogation he gave the impression that he was mentally confused.

-At Nuremberg he was indicted under counts 1 (conspiracy) and 4 (crimes against humanity). He had the lowest IQ among all of the Nuremberg defendants (106) and he was shunned by the other defendants.

-While imprisoned at Nuremberg he was labelled the 'dirty old man' of the prison. He would supposedly flush his prison toilet and then proceed to wash his face with the toilet water. He also made claims of mistreatment by the Allies. He claimed that they ordered him to take off his clothes and leave him naked in his cell for days; burned him with cigarettes and making him extinguish them with his bare feet; allowed him to only drink toilet water; made him kiss the feet of black soldiers; and beat him with a bullwhip. He also claimed that he was spat on and his mouth was forced open to be spat in.

-Streicher was theatrical on the witness stand and would answer questions from his lawyer with diatribes against Jews, the Allies and the Court. Streicher also complained that his judges were Jews. He was frequently silenced by court officers. More evidence of his eccentricity comes from prison psychologist Gustave Gilbert who claimed that Streicher believed that he had the ability to smell blood, and Streicher claimed that the leader of the SS (Heinrich Himmler) was “of negro blood”.

-Most evidence against Streicher at Nuremberg came from his newspaper Der Stürmer along with his speeches. Streicher claimed to have known nothing about the Holocaust and claimed to be merely a “nature lover who only wanted foreigners out of the country”. Prosecutors argued that he was an accessory to the Holocaust and was therefore just as guilty as those who actually ordered the exterminations.

-Streicher was acquitted on count 1 of the Nuremberg indictment but was found guilty on count 4. He was sentenced to death by hanging.

-At his execution he shouted the Hitlergruß from the bottom of the scaffold. His last words were “The Bolsheviks will hang you one day”. When the hood was placed over his head a muffled “Adele, my dear wife” was heard. Streicher died aged 61 and reportedly “went down kicking”. He could be heard groaning after falling through the trap door. It took him around 15 minutes to die.

OBLIGATORY MENTION: This post is purely educational and is in no way supportive of any right-wing ideologies.

[mask131]

I have been seeing a lot of people recently on Tumblr go 0_o upon the wave of antisemitism that is flooding Europe, the USA and the Internet recently. The reason they are shocked by this, however, is not because of the antisemitism itself... But because they see it comes from "the left". And this turns out to be a shock for them, because they have a hard time understanding how people on the "left-wing" of the political spectrum could end up being VERY antisemitic, as antisemitism was - even before the Nazi party was created - typically associated to the extreme-right and to the right-wing part of the political spectrum.

Except that... when you have been paying attentions to little details and some history lessons, it comes to no surprise at all. The extreme-left (because we have to say things as they are, the current wave of antisemitism is partially born from the extreme-left) is basically the twin of the extreme-right. And I am not just speaking of the fact antisemitism exists as a principle beyond any political party and any religion (antisemitism has been carried on throughout History by the left, the right, by apolitics, by Christians, by Muslims, by basically everyone that is not Jewish).

There was a French comedy movie that is talked about a lot - because it is a movie that never got to be made. It is a movie called "Le Crocodile", "The Crocodile". One of the reasons this unmade movie is so famous is because it was planned to be the "final" movie of Louis de Funès, considered to this day one of the greatest French actors and a monument of French humor. Louis de Funès' archetypal character, his "type-casting", was as a greedy, tyrannical, wrathful and petty, but ultimately ridiculous and sympathetic, middle-management type of guy, an ambitious, vain and cowardly person in a position of power that abused of it, but ultimately ended up either humbled by the story/events/other characters, or had his good side come out in the end. He was an antisemitic factory owner who ended up learning how to love and appreciate the Jewish community ; he was a tyrannical maestro who ended up forced to work for the Resistance during World War II ; he was a scheming, pollution-endorsing mayor who ended up forced to abandon everything because he was bested by his wife ; he was an abusive and criminal minister that kept knowing disgrace after disgrace, and ended up doing heroic deeds but just because the villains of the story were preventing him from doing his own political conspiracy... And "Le Crocodile" was supposed to be the culmination of these specific roles, as de Funès was to play a dictator losing his power during a revolution.

Inspired by Charlie Chaplin's own take on dictatorship, this movie was supposed to depict Louis de Funès as a Pinochet-caricature, "Crochet", an extreme-right dictator in an imaginary country. After a series of adventures, the dictator ended up overthrown by a rival and sent to prison. But his cunning and scheming knowing no bounds, he ended up going back to power... by shifting to the left-wing of the political spectrum, joining with left-oriented political activist, overthrowing his replacement, destroying his own old extreme-right government, to replace it by a new, left-revolutionnary government... That quickly became an extreme-left dictatorship led, once again by Crochet. And this was supposed to be the final, bitter joke of the movie: the beginning and ending of the story were supposed to be identical, because despite the political goals and vocabulary having changed, the dictatorship Crochet had rebuilt in the extreme-left was in all identical to his extreme-right dictatorship.

The movie was never made, unfortunately, due to Louis de Funès passing before shooting could begin. But the same message can be found in the classics of a fiction genre that is much more well-known by English audience: dystopia. What defined the "classical" dystopias, born during the height of the Cold War? From George Orwell's "1984" to Harlan Ellison "I have no mouth and I must scream", there is always this recurring motif of "You had various super-powers with opposing ideologies that waged war against each other... and yet now, we can't actually distinguish these opposite powers from one another, because they are doing the exact same thing and their ideologies end up reaching the same goals and the same points." This was a reaction to the dead-end of the Cold War, where the extremes of the Americanized, capitalist, "Western" block and of the Sovietized, communist "Eastern" block matched each other, resulting in the two looking identical in the eyes of many countries and people stuck in the middle of the two... But the lesson can be applied to any other situation, because it contains one core, fundamental truth people seem to have forgotten about today. Any extreme is bad ; and any good thing, taken to an extreme, will be horrible.

