#Anti-Bolshevist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kulay-ng-banaag · 9 months

Text

In the spirit of releasing all emotional debts on New Year's Eve, I’m going to open up about my frustrations regarding Desa aka dinosaurusgede aka the creator of Maaf.

For context, she made a Twitter account around the time that Himaruya properly introduced the newly canonized cast of SEA nations (Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia). Like many other fans, she rode the nostalgia wave in creating content of them. By this point in time, Maaf was more or less a “finished” story to her — whatever Hetalia/SEAtalia content she published from that point onward was not as a continuation of, nor even as a reboot, of Maaf (although she did mention entertaining that idea). For the most part, the newer works she uploaded on Twitter were independent stories and were not necessarily linked to one other either.

Regrettably, I cannot present the problematic page/s for a more thorough and guided scrutiny because she deleted her Twitter account. Unless someone out there saved them, and frankly I wouldn't know who did nor would care to find out, everything was lost to the void. I’m literally working on what was imprinted in my memory by spite, so I apologize if I misremember details.

This will include discussion of anti-indigenous racism and other issues pertaining to colonialism.

She had an IndoPhil story titled Trust Me? and it was inspired by a fanmade BruPhil AMV wherein Indonesia was manipulating Philippines into believing that he was married to Indonesia and not Brunei. Trust Me? kept that concept of a manipulative Indonesia; the key difference being that Indonesia’s motivation for it (in Desa’s story) was the mix of hurt over Philippines “losing his precolonial memories” — based on popularized misconceptions of early Philippine history — of and how that was “aggravated” by his Westernization™, made worse under the United States (350+ years in the convent getting ratio'd by 50 years in Hollywood is hilarious ngl).

That was a lot to unpack, but before we even get there:

Indonesia and Philippines were having a tender moment when HWS America (as in the Hetalia personification that is Alfred F. Jones) walks in calling out "MY LITTLE BROWN BROTHER!"

Indonesia entered his Joker arc because he recalled how HWS America dumped the Philippines in a human zoo at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair. There was an explicit panel of Philippines in Igorot* dress and a painfully forlorn bearing.

What "triggered" Indonesia was when, after the flashback, Piri goes up to Indonesia and asks him if he's a Bolshevist 🥺 (the idea was PH being brainwashed by Red Scare propaganda). Cue kabedon moment from Indonesia, and basically a yandere walk down "memory lane."

I did not have it in me to finish reading that comic...

*Igorot is an outdated umbrella term for the upland indigenous peoples of Northern Luzon

Aside from the clearly intended shock value of that depiction, I was taken aback by the painful lack of objectivity on her part when it came to the reading of history. To be fair on Desa, she never specialized in history studies, so it was only courteous that we could not expect her to have as developed of a critical reading as trained academics of history. Unfortunately, that was precisely why I disagreed with the popular notion of Desa as both a great researcher and a great storyteller of her research — all the more when Maaf was just the mangafication of certain Wikipedia articles.

To be fair as well on Wikipedia, it was, at best, a satisfactory jumpstart into more in-depth reading, and we could give it the benefit of the doubt that revisions had since been made to at least some of the articles that Desa relied on while making Maaf (more than 10 years is more than enough time for change). Nevertheless, the articles themselves did not teach users how to scrutinize the sources — most especially the biases of the sources’ author/s — utilized in building up the information.

That mattered because much of the retrospect narratives about the St. Louis Fair had a tendency of raising awareness through the newspaper articles that covered the exhibition at the time. These chronicled the impressions of the visiting authors, who likely (and I say likely because we would have to more exhaustively discern their personal politics one by one) were biased in favor of the “benevolent assimilation” of the Philippines — and the sights that they beheld only validated it further. They did not, however, explain why these Philippine indigenous peoples were brought in in the first place — information that could have further cemented Desa's reputation had she truly spent the efforts, even while understandably juggling other commitments as we all do. Instead, she only perpetuated the habit of sacrificing the veracity of equally important, finer details to the bigger picture in order to sensationalize righteous fury against colonialism.

The 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair was also formally known as the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, giving away its purpose as a commemoration. More appropriately, it was the centennial anniversary (technically delayed by a year though) of the acquisition of French Louisiana, expanding the territorial bounds of the United States. Additionally, the point of a world’s fair was to showcase the achievements of a nation, and one could also think of it as the sale of a fever dream — what more for a fast-growing, fledgling power the likes of the United States, itself a former colony? On another note, the St. Louis World’s Fair was not the only one of its kind so no, the US is not that original lmao.