Take Christianity! A religion built on love and peace, and giving your food to the poor and offering the other cheek when you are slapped and forgiving those that betray you... And we ended up with the fucking Inquisition, and the witch hunts, and the religious wars, and many more atrocities, all in the name of "love and peace".

I digress here but honestly I want to get all of this out while I can, so that I have no more to say.

So yes, the "left" as people learned to know it today is based on good principles. (I personally hate reducing things to the "left" or the "right" when it comes to social matter, because for example defending people's right to have their own sexual orientation respected and recognized is not a political question, it is a human question... But since Tumblr users are still in shock unable to understand why the "left could be bad", and since we are facing extreme-left movements, I'll stick to this binary system for now). Yes, the left is the "side of the people" that works on helping the masses against the elite ; yes the left is the side of the "minorities" against "oppresors", yes the left has fought for excellent and needed things like feminism and acceptance and anti-racism... All good principles. And all principles that are turned into tools of hatred and oppression by the extreme-left.

I don't think I need to explain why the extreme-right is bad - in general people on Tumblr are very aware of it, and history has proven us what happens when the extreme-right rises up. Racism, discrimination, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fanaticism... All things typical of the extreme-right, no need to go further. But a lot of people seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around the system and the processes that lead to the "left" becoming the "extreme-left", and why the extreme-left can end up mirroring the extreme-right.

But the answer is very simple. It is this logic as old as time of "reverse bullying". When the bullied decided to take their revenge on the bully by bullying it in return, the bullied becomes the bully, and it does not solve anything since it just reverses the situation. Or more generally speaking: when the defense, love and acceptance of a minority/victim/side becomes hatred and rejection of the majority/bully/other side, there is an open gateway for BAD things. And the wave of antisemitism currently going on is a perfect representation of that.

I personally strongly disliked the extreme-left long before the whole Hamas-Israel situation. I hated the extreme-left because, especially in France, the extreme-left had the worst possible thing when it came to anti-intellectualism. Extreme-left politicians and activists have explicitely spoken against or attacked things such as higher education or any kind of school beyond high school, as well as things such as classical literature or old books. There is this "populist" idea behind the extreme-left, that, as "men/women of the people", as the "voice of the masses", they need to opposite, shit on and destroy anything seen or deemed as an "elite". But the "elite" isn't just your old rich white guy, oh no! The elite also means stuff seen as the intellectual elite. For example, classics of literature. Authors of older generations. And if you wonder how bad it can be: when during the last presidential elections the candidate for the extreme-left was not elected, its young supporters went to the university of the Sorbonne and trashed it. They destroyed computers, destroyed rare books within the university's library, they destroyed the papers and works of the students and teachers in there... Because they were angry at their candidate not being elected. And an university as old and as famous as the Sorbonne, THE French university, was thus seen as the "enemy" and as a symbol of what opposed the access of their candidate to the presidential position. And the result was... destroying books. Yes, bookburners can be as much from the right as from the left. Quite literaly some times.

There was this very hilarious but very very sad thing that happened in French Canada some years ago... There was this group of Canadians (white and Christians if I recall well) that wanted to show an open support and public excuses for how the Catholic Church, how the Canadian government and how white settlers treated the people of the First Nations and the discrimination they had to face. Nice, isn't it? The intention is good, public manifestations recognizing this dark side of the history is good, doing events to move forward is good, right? Except... we are talking about French-Canadians here. French-Canadian-Christians, who are... really something. So what did they do, to show their support to the First Nations? Give back some of their land? Remove some of the horrible laws against them? Recognize them more rights? NO! THEY BURNED BOOKS! Sounds like a joke? It is not. To show their support, what they did was take various comic-books and children books from the early-to-mid 20th century with representations of Native-Americans considered "offensive", and they burned them in a great bonfire. They literaly did... book-burning. To fight colonization and racism. A perfect example of how fucked up and warped it can all be.

This incident above is just one of the many incidents that I have collected across the years and that illustrated what I called the "bad woke". Now... when designating those ridiculous and dangerous excesses, I hate to just say "woke". Because the root of the "woke" ideas are good! Good and positive things: defend trans-people, defend gay people, encourage diversity and body-positivity and fight against racism and religious discrimination. These things are good! And too many people who are just homophobic, transphobic, racist or any other of fucked up jerk use "woke" as an insult and as a derogatory term for just being a normal uman being. So I do not like using "woke" alone to designate the fucked-up extremes the polar opposite side can ledn itself to. But... I have to recognize that there is a bad, extreme and toxic form of "wokeness", and until I can find a better term to designate this phenomenon, I will use the term "bad woke". And the process, the thought-system, the workings of the "bad woke" are the exact sames behind the extreme-left, and the sames that led to this wave of antisemitism drowning the Internet.

I evoked an incident that took place in France again years ago, which was more of an unthought, stupid mistake than an actual malicious intent, but showed how a slight twist can turn "good" from "bad". A "safe place" had been created somewhere, for women and trans people to be able to gather without any presence of men or non-trans people. So far so good, but the twist of the story is that when creating this space the rules for it were too summarized and too-shortened up, and so the creators of the space said this and plastered this on the walls: "Only women and trans people allowed. No men allowed." Do you see the logical problem? What about trans men? Trans men literaly didn't know what to do, since "trans" people were accepted and this space was built for them... and yet "men" as a whole were forbidden. Meaning if a trans man entered the space, they had to somehow not be recognized as a man, but as rather something closer to a woman?

This truly was just a stupid mistake by people who had not thought about it - but it actually shows the process by which defending one minority or an oppressed group can end up harming or hunting another minority/oppressed group. We are all aware of what happened when feminists and the feminism fight to defend women or provide them equal rights, ended up drifting into transphobia and hate on trans women for not being "real women". It is all a messy bag of snakes.

And so, what is the link to the antisemitism today? What does all this proves when it comes to the extreme-left and the Jews? Well, easy.

Why is the extreme-left antisemitic? Because one of the core of the extreme-left is, as I said, to fight against the "elite". Be it a social, cultural, ethnic or political elite, the "left" defined itself mostly as "the mass against the elite, the many against the few". This is mixed with the left fighting against racism, and also fighting against things such as colonization. Again, all very good things. But let's place ourselves in the mind of an antisemitic extreme-leftist. What happens? Why would I come after the Jews, who themselves are known to be an oppressed and discriminated against minority, in both ethnic and religious terms? Why would the extreme-left decide to make a prey out of the people the extreme-right was known to hunt?

Because they are seen as the "elite". We know that extreme-left groups feed into the same antisemitic delusions and conspiracy theories that the Jews are the secret elite controlling the world. Even if they are not hardcore conspiracists, the extreme-left movements have several Jewish stereotypes widespread among them - to take France, just a recent study showed that a lot of people who identified on the left-wing also recognized that Jews were wealthier than regular French people, that they had too much presence in finances, and too much presence in media. The extreme-left searches for a form of elite to fight against and shit upon and hate with all of its might - and when the antisemitic cliches present the Jews as this elite, as some sort of secret powerful cabal controlling the finances and the media and being wealthy and friends with politicians, the extreme-left will latch onto these ideas as if truth, because they hate any form of elite, no matter if the elite actually exists or not. It is no surprise that the same conspiracy cliches about "satanic cults murdering babies and drinking human blood" are used for both the Jews (supposedly the shadow elite) and the actual rich and wealthy, white WASPs family of the USA. Same conspiracy theory, different people.

Of course, the Hamas-Israel war has been what sparked the fire. Because Israel is seen as a colonizer, the Jews as a whole are identifying with other colonizing countries and historical colonizing empires. Because Israel currently has a right-wing/extreme-right government, the Jews are a whole are seen as being from the extreme-right. Because of the retaliation against the Hamas attacks upon Gaza are just a massive unleashing of destruction causing massive deaths and a humanitarian crisis, Jews are a whole are seen as being genocide-endorcers. With people even going as far as to say they became as bad as Nazis or worse, or that they are causing a new Holocaust - the Jewish history being literaly returned against them. Everything that surrounds the Hamas-Israel war needs a post of its own because we have EVERYTHING all at once. We have people who refuse to understand a conflict is not black and white, and that in this war there is no good guy or bad guy, just people suffering on both sides and a lot of deaths and horrors on both sides. We have people who generalize Israel as being somehow the embodiment of all the Jews in the world, and consider Jews from Africa or Europe or America to be responsible for Israel's actions - and who disguise antisemitism as "anti-zionism". We have people who, in their effort to paint Israel as the sole villain, will literaly treat the Hamas as heroes, and ignore for example the fact that they are a terrorist organization, that they actually attacked Israel in terrorist attacks (people even deny the Hamas attacks even happened, the same way you have negationists of the Holocaust), or that they are using the people of Gaza as meat-shield for Israel attacks, or that they have extremely fanatical and racist ideologies based on a genocide of Jews as a whole and the destruction of the USA. And the list goes on and on and this is such a mess...

But here is the thing... The Hamas attacks on Israel and Israel's retaliation were just the spark. Meaning there was fuel before that. And I already started explaining why. The extreme-left had strong latent antisemitic feelings which were widespread, but since not openly hostile or aggressive were not much spotted. (Unlike for example fanatical extreme-right Christians which are very loud and open about their hatred of Jews and parade Jewish caricatures around on signs). And while I evoked before the warped belief that the Jews are somehow an "elite", hence the discrimination, there is another factor that must be taken nto account... What I call the "pick-and-choose your minority" game.

To take for example extreme-left groups in France - but I think it works in other countries too. They are very open about defending minorities and people of color, and they have been strongly standing by the side of black people and Arab people and Muslim people and people from African descent. So far, so good... But the thing is that when you are careful, you see that they do nothing about or never speak about other minorities. For example the Jews, but also Asian people. Not a word, not a peep. And we know there is discrimination in France against them - we already have studies that proved that in universities (which, surprise, are mostly left-leaning) a "common" antisemitism was very widespread, not physical, but taking the form of discriminatory joke, the common use of slurs and other verbal abuse. But we also had a wave of discrimination against people of Asian ethnicites (mostly people of Chinese culture or descent, but given the perpetrators were racist I doubt they'd make a difference between China, Japan or Korea). There was a wave some years ago of brutal street-agressions and mugging and theft targeting Chinese women and Chinese elders (or Chinese-looking people). And the thieves and muggers, once caught, gave the same excuse antisemitic thieves gave: "Everybody knows they have money."

But the thing is that while extreme-left groups are very vocal and very violent when it comes to islamophobia or racism against black people... they are very quiet and discreet when it comes to antisemitic or discrimination against Asian people. (Or at least they were, because since their antisemitism was revealed, they have been very vocal about Jewish people on media, to defend themselves). And this little phenomenon, that mostly went unnoticed and unanalyzed by media, reflects a larger concept that was found everywhere - and in fact very present on the Internet - and that imbues the extreme-left. And this perverse concept is "Some minorities are real minorities. Others are not. Some people are real POCs. Others are not."