One could thus see how the inclusion of a dedicated exhibit to the newly acquired colony that was the Philippines neatly fit into the themes of a world's fair centralized on the US. It was all the more a paramount topic of debate, with prominent Americans the likes of Mark Twain (here are selected excerpts, but I highly recommend reading the entirety of his To the Person Sitting in the Darkness) publishing anti-US imperialism opinions, even after the endgame of the Philippine-American War essentially favored the pro-imperialists. While dissent from the American side at the time remains poorly studied AND THAT'S ON OVERRULE BY BIAS, we at least have a glimpse, if mostly obscure still, of its existence.

If we can assume that it must have indeed been a prominent discourse in America, loud enough to get the White House furrowing its brows, then it's plausible to understand how it was of utmost importance that the the Philippine exhibit was to be carefully — because, in a way, America had to sell itself as the "lesser evil" vs notable "rivals" — curated while still ultimately corroborating assimilation of the Philippines. Thus, enter Truman Hunt, the man who oversaw "the Igorot Village" of the St. Louis Fair, having won the hearts of the native Igorots for a powerful reason:

Section from Claire Prentice, The Lost Tribe of Coney Island: Headhunters, Luna Park, and the Man Who Pulled Off the Spectacle of the Century, New York, NY: Amazon Publishing, 2014.

While the cholera epidemic that occurred at the onset of the American Colonial Period was arguably the worst in the history of cholera epidemic management in the Philippines, I want to make it very, very clear that it was not the first and only wave that hit the archipelago. There had been a handful in the prior century alone — all of such magnitudes that it embedded a deep collective trauma; farmers refused to harvest their crops for fear of infection, tragically enabling famines and contributing starvation & nutrition deficiencies on top of a viral & swift killer (the experience of severe, rapid dehydration is such that one can fall dead within hours of infection).

Given such an imaginably harrowing experience (and it was an awfully painful topic to study as someone who got infected with and survived COVID-19 and has family working as frontliners), how could the natives turn away a stranger with such miraculous powers? Who knows how they comprehended it (e.g. a benevolent sign from heaven they must accept) because, unfortunately, we have yet to discuss preserved accounts on that matter, if any at all.

What is known, however, is that there were Igorots who were not just enamored by the "opportunity of a lifetime," but the selected lucky candidates clearly expressed their consent to participate:

More sections from Prentice, The Lost Tribe of Coney Island.

I will quickly add that, unfortunately, a few members of the Igorot delegation died from illness in making the trip, and Hunt aged like milk over the years (fell into the trap of capitalism in pushing for more subsequent exhibit trips, to the point that less care was extended to the Igorots and he was ultimately arrested for embezzlement). Given that our scope remains to be the 1904 St. Louis Fair, any signs of abuse inflicted upon the Igorots during their stay based on preserved photographs is simply not clear. To assume that they were in a pitiable state would be to enforce a presentist reading that might betray not just their memories & experiences but also their right to self-determination.

EDIT (01/02/24): A good example to demonstrate what I mean in analyzing photographs, here's an article on the author's personal, genealogical research into the Igorots — specifically, the Suyoc — who were at the St. Louis Fair.

It truly is ironic that a Filipino is making these points as if to defend the United States as a whole (no I am not, and if you think I do, lumayas ka). I agree that white people gawking over the peoples of the Philippines with such fascination that borders fetishism warrants all the eye-rolls. At the same time — and it is even more ironic that I am pointing this out as a lowland, Christianized Tagalog based in the metro (not just any urbanized part of the country) — there is a character of patronizing these indigenous communities in the unspoken assumption that their participation is the fault of their ignorance. Pay attention, once more, to the demographics that constituted the Philippine exhibit in the 1904 St. Louis Fair — what kind of "Filipinos" were included and who were left out? There were also Negritos*, Visayans, and Muslims from Mindanao (historically referred to as Moros) in the same event, yet we hardly hear about their experiences. Perhaps it might have to do with how they were considered "more civilized" than these upland groups.

*OUTDATED term (and please blame the Spanish for it); these are the Aeta.

I understand Desa's reservations against US imperialism and sympathies for communities marginalized by Western colonization. I just hope that I was able to clarify as best as I could why I was so taken aback in how she depicted the Hetalia personification of my country the way she did. I agree that, as far as I ever got to interact with her, she is generally very polite and kind. That's why I gave her the benefit of the doubt when she approached me in DM to apologize for how her narrative choice was offensive. As someone who despised red tape in academia, I tried to talk to her about how there were valid reasons as to why the American Colonial Period was considered a mixed blessing, even by PH historians.

Instead, she pulled a complete 180.