To be clear: many people consider that Jews or Asians are not supposed to be minorities, couldn't be oppressed and shouldn't be defended as much as "actual" people of colors or "true" minorities". Because, in their words, these ethnicities are "too white", or "too close to white people". They are "model minorities", they were "integrated", they are seen as coming from either "powerful" nations ranked the same as former colonialist powers (Japan, China), either from "sheltered" and "untouchable" areas (the massive Jewish acceptance and defense after WWII). And the result of these considerations is that the extreme-left treat these groups as just "shades of White people", and they get conflated with things such as "those racist WASPs folks" or "the dominant all-white Christian xenophobes". And then all the stereotypes are thrown at them - the Jews, just like Asians, have supposedly too much influence on politics, too much presence in media, they are naturally wealthier than regular people, they are naturally less discriminated and less hated than others... And in turn, the extreme-left decides "We will not speak of them. We will not fight for them or stand up for them because they do not need it, because they are too close to the elite, because they are too close to our enemies. We'll focus on more "important" people."

And thus, from the noble cause of defending oppressed and discriminated minorities that knew a long history of racism and persecution... we go perpetuating the discrimination and erasure of OTHER minorities and ethnicities that had a long history of racism and persecution. It is... like some sort of perverse "discrimination contest" where people somehow "deserve" to be defend against discriminations and others do not? Some sort of fucked-up ethnic hierarchy that in the end is literaly no different from the same ethnic hierarchies racists of the extreme-right put in place to justify their hatred.

And if the slightest event produces a spark strong enough to set the fuel ablaze... the extreme-left goes from ignoring and passive discrimination to active discrimination. As we can see today by the left of extreme-left antisemitism.

I don't think I have anything else to say? This post is very long, but I got to say everything I had to say, and I am quite glad I did. I wrote it all in one go, so there might be typos, but I do not think I can sum up my words anymore than that.

[theculturedmarxist]

Conversations about white supremacy in America today typically center on right-wing media and incendiary politicians who blast out racist dog whistles.

But hate doesn’t need demagogues to get mainstreamed; it has also found an outlet at elite universities.

On June 29, Stanford University hosted a delegation from the Azov Brigade, a neo-Nazi formation in the Ukrainian National Guard. The panel, during which Azov’s neo-Nazi insignia was projected onto the wall, was attended by noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who posed for a photograph with the delegation.

This event — and the disturbing lack of reaction from Jewish organizations — showcases the limits of America’s commitment to combating white supremacy.

Call it the Ukraine exception.

Before Russia’s 2022 invasion, nearly every Western institution raised alarms about Azov. Putin’s brazen attack on Ukraine led to a much deserved outpouring of support for the country. Unfortunately, it also led to suppression of those who criticize the dark side of Kyiv: its reliance on far-right military elements, the most prominent example of which is Azov.

Even amid today’s surge of antisemitism globally, Azov has become the Teflon Neo-Nazis: freedom fighters who can do no wrong, celebrated across America, including at prestigious institutions like Stanford.

All too often, this adulation of a neo-Nazi formation has been met with silence by the Jewish community.

From neo-Nazis to heroes 

Azov began in 2014 as a paramilitary battalion formed out of a neo-Nazi street gang; it helped Kyiv fight back against Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine. Azov eventually grew into a brigade in Ukraine’s National Guard. In addition to committing war crimes, the unit is notorious for its recruitment of radicals from around the world, including America.

Azov’s radicalism has been tracked by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League, banned as a hate group by Facebook and blocked from receiving weapons by Congress.

But then, Russian president Vladimir Putin used Azov as “justification” for his invasion. Moscow needed to sell the war to the public — it exploited Azov’s existence by falsely painting Ukraine as teeming with fascists and Russia’s invasion as a “denazification” mission.

The reaction of the West played in Azov’s favor. The existence of white supremacists certainly doesn’t give Putin the right to invade Ukraine. The Kremlin’s premise of “denazification” also rings hollow, considering there are plenty of neo-Nazis fighting for Moscow.

But for Azov, Moscow’s obsession has been a ticket to the limelight. Buoyed by the notion that If Putin hates them, they must be the good guys, brigade members have been welcomed to Congress and lauded on television.

In addition to an Azov veteran, the Stanford appearance featured Kateryna Prokopenko, whose husband Denys was the brigade’s commander through the spring of 2022.

Denys Prokopenko has been photographed with his platoon’s informal insignia of a bearded Totenkopf, a type of skull-and-crossbones used by the SS. He was also featured on the cover of Azov’s unofficial magazine, which uses the Sonnenrad neo-Nazi rune favored by white terrorists like the perpetrator of last year’s massacre in Buffalo, New York.

Third Reich insignia on an elite campus

Last week’s event wasn’t Azov’s first Stanford tour – a delegation was also welcomed there last fall. Ironically, one of Stanford’s own institutes published a report chronicling Azov’s white supremacy mere months before the brigade’s visit.

When asked about Azov’s return to campus, a university spokesperson told me via email on June 27 that the event was co-sponsored by the Ukrainian Student Association at Stanford at the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. “The university does not take positions on outside speakers that groups within our community want to hear from,” they added.

But Azov’s visit concerns an issue Stanford has taken a position on: Nazi symbolism.

The flyer advertising the Azov event contains the brigade’s official insignia, which is the wolfsangel, yet another hate symbol used by both the Third Reich and today’s neo-Nazis.

This isn’t the first Stanford incident involving Nazi imagery. However, the lack of response on Azov stands in sharp contrast to Stanford’s actions in previous cases. 

n 2019, Stanford was embroiled in controversy after left-wing cartoonist Eli Valley was invited to speak on campus. Valley, whose artwork features grotesque satire using Nazi imagery, was met with protests. Indeed, it led to university officials issuing a lengthy statement condemning antisemitism.

This March, the school addressed the discovery of swastikas in a dormitory by stating, “Stanford wholeheartedly rejects antisemitism, racism, hatred, and associated symbols, which are reprehensible and will not be tolerated.”

When more antisemitic attacks followed in April, Stanford’s president said: “I want to make it very clear that we will not tolerate antisemitism and the symbols of antisemitism here on campus. It is something we need to eradicate.”

Yet despite these declarations of commitment to combating antisemitism, Stanford has not responded to repeated inquiries about the university’s position regarding the Azov event displaying the wolfsangel.

We seem endlessly surprised at politicians like Donald Trump who refuse to accept responsibility for actions that enable bigotry. It shouldn’t be surprising, considering demagogues don’t bother with responsibility; that’s what makes them demagogues. 

But what about a pillar of education and enlightenment like a prestigious university? What’s Stanford’s excuse? 

Calling out neo-Nazism: Void where prohibited

Our tolerance of Azov seems even more alarming when we consider reactions to neo-Nazism that don’t involve the brigade.

In 2018, Rep. Matt Gaetz was caught inviting a Holocaust denier to the State of the Union. Gaetz’s decision to platform hate on Capitol Hill was condemned by colleagues and the ADL.

But there have been no denunciations of numerous lawmakers who welcomed Azov fighters to Washington. This includes Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who was photographed with an Azov veteran whose Twitter contained pictures of him wearing a shirt with 1488 (neo-Nazi code) and “likes” of a Hitler photo and “Death to Kikes” graffiti. 

Indeed, Azov delegations to Washington proudly advertise their meetings on the Hill. 

Or see how Jewish media and the State Department took the trouble to condemn musician Roger Waters for wearing a fascist uniform during concerts (this is part of Waters’ performance of The Wall, a satire of fascism).

The very same day, The New York Times exposed the prevalence of Nazi symbols in Ukraine’s armed forces, which receive billions in American weapons. You’d imagine this news would be at least as concerning as a musician’s costume. Yet neither the State Department nor Jewish watchdogs reacted to it (and neither the State Department or the ADL have responded to my requests for comment).

The American Jewish community must condemn neo-Nazism without exception, not just when geopolitically convenient. They can start by calling on institutions like Stanford to stop platforming Azov.

[vengefulvermin]

introduction

hello! my name is Salem, i'm a fan artist! i'm kinda new to tumblr and have been here (as in having an account) for 1 year now, and i hope i have fun while i last here! ^_^

i love reblogging things!!

on this blog you'll find things from these fandoms (in no order):

David Bowie

Labyrinth

Ride The Cyclone

Rock & Rule (1983)

MLP:FIM

Scott Pilgrim franchise

Rocky Horror Picture Show

The Beatles

Little Shop of Horrors

The Phantom Of The Opera

probably more i forgot to list

check #salemdraws tag for my art!

second blog : @throughdangersuntold831

racists, sexists, anti-lgbtq+, terfs, islamophobes/antisemites/religion haters, right-wing blogs + Israel/in general war supporters pls DNI (coming from someone who is and is surrounded by people effected by them)

hate is never the way!!

DMs are open to moots!!

more about me:

i like to draw (obviously) and i also enjoy writing amateur, generally platonic, fan fiction that i'll probably never release. i'm a goth and that might not seem apparent from what music i typically reblog LOL

if it isn't already apparent i am neurodivergent and as of writing this Labyrinth and David Bowie are my now year-long hyperfixations. i love older films. i have social anxiety so i may struggle responding to random DMs, but i love my mutuals and appreciate you all.

i hope you enjoy my stuff!!

❤️❤️

[a-very-tired-jew]

Ironic Jokes as a Path to Radicalization

There was a post on here a few days ago, that for the life of me I can't find, talking about how "ironically" engaging with and telling 4chan style bigoted jokes eventually leads to the individual believing the rhetoric behind them. The path from ironic jokester telling "edgy" jokes to right wing bigot is a topic that has been well tread. But I haven't seen the same applied for the Left, and I think it's part of why we've seen such extreme abandonment of professed Leftist ideals since October. If you've exist or have existed in Leftist spaces in any capacity you will often find "jokes" about blowing up businesses, police departments, houses of politicians, and guillotines. These typically get the usual "haha, I wish" in some capacity and reflect the American Left's distrust, disgust, and dislike of our current system and all its faults. But, like the above 4chan right wing irony pipeline, this type of "ironic" humor leads to radicalization as well. It would make sense that if 4chan edgelord style jokes lead to right wing bigotry then Lefty edgelord style jokes would lead to left wing bigotry. This would explain, in part, why we so many Leftist spaces and individuals openly endorse violent acts of terrorism. Many of these jokes contain antisemitism in some form, they're just hidden behind the veneer of Left wing jargon to make them acceptable. They're not outright calling someone a k***, but they are alluding to antisemitic conspiracies. After enough jokes are told and time passes then people believe in it (and anecdotally I now realize I know some people who were radicalized this way). So yeah...be careful of your "ironic" jokes and the persons who tell them. It's a potential path to bigoted radicalization.