She said that — to a Filipino who condemned imperialism (no matter who started it), who also happened to study history as a profession, and was also a Hetalia fan who wants to explore Hetalia narratives differently from what was popularized. Half of the reason was because some fandom takes left a bad taste, like eating a dish with ingredients that even Gordon Ramsay would tell you shouldn’t go together; the other half was because I saw things differently and wanted to express it because why not?

I want to say it's not necessary to bring up something from a private conversation, but I will anyway to reiterate that my issue is not that she isn't nice. Bluntly, however, the way she said those words so formally did creep me out, but ultimately, my issue lies in how her biases have led her into making off-putting takes from time to time. I will not say more, but Trust Me? was not the only Twitter comic by Desa that got bombastic side-eyes.

And if only because Sukarno got dragged in, I felt compelled to briefly debunk that as well: even he initially viewed the United States in a very positive light: “The United States occupies a very distinguished part, a very distinguished place, in the hearts of the Indonesian people.” That was uttered in 1961, and it took a very specific historical context to instigate a complete shift by 1964:

Sections from Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade & the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World, New York: PublicAffairs, 2021, 121-123.

EDIT (01/02/24): Note that Desa was citing Sukarno's later sentiments in the late 1960s as her reason for characterizing Indonesia as such in her comic. However, the setting of the story was the late 1920s (Indonesia's visit was based on Tan Malaka's abscondence to the Philippines). I'd dare say the anachronism was not due to oversight but a deliberate choice in using a certain fictional character — namely HWS Indonesia — as propaganda for Desa's anti-Americanism.

It's definitely depressing to think about all the "lost" history & culture that thrived before the arrival of white colonizers. It's why I'm surprised that, for a fiction work, she didn't project all that anger onto Spain instead — it had to specifically be the United States. Was it because they basically cockblocked Philippine independence, even though Spain practically sold the Philippines to the US? The implication that Spain should be permitted to wash its hands clean of all accountability was an awkward message to convey.

I understand that nothing could be 100% accurate (I'm actually quoting Desa defending herself on that matter) in fiction, but the level of projection coming from a certain non-Filipino reading Philippine history was so silly. And again, how did it all justify the explicit depiction of HWS Philippines as an indigenous man in a human zoo? (END OF EDIT)

As my professors will also never tire of saying: you can disagree with a historian’s interpretations but you can never disagree with the evidence in themselves. You don’t have to morally agree either, and I can guarantee you that many Filipinos do not. I, myself, resented the endgame of the particular war that brought that period about in the first place. How dare, then, she said it was “not her place” to defend US imperialism, while granting herself the freedom to express her country’s feelings on the matter?

Oh, it’s all just fiction? I do not condone the subsequent treatment she received, but why then couldn’t she stop trying to “educate” NLID shippers? I do not know how both sides talked to one another, only that what caught me eye was: Why does everyone else have to respect her fiction while she gets to disrespect others’ fictions for not aligning with hers?

EDIT (01/20/24): Just to clarify further on that point — over a decade ago, she went ham in the comment section of someone's (APH) America x (fem!OC) Indonesia. That ship is not in my lore either simply because I follow a totally different route. To cut to the chase, she took that fanart very personally and infodumped on US war crimes that involved Indonesia.

I know Tan Malaka started the whole North Indonesia agenda, but come on, neither was it Desa's place to just treat HWS Philippines the way she did. An Indonesian schooling other Indonesians on ID history is not surprising, but an Indonesian schooling a Filipino on PH history? I'd be humbled if they had the credentials. She didn't and, unless she enrolled herself in a graduate program, she still doesn't.

By all technicalities, she can’t ship IDPH because the Philippine government was (unfortunately and grossly) complicit in the chain of events that led to the 1965-66 genocides in Indonesia. Yet, she does despite of that fact. We thus circle back to Trust Me? and how that was a manifestation of her stubborn refusal to acknowledge any nuances by projecting HWS Indonesia as a self-proclaimed savior of HWS Philippines from the beguile of US neocolonialism.

I empathize with her anger. I'm sorry that the US government by extent enabled what her family went through. I agree that it's not her place to defend them; in fact, she shouldn't. But when even the so-called "highest of Malay nations*" is worth her neutrality, how can she expect me to forgive her?

*That is literally what the Philippines is to her; I know this because she explicitly said so to me in DM. DO NOT ASK FOR RECEIPTS, I am not comfortable revealing that particular conversation.

I cannot — in fact, NO ONE SHOULD — afford to be neutral about Duterte or Marcos, etc., and for her to be so flippant about her privilege (by way of ethnicity/citizenship/cultural upbringing) to be neutral** about Philippine politics, while simultaneously NAGGING ON EVERYBODY TO RESPECT INDONESIAN POLITICS, is annoying at best and plain selfish at worst.