[hero-israel]

Hi there! So I have what feels like a stupid question, but I'm coming up empty and you are very knowledgeable. When I first started learning more about Judaism and Israel, I was coming from a leftist goyische American viewpoint that sees Medinat Yisrael as guilty of atrocities as a baseline belief, even if it didn't name specific incidents. Whenever I would look into these claims to understand the specific allegations though, I would just see more generic claims about how Israel is a settler-colonial state, how Israel is trying to genocide Palestinians, how Israel is a warmongering apartheid country, but very little in the way of specific incidents to back up these very serious accusations. Anything that seemed like it might go into that was either 1) in Hebrew, 2) in Arabic, and/or 3) so virulently antisemitic as to make it a compromised source. Occasionally I would find a claim that made sense to me, and then I would immediately find another source thoroughly debunking it. Eventually I just kind of gave up looking for any evidence of malfeasance and just waited for the (typically Jewish sources only) retractions to roll in 3 months later. Anyway at this point, years later, I'm now a progressive Zionist Jew, but I'm still baffled and it makes me feel like I'm losing my mind a bit, because I've literally never found what they're talking about and it's made me question every other political situation more, because what if there's a similar situation? I'd be fine to hear genuine criticisms of Israel and things to address, but so far I haven't found anything based in verifiable facts. At this point my trust in mainstream media is zero, so I guess what I'm asking is (a) are there genuine atrocities happening and if so, are there non antisemitic sources reporting on it and progressive Zionists trying to address them, and (b) if not, besides frustrated incoherent sputtering, any ideas about how to get goyische leftists to give a shit about facts and fact-checking? Any favorite sources that aren't right-wing and/or Islamophobic/anti-Arab?

....how did you ever get an Ask that long?

It is okay to feel unsure where to start, since Israel is a topic where most of the "common knowledge" is complete lies and many of the "expert sources" are antisemitic conspiracy crackpots. That includes the New York Times (probably the most prestigious newspaper in the world, openly loathes Jewish distinctiveness and whitewashes those who murder and ethnically cleanse us), the Lancet (most prestigious medical journal in the world, turned its pages over to KKK and 9/11Truther memelords to "criticize Israel"), every reporter and NGO who bought into the "Jenin massacre of 2002" hoax, every Twitter account that says "Israel sterilized African Jews and trained cops to kill African-Americans", and the United Nations (which is just Congress but with less democracy and more racism).

Recommended sources for accurately reporting on Israel - both the good and the bad - include:

Benny Morris

Tom Segev

Yair Rosenberg

Matti Friedman

David Schraub

Bari Weiss

Aviva Klompas

Eve Barlow

Emily Schrader

I could have listed more if you hadn't specifically asked me to avoid people who self-ID as conservatives. Hope this helps!

[mariacallous]

Elon Musk may have put the final nail in X’s coffin. On Wednesday, Musk appeared to endorse an antisemitic post by user @breakingbaht alleging that “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” In response, Musk posted, “You have spoken the actual truth.”

The original post seemed to echo the beliefs of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which is popular among white supremacists and right-wing extremists. The backlash has been swift. In a statement earlier today, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates condemned the “abhorrent promotion of antisemitic and racist hate in the strongest terms, which runs against our core values as Americans,” and marquee advertisers have been quick to pull their business. IBM, Disney, Liongsgate, and the European Union have pulled advertising from X in response to Musk’s post. According to a report in Axios, Apple has also paused advertising on X.

At the time of publication, Apple had not responded to multiple requests for comment, nor has it confirmed that it is pulling its advertising from X.

“Advertisers like IBM and Apple aren’t just big names, they’re big spenders on X,” says Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, a media watchdog group which has been tracking advertiser behavior on X. Carusone, citing data shared by data insights firm Sensor Tower, says that in July, the top five advertisers on X by spending were Apple, FinanceBuzz.io, Amazon, Mondelez International, and Hewlett-Packard. In the past, Apple has frequently been among the top 20 advertisers on X.

Carusone adds that Apple typically signals a certain level of brand safety to other, smaller advertisers. The company is also known for its stringent policies around controversial content in its App Store and on its own platforms. If Apple has paused, or plans to pause, its advertising on X, it “could have a halo effect,” Carusone claims, scaring other advertisers away from the platform. “It goes way beyond money.”

In August, X CEO Linda Yaccarino emphasized that the company was expanding its brand-safety tools, designed to give advertisers and marketers more control over what kind of content their ads appeared in proximity to.

But this recent spate of antisemitic content on X, and the juxtaposition of big-brand ads next to it, only underscores to advertisers that X is a risky bet, experts argue. “Even with those tools, if you’re an advertiser right now you’re thinking, there’s quite literally nothing I can do on this platform to improve my experience,” Carusone says.

“The problem with X is not only that there's misinformation and antisemitic content on the platform, and other hateful content as well, but that it's being spread by Musk himself,” says Jasmine Enberg, principal analyst for social media at Insider Intelligence, a market research firm.

“The brand safety concern for advertisers isn't just about the content but about the platform and the leadership.” Enberg argues that Musk has treated the company like something he could remake in his own image, not understanding that “what he wants and what he seemingly believes is not necessarily aligned with what users and advertisers on the platform want and believe.”

Under Musk’s leadership, X is expected to see an unprecedented 54 percent drop in advertising revenue, which previously accounted for more than 90 percent of the company’s total.

Even before Musk took ownership of then-Twitter, experts worried that his particular brand of free speech absolutism would lead to a flood of trolls and hate speech on the platform. In his first weeks as owner, Musk laid off nearly everyone working on trust and safety, the teams responsible for ensuring that hate speech, violence, and inappropriate content stay off the platform. (Hate speech did, in fact, increase under Musk’s leadership.) Musk’s lax approach to content moderation also nearly got the platform banned during the 2022 presidential runoffs in Brazil, the platform’s third largest market.