**Also explicitly said to me in DM. Again, DO NOT ASK FOR RECEIPTS.

(END OF EDIT)

I’m not Indonesian but I do not have it in me to politely accuse a native Indonesian of allowing their personal biases to misread their own history. As a Filipino, however, while I'm not surprised by the reductionist chronicling of the histories & cultures of the Philippines, I am at a loss for words over the continuing idolization for Desa & Maaf, when she was not the best and most reliable narrator, especially given her negligence in representing indigenous peoples through her comics.

I mean, guys, I'm not saying this as if the Trust Me? comic was the first and only instance when this was literally Maaf canon that sat comfortably in the internet for over a decade, and continues to be appraised as THE BIBLE OF HISTORICAL HETALIA.

EDIT (01/20/24 — originally added via a reblog): I cannot believe this needs to be said because this is the consequence of when Hetalia fans take their fiction too literally because creators have made careless takes.

There were SEAtalians joking about how the Yolngu are a dead people.

I repeat.

THERE WERE SEATALIANS JOKING ABOUT HOW THE YOLNGU ARE A DEAD PEOPLE.

(END OF EDIT)

So as 2023 comes to a close we enter 2024, I'd like to conclude this post with the following points:

At best, Wikipedia is a satisfactory jumping point, but please believe me when I say no historian will respect you for (over-)relying on Wikipedia. And given that anyone with a decent device & internet signal can access Wikipedia, Desa is just not a GOAT in historical research.

At worst, idolizing Maaf patronizes the work of historians. It doesn't help that PH historians have been targets of harassment because of dis-/misinformation campaigns. I bring this up because it's already bad enough to have to confront that reality outside of fandom spaces on a regular basis in standing our ground for more just historical truths. I hope that folks understand why that's a particularly sensitive struggle for me, and why receiving such comments like the one I shared above deeply hurt. She was not apologetic about that — and every time she would post about apologizing for the moments she has offended others, or when others compliment her for being so open-minded, I cannot help but feel bitter.

Other BIPOC — yes, not just other SEAsians and that's on literally drawing nations other than SEA — have spoken up on the matter. If you can talk about how you learned so much from Desa, you can also learn as much from other perspectives. I hope that in raising all of this, more SEAtalians understand that we risk othering non-SEA BIPOC.

The idolization of Maaf (and the creator in question) is personally far more off-putting than the problematic points of Maaf or any comic she has ever made, because I think she caved to peer pressure instead of learning to wield her fiction more sensitively without being too reliant of the opinions of those she has pleased. Not even Hidekaz Himaruya writes his nationverse characters like that — the one time I’ll admit that canon trumps fanon.

I’m not stopping people from liking Maaf or Desa anyway. I just cannot help but take issue with how the SEAtalia fandom feels less of a safe & inclusive community than it is a cult centered on one person — almost as if her fiction is unquestionable canon and anyone who disagrees gets the boot. Once again, I do not condone the subsequent treatment she received in retaliation, but frankly that's just not what I'm addressing here.

I'm also not saying it's wrong to give words of reassurance and validation to people you admire, only that some of you need to understand you're forcing a parasocial relationship with your idols. It may feel good to you, but please be mindful of the unwarranted pressure it imposes.

I apologize for dumping all of this at literally the end of the year. I want to let it all go in a manner that is clear, concise, and not overwhelming to digest. I do hope that my candid thoughts will push the fandom one step forward in critically consuming media without having to resort to crab-mentality tendencies — because it's been especially hard seeing the demeaning takes made about the Philippines in this fandom.

#hetalia #historical hetalia #hetalia critical #racism cw #hws philippines #aph philippines #hws indonesia #aph indonesia #hws america #aph america #mentions of death cw #sibuyas

50 notes · View notes

reasonandempathy · 7 months

Text

Responding to an idiot

Idiot:

"Mmmmm so Hitler didn't get elected by promoting a form of nationalism that he promised would end in a socialist utopia? Or have I read the propaganda from the 30's wrong?

He got elected via a socialist grift just like every soviet, south American, and east Asian dictator.

His best guess was that the revolutions of the early century failed becuase there was in group conflict, hence the desire to create an ethnostate.

So regardless of whether or not he was a true blooded Marxist, he absolutely did run on a policy of collectivism that he wanted to implement after the war, and was dead before he could attempt to realize the promise.

The point here is to show just how easy it is for evil people to take power by promising socialism, justifying the corruption of any and all checks and balances and personal liberties in an attempt to realize a dream that will never work."

I wanted to take a crack at it, so I did.

Mmmmm so Hitler didn't get elected by promoting a form of nationalism that he promised would end in a socialist utopia? Or have I read the propaganda from the 30's wrong?

You read it wrong. Hitler explicitly broke Nazi ideology away from any sort of "socialist utopia." To quote Hitler in Liberty Magazine on July 9th, 1932:

‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’

‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

Hitler's "socialism" wasn't universal, wasn't communist, wasn't marxist, promotes private property, and is just "dealing with the common health and well-being."

He got elected via a socialist grift just like every soviet, south American, and east Asian dictator.

He expressly got elected on anti-communist and Law & Order propaganda, which got him elected to a relatively minor party. He was invited into the ruling power structure by the right-wing conservative politicians who wanted to co-opt his popularity among disaffected younger people.

His best guess was that the revolutions of the early century failed becuase there was in group conflict, hence the desire to create an ethnostate.

His explicit belief was that the Aryan German Empire would've conquered Europe and ruled it if it weren't for "Bolshevists" (his word for left-wing people and marxists) and Jews, which is related to but not foundational for his desire for an ethnostate. He wanted an ethnostate, believed that they were the natural order of the world, and believed that "Aryans" were naturally the best. In fact, Jews were weird and weak for not having an ethnostate.

I don't know how to explain that collectivism =/= socialism. Nationalism is collectivism. That didn't make Joseph McCarthya socialist.

He very explicitly would run on not being socialist and not wanting socialist policies, as described in his interview in June of 1932.

It's amazing how people find themselves so confidently wrong on literally everything they say.

#nazis #hitler #socialism #nazism #original content #politics #political theory #history #nazi germany

11 notes · View notes

barely-coherent-anarchist · 2 years

Text

reminder that if you see anyone with an infrared pfp (essentially any variation of this image)

particularly if they also have shit like "magacommunism" in their bio, that they are not leftists.

so called "maga communism" or "patriotic socialism" is just a rehashing of old nazbol (national bolshevist) ideology. these accounts often tend to try and synthesise regular leftist theory (e.g., Marx, Mao, Lenin, etc.) with that of openly anti-communist figures like Larouche and Dugin (both openly fascist individuals).

#socialism #marxism #anarchism #communism #socialist #leftism #leftist #communist #left wing #ancom #patsoc cringe #anti fascism #anticapitalist

21 notes · View notes

warwickroyals · 1 year

Note

so the ruby article got me curious... there's a section about "husband's sexuality" and "relationships" as well as "anti-fascist and socialist ties" 👀 what was ruby and george's relationship/marriage like, and are these things related to why they never had children? hypothetically, if george had survived and became king, would louis (his nephew) ended up as king eventually anyway because of this? was 1930s sunderland society more left-leaning or were ruby and george kind of unusual for their anti-fascist and socialist beliefs?

I'm going to answer this question in chunks because that's what's easiest. This is actually really helpful because next year I plan to do story posts about past generations of Warwicks! I have a bunch of notes:

George's sexuality: He was most likely bisexual and had some gender/cross-dressing stuff going on. Ruby knew about this and so did members of his direct family. The public did not know. His mother, Queen Anne, treated it as a weird but harmless quirk, his grandmother Matilda Mary encouraged the cross-dressing as a form of artistic expression, but his dad . . . uh, wasn't so understanding. George was prohibited from expressing his gender and sexual identity the way he pleased, but Ruby was generally supportive of George, and he was attracted to her. They were very much a love match. So she wasn't, like, his beard, she was just in a relationship with a bisexual man who maybe sometimes liked wearing pantyhose. They still faced some prejudice from upper-class circles: Katherine and James mocked Ruby about George's sexuality even decades after George's death.

Kids with Ruby: I think they would have had children. As I said before, there was intimacy between the pair and Ruby wanted kids. The main reason they didn't have any was because George was killed before she could get pregnant, just three years into the marriage. I feel like George, even if there was no attraction there, would have kids to prevent James (his brother and polar opposite) from reaching the throne. George and Ruby were probably waiting to have kids once the War was over, and when the world was a more stable place. They were looking forward to their future together.

1930s Sunderland: Was not left-leaning in the lead-up to WWII, in fact, the previous King Nicholas had cracked down massively on leftist political movements on both an institutional and grassroots level (all behind closed doors, of course). Nicholas hated communists more than anything and tried really hard to uproot them from Sunderlandian society. This would ultimately create the social conditions that would lead to George's assassination, as Sunderland became dominated by moderate Conservatives who were toothless against the spread of fascism. This doesn't mean everyone was a Nazi sympathizer, but they had sort of an indifference that made them complicit: The average Sunderlandian wanted to stay out of the war, they didn't want a repeat of WWI, and although they were allies with the British and French, direct involvement didn't seem worth the risk, even if it meant not standing up to the far-right extremists in their communities. Plus, their opposition to the Axis powers was more circumstantial than ideological, let's say. I mean let's take a look at the United States of America in the 1930s and 1940s. Did America ultimately fight against the Nazis? Yes. Does that mean they were friendly to leftist ideology and had no ethno-nationalist movements of their own? Absolutely not. Sunderland was much of the same, they had their own issues with far-right politics becoming mainstream. The tide only turned after Pearl Harbour, when it became clear North America was not safe from an invasion. Standing up to the Nazis became its own Nationalists movement.