In response, advertisers began to flee, worried about the brand safety risks of their products appearing next to hateful or inflammatory posts. Since joining X as CEO earlier this year, Yaccarino, formerly global advertising lead at NBCUniversal, has seemingly been hampered in her ability to woo back advertisers by Musk’s decisions. And while X has claimed it was regaining advertisers, an October study from Media Matters found that X’s 100 largest advertisers were spending 90 percent less than they did before Musk’s takeover.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jewish Institute for Liberal Values

Published: Apr 1, 2024

A Guide to Left-wing Antisemitism 🧵

Left-wing antisemitism entails prejudice, discrimination, or hostility against Jews, based on leftist ideologies. It's especially insidious, as it often masquerades as part of a broader "Social Justice" movement.

How does antisemitism on the left compare to the far-right?

Political horseshoe theory illustrates similarities between far-left and far-right antisemitism. Despite ideological differences, both extremes view Jews as a singular malevolent group with excessive power.

Far-right antisemitism is often overt and easily identifiable, while left-wing antisemitism is typically more subtle, making it more prevalent and socially acceptable among progressives.

What does left-wing antisemitism look like?

Labeling Jews as 'Oppressors': Jews are framed as “privileged” and “oppressors” within an “intersectional” academic framework, disregarding their diverse experiences and history of persecution.

Anti-Zionism: While criticizing Israeli policies is not inherently antisemitic, denying Jewish self-determination or deeming Israel illegitimate can be.

Collective Guilt: Holding all Jews accountable for Israel's actions constitutes a form of antisemitism.

Selective Outrage: Disproportionate criticism of Israel while overlooking similar or worse actions by other countries reflects a bias against Jews.

Holocaust Revisionism: Denying or downplaying the Holocaust, often disguised as questioning historical narratives or criticizing Israel, is a form of antisemitism sometimes found on the left.

Where does left-wing antisemitism come from?

While there have been various influences, one significant contributor stems from an academic framework that emerged around the 1970s: Postcolonial Theory.

This theoretical framework was pioneered by Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said, who framed Zionism as a “colonial project.”

Postcolonial Theory, like other Critical Theories, operates as a form of activist scholarship. While presenting itself as legitimate and rigorous, it prioritizes its political goals over the genuine production of knowledge.

Postcolonial Theory doesn't aim for historical accuracy. Instead, it seeks to "reenvision history" from the "perspective of the oppressed."

Within Postcolonial Theory, Israel is portrayed as a colonial, imperialist, oppressive power, while Palestinians are depicted as helpless victims without agency—even those that commit the October 7 atrocities.

This portrayal has significantly influenced perceptions, particularly in activist circles, turning the cause of "Free Palestine" into a trendy "Social Justice" issue. 

How did left-wing antisemitism spread?

Middle-eastern Funding of Universities: Undisclosed billions from the Middle East to U.S. universities have influenced academic discourse, framing the Israel-Palestine conflict as a struggle for “indigenous rights” against “colonialism.”

Social Media Activism: Social media has helped propel what was once an obscure academic field mostly confined to college campuses into an international post-colonialist movement.

DEI: Through corporate diversity programs, post-colonial concepts have become a dominant ideology in mainstream institutions, including many Jewish organizations.

Underestimating the problem: Many Jewish organizations dedicated to combating Jew hatred chose to focus on far-right antisemitism, allowing left-wing antisemitism to proliferate. 

Why the focus on left-wing antisemitism?

Many Jewish organizations already exist to tackle antisemitism associated with the far-right. While there is concern about threats on both sides of the aisle, the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV) focuses on the left.

JILV was formed in 2021 to address a specific ideology emerging on the left that has become embedded into our institutions and propagates antisemitic ideas and tropes.

Visit to learn more.

[communistkenobi]

The general pattern we are investigating here is characterised by an all-pervasive feature. These [high-scoring] subjects want no pity for the poor, neither here nor abroad. This trait seems to be strictly confined to high scorers and to be one of the most differentiating features in political philosophy.

At this point, the interrelatedness of some of the ideas measured by the PEC [politico-economic] scale and certain studies caught by the F [fascism] scale should be stressed. Abolition of the dole, rejection of state interference with the “natural” play of supply and demand on the labour market, the spirit of the adage “who does not work, shall not eat” belong to the traditional wisdom of economic rugged individualism and are stressed by all those who regard the liberal system of being endangered by socialism. At the same time, the ideas involved have a tinge of punitiveness and authoritarian aggressiveness which makes them ideal receptacles of some typical psychological urges of the prejudiced character.

This is one of the more “obvious” findings in this book (ie, right wingers hating the poor), but it should probably be stressed over and over and over again that fascists do not give a fuck about poor people. They actively despise poor people. The logical conclusion of this political philosophy is the eternal immiseration and disenfranchisement of poor people - in effect, a policy of extermination that is framed as “being their own fault” for not working hard enough. When fascists speak of economic anxieties they are not speaking to the lower classes. Their “grassroots” working class aesthetics are completely insincere.

This goes hand in hand with fascistic essentialist thinking - the underclass of society must inherently deserve their place. People are not poor by circumstance or history, they are spiritually poor, ontologically poor - the very fact that they are poor proves they deserve their fate. When fascists speak of “the common man” or profess concern about downward economic mobility, they are bemoaning the struggles of the middle class, who do not deserve to live in poverty amongst the “real” poor people. They view economic hierarchy as an unchanging rigid system, and the only reason the middle class would be losing power in america is because of some unseen, omnipresent force in the government that is secretly attempting to destroy American values and way of life. This is where the antisemitism becomes explicit - Jewish people are “the misfit bourgeoise,” this class who has infiltrated the natural eternal hierarchy of American capitalism and perverted it for the express purpose of punishing the white middle and upper classes.