Ruby and George being socialists: These were rumours because they were so outspoken about the Nazis and fascism in general. Also, Ruby having Jewish ancestry made her an easy target of anti-Semitic Cultural Bolshevist narratives. I think Ruby and George hung out in more progressive and radical circles than most of the royal family, but weren't officially socialists. Their outspokenness was unprecedented for members of the royal family. The rest of the family, mainly King George II and Prince James, were reluctant to voice any political opinions (this was more out of a fear that they would instigate things against the Axis powers than any personal political beliefs). Their fears were justified: George was the one who was vocal against Nazi Germany, George was the one who pushed his father out of his Isolationist mindset following Pearl Harbour, George became the scapegoat for Sunderlandian racists and fascists, George was the one who was shot dead as a direct result.

#warwick.answers #anonymous

6 notes · View notes

zooterchet · 2 months

Text

Iranian-Hebrew Interests (The Shah)

In American intelligence terms, under Reagan and up until Trump, the Shah of Iran was known as corrupt; a British oil mogul, one percent of the entire country had electricity and gathered its wealth, and the Shah's inner circle of bankers and aristocrats had deprived the rest of Iran of the monetary income and fruits of the labor.

The Shah, was placed in power in the 1940s, by British Petroleum (BP), when the democratically elected Iranian Parliament, attempted to nationalize the oil, and seize it for Iranian profits to the people.

Truman's fledgeling spies (the same sorts that had started the Cold War after Brest-Litovsk, the exit of the Russians from World War 1 and the beginning of the Bolshevist international unions for the care of workers and pay to families of those in any class of labor), had cooperated with British intelligence's SOE (Special Operations Executive); the boatmen, supporting insertions of Royal Marines (heraldry experts; pot dealers, to create an umbrella for mercenary hired operatives, moving about at night with marijuana as their cover for the illusion of mere addicts; controlling neighborhoods, in fear).

The Shah, has a locking set of five interests, dating to the 1930s, and the Tehran conference, between Winston Churchill (Lords Parliament and Naval Minister, HMS and USS Navy services), Joseph Stalin (Politburo and Secretariat, measures of minutes of meetings for Orgburo appointments, merit classed badges and documentaries of suited positions of law), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (private oil trades, out of Saudi Arabia, the kindergarten through senior year, K-12, investment in American textbooks, out of Beacon Hill, in Boston).

German Bund: The farm county prosecutor, fascist Leninism; the hamlet, as a military and police body of farmers, with National Socialist ideals of the Holy Roman Empire, to frame its laws; France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

Ku Klux Klan: Those demoted in faith, as Romalians, having been held as prisoner, for free labors at hand shake under contract rifle's threat, inside nursing care; the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and Alcoholics Anonymous.

The Posse: Slavic mercantile interests, beguiling the Jews, those held in Torah under conviction of family from prison, inside Synagogue; the rackets, through boycott of good of contraband determined by activism of law, and contract labor drawn at tower control structure of command.

The Panthers: The five colors of the Panthers, the British ethic in terms of Afro-Nubian labor; Red, prostitutes, Green, income, Blue, remedial, Black, military, and Pink, prisoner. Together, a corrections union, demanding union labor, among any dark of skin, to deprive wealth and place under bond of jail and term, for seeking to assist others outside of union, even and especially if non-membered.

The Scottish: Those demanding their origin, as facially mogrified outside of proper vision, to be held under Arab Habeebi; those converts of Romalians, Pashas, and Italians, to Jewish logic, the Mafia; the blue and white crest, of any given dealer of heroin, forbidding sales of marijuana and stimulants, instead pressing interest in opiums and anti-psychotics and morphines and injectables.

#dune #crime #matrix

1 note · View note

firewalkingwithme · 3 months

Text

Likvidatsiia Kolchaka i ego posledyshei [i.e. Liquidation of Kolchak and His Followers] 1928

Publisher notes:

A colorful lithographic map showing how Bolsheviks annexed territory of Siberia, the Far East and Central Asia in 1919-1922, and influenced revolts and strikes in countries of Europe, Asia and Africa at the same time. Interestingly, the map was compiled together by participants on both sides: Red military officer Alexander de Lazari (1880-1942, executed) and Nikolai Lesevitskii (1879-1951) who served among the Orenburg Cossacks (was on the side of Whites). Surrendered to the enemy in 1919, Lesevitskii stayed alive but was imprisoned at the Novopeskovskii Concentration Camp (Moscow) until 1921. For about 10 years, he became a Soviet journalist and contributed to various military editions. In 1931, he was sentenced to 10 years of camps. The map was created by artist A. Baranov for a series of posters about history of the Civil War. He colored the territory in Red and White colors, according to the chronicle. He indicated directions of attacks, dates of the war, places where temporary governments were located. An impressive part of the poster is silhouettes of Red partisans, going across Siberia and heading to the East, and black figures of horseback forces related to the White movement. The map demonstrates where opposition military units (mostly Cossacks) were escaping from Bolsheviks to Persia, Mongolia and Manchuria. Three riders represent an army of Grigorii Semenov (1890-1946). In June 1917, this Cossack captain was appointed Commissioner of the Provisional Government for the formation of volunteer units from Cossacks, Mongols and Buryats in the Transbaikal region. After the October Revolution, he had permission from the Petrograd Soviet of Worker’ and Soldiers’ Deputies to keep forming his troops. However, Semenov never supported Bolshevism and his army became counter-revolutionary. In November 1917, Semenov had started his revolt and gradually seized control over Verkhneudinsk (now Ulan-Ude), Chita and other settlements. His army did eventually suffer defeat in April 1918 and Semenov was forced to escape abroad. The map shows that he continued anti-Bolshevist actions later: Semenov was appointed commander in chief for the Far Eastern Republic in 1919 and negotiated with allies (Japan, Germany and France) in Beijing in 1922. Temporary governments in Vladivostok are particularly highlighted. For example, one flag indicates the Priamurye Government of Mikhail Diderikhs. Being a general of admiral Alexander Kolchak, Diderikhs commanded the Tobolsk Operation (the last successful attack) and emigrated to Kharbin after Kolchak’s defeat and execution (Feb. 1920). In August 1922, Diderikhs came back to rule the Priamurye Government, one of the last enclaves of the Civil War that existed until October 1922. The liquidation of Kolchak was implemented by the Political Center, an Irkutsk independent group acting against the Admiral. Later they merged with the Bolsheviks. The map demonstrates the place and two dates: Kolchak was passed on to the Political Center on January 15, 1920 and was shot on February 7, 1920.

#not a communist i just like history #ussr #soviet union #historical maps #map

1 note · View note

a-god-in-ruins-rises · 1 year

Note

Regarding the French Revolution, do you have similar opinions on the Bolshevik Revolution, or were they too different?

yeah i do actually. i think the revolution was probably better than what preceded it. but i do think it's a bit more complicated than the french revolution since i am both an anti-monarchist and an anti-bolshevist. but i think i would ever so slightly prefer the bolshevists to the tsarists.

#good question #i'd have to think about it more

0 notes

drosera-nepenthes · 3 years

Photo

Playing at Tsar

There is one subject upon which writers in all Russian papers agree, from the official Pravda to the anti-Bolshevist Berlin Dni, and even to the monarchist Russkaia Gazeta. It is the manifesto of the Grand Duke Kyrill, who after a few years of 'guardianship of the Russian throne' suddenly styled himself Emperor of All Russia, to the lonely delight of a small group of personal followers. The Monarchist groups of Paris and New York, which include many prominent former statesmen and men of letters like Kuprin and Bunin, were not in the least influenced by the manifesto in their loyalty to the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, in whom they recognize a leader, but not a Tsar. Nikolai Nikolaevich seems to possess a good deal more discretion, for he publicly declared that no Tsar should be chosen until this can be done on Russian soil and the chosen one can be Tsar de facto.

Pravda, which usually devotes many efforts to discrediting the anti-Bolshevist Russians abroad, thought the manifesto undeserving of more attention than a ten-line note in which Kyrill was called 'His Sans-Culotte Majesty.' Dni, the anti-Bolshevist organ in Berlin, printed an article entitled 'Violent Dementia,' which sufficiently describes its contents. In Paris Monarchist Russkaia Gazeta, V. Shulgin, the brilliant former Member of the State Duma, paraphrases the name of Kyrill's own newspaper, Faith and Loyalty, into 'Unbelief and Disloyalty.' The latter, he says are the only possible results of Kyrill's action. Neither the actual circumstances nor the personality of the self-styled Emperor are such as would create unanimous support for him. 'Here, abroad, a man with the Tsar's title can only be a source of new pain and new humiliation. We cannot bear to have a Tsar exist in the conditions of our exile. We could not, and ought to, be proud of Peter I, who carefully hid the splendor of his station under a carpenters blouse at Saardam; but it would be too painful to have a Tsar who would be Tsar to us and “His Highness” to every mail-carrier.'

Fianlly the ex-Empress Dowager Maria Feodorovna, who found refuge in her old age with her sister, the Queen Dowager of England, published an open letter to the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, in which she disapproves of Kyirll's action because 'no man has yet been able to kill me the last ray of hope' that either Nicholas II or his brother Mikhail are still iving, and also because this is not the time, and Germany not the place, to chose a Russian Tsar. Nikolai Nikolaevich adds a few lines, in the curt, laconic style which once made him so popular in Russia as to excite Nicholas II's jealousy, to the effect he agrees with the august writer of the open letter.

The Living Age, 1924

#Grand Duke Kirill #Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich #romanov #russian royal family #1920s #russian revolution #romanovs in exile #magazine article

23 notes · View notes

savage-kult-of-gorthaur · 7 months

Text

TROOPS OF DOOM WILL SPREAD JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM -- PIECE BY PIECE BY PIECE.

PIC INFO: Spotlight on a postcard first published in 1939 titled "Bolschewismus ohne Maske" ("Bolshevism Unmasked"), with an illustration of a Communist soldier attempting to rule the world with a hammer and sickle against the backdrop of a yellow star of David, implying the Nazi opinion that Jews were behind the Communist phenomenon.

FULL OVERVIEW: "Not everyone who had read "Mein Kampf" took seriously the rabid outpouring of filth and hatred it contained. But in his own words, Hitler described how his eyes had been opened at an early age to the "two menaces" which threatened the existence of the German people: Communists and Jews.

These two objects of his hatred would become, after his seizure of power, subjected unrelentingly to vicious propaganda and heinous persecution. That Marxism, or Bolshevism, was to Hitler a "doctrine of destruction" which itself must be destroyed for the survival of all Germans may be seen plainly in the picture on this official postcard from the Great Anti-Bolshevist Exhibit organized by Goebbels' Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

"Bolshevism unmasked," reads the inscription over a world engulfed in red flame and branded with a hammer-and-sickle in the center of a yellow Jewish Star, recalling Hitler's rant in "Mein Kampf" that "in Russian Bolshevism we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the twentieth century to achieve world domination!" A ghostly image of Death as an armed revolutionary clutches in both hands its weapons of destruction. The exhibition was held in Vienna in 1939. Six years earlier Communists had been among the first of those countless victims rounded up for the concentration camps."

-- UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

Source: https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AFEMLOIYBU6FPX9A.

4 notes · View notes

romanovsonelastdance · 2 years

Photo

Emperor Nicholas II of Russia.

#romanov #nicholas ii #nikolai ii alexandrovich #anti-bolsheviste #my collection

21 notes · View notes

anti-anti-a-la-bi-bi · 3 years

Text

-Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker. Several things could have been expressed better. If some wording confuses you, please ask.-

Also, I feel like antis pulling the 'what about propaganda?!' argument from their hat need to realize that propaganda rarely acknowledges itself as fiction, and when it does it is generally in a 'But do you *want* it to become like this?' or 'it *could* be like this' manner. Fictional works about dark content are widely acknowledged as fiction, they create a clear border between reality and that fiction by virtue of acknowledging that those stories are fiction.

Propaganda's very goal is to influence someone's perception of reality. There are no content warnings on propaganda, instead it presents itself as a truth that you must acknowledge, or as an action that must be taken.

TW for nazi imagery, as I will be using a propaganda poster aimed against Jewish people.

(Loose Translation: He is to blame for the war)

This image wishes to convince you that Jewish people are to blame for the misfortune. It does this by presenting a stereotype, or rather, a caricature of Jewish people, as an enemy. The greedy Jew, an image used to use the Jewish population as scapegoats, to justify the horrid actions of the nazis as morally correct. Nowhere does this say 'Nah jk this is all fiction sweetie💖". That would go against its goal.

(Translation: Dutch people, for your honour and conscience! -Against Bolshevism! The waffen calls you!)

Some notes for context: The waffen-SS was the combat branch of the nazis' SS organization. People from occupied countries were often recruited. Bolshevism was a revolutionary Russian movement, later resulting in the NBP(National Bolshevistic Party), it was a mix of many ideologies.

Again, Bolshevism is painted as an enemy that ought to be destroyed. It is the honourable thing, according to that poster. Imagine being someone uncertain of what to do and seeing that. It plays on Nationalism, as a lot of propaganda does. In fact, while under occupation, Dutch newspapers were not allowed to speak badly of the Nazi forces