So Nazis are not poor bigoted hicks, nor is their political base made up of poor people. Poor Nazis certainly exist, but those people hold very little political power by simple fact of their economic position. Fascism as a political force holds the most power in those higher classes, and were fascism to be fully realised in our political and economic systems, poor people would suffer across the board. Fascists hate poor people. I feel like I can’t stress that enough. Any account of fascism you read or hear about that focuses on the working class aesthetics or elements of right wing rhetoric misunderstands the political goals of fascists

[butch-reidentified]

I know frequently the “anti terf” people lie about this straight up but sometimes they don’t. Here’s an example where clearly there are links between “disagree with trans ideology due to feminism” < - > “like anything “transphobic” because edgy” < - > “disagree with trans ideology due to trad/mra racist alt right views”

https://www.tumblr.com/ladiablesse/729815657616736257/the-fact-that-this-post-of-all-things-ended-up-on

As fucking typical the right wing n word saying bullshit starts right after https://www.tumblr.com/americanette reblogs it

She doesn’t say it but she does say some mra bullshit about how the real sadness here is men aren’t protecting women as they rightly should 🙄

Then within the next hour here come

https://costcohotdogandsoda.tumblr.com/

(Also with Bible verse in bio)

Saying “average n*gger behavior.”

And https://www.tumblr.com/anew-jackson

Saying ““black men are inherently violent”

radfem 🫱🏽‍🫲🏻 radright”

Where op is still off base is the majority of the notes on her post are actually radfems or adjacent and none of them at all lead to right wing blogs picking it up

Plus of course some people just don’t look at who follows them and of course there are right wing assholes who deliberately try to pick off anyone with the slightest disagreement with the main leftist view.

I can’t blog about issues to do with Palestine for example without a bunch of antisemites following me and trying to convince me to be antisemitic about it. That doesn’t prove my views about Palestine are inherently antisemitic — they very much aren’t. Same for how radfems/gc end up being with attracting a lot of right wing actually-transphobic (and sexist and racist and homophobic) attention.

But please people if you are at all connected to blogs like americanette that shit seriously — taking time to disengage our arguments and discussion in all spaces online and off from the right wing will do more for us than the next 10 gc memes you bother to make and post. Don’t lie, you’ve got the time.

This also isn’t like working with your normie right leaning cousin on abortion because she agrees with you about that. You aren’t making connections here you are being made a patsy to keep you alienated from the left and to keep more women on the left from joining us in an actually revolutionary feminist movement. Right wing people online absolutely know the more they get you to openly connect with them the more they can use that to keep young women in particular away from listening to you about feminism.

Hypothetical you btw I am sending this to a few different blogs because I bothered writing it and don’t have a rf blog to put it on yet. I’m pretty new. Not as a reader but as someone agreeing. I know this works because it worked to keep me away from learning more about rf for a long time. Not the rumor of racism and FAR right wing connections being ignored or celebrated but seeing the evidence. It was actually seeing americanette suggested as a blog within moments of following rf blogs that put me off for another few months. Was there going to be another issue I was forced to sit through racist attacks from “my own” side over?? Seems to be yes but maybe it’s getting better.

so i'm not 100% following here bc i can't see the link at the beginning but i think i got the gist.

the op blocked me so i cannot click the first link but this is an earlier version of the post in question

first: yes racism is a problem among radfems (i've yet to encounter any mixed race environment where it isn't a problem), but i will say i see a bit more effort to combat it here than in most online spaces i've been around. not that that's a high bar, lbh.

tumblr recommendeds should not be trusted, though, and they don't necessarily mean much. the algorithms aren't exactly unbiased. and keep in mind sock accounts to vilify radfems are very real and present, as are troll accounts. i don't know who any of the people you linked to are tho so i can't speak on that, and 2 have me blocked or maybe i blocked them ages ago and don't remember. i do typically block right wing blogs on sight,so it's possible. also it seems some of the stuff you linked to was maybe deleted?

i will say unequivocally that being intentionally "transphobic" in an edgy way is not productive and should not be supported in radfem spaces. we are here to criticize and analyze, not to be outright cruel for the sake of being cruel. many people seem to forget this.

i do not personally know any women here who engages with right wing blogs, even in argument. i'm sure they exist, but not in my sphere - though i don't actually spend very much time online. i think most folks ik on here just block and move on.

as a side note, i used to look at who follows me etc but i have like 3500 followers now bc i've been here a long time and make original posts pretty often, so it is no longer realistic to monitor who's following me - i really don't have THAT kind of time or energy. but if i see someone reblogging from me who's shit, i block. i have no idea what the typical follower count is on radblr but generally speaking, i think people should only be held so responsible for who follows them. making an effort is important, but i don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be online enough to thoroughly check all their followers.

as for this^ this stuff is said deliberately to get a reaction from radfems and/or to discredit us. unless a radfem im blocked by or have blocked said so in the notes, i didn't see anything implying "black men are inherently violent." this kind of post is usually making shit up to antagonize radfems or misrepresent radical feminism as an ideology. this is not to say there's no radfem who believes wildly racist bullshit like that - in fact, i'm confident there are, since they're everywhere. it's just not at all a staple of radfems like this implies.

but yes, bottom line, radblr is far from immune to racism, but isn't the worst i've seen either, and things like "recommendeds" or shitty people reblogging from radfems should be taken with a grain of salt as neither of those inherently indicates an endorsement from the rad blog connected to the incident, if that makes sense. my brain is mush rn after driving 4 hours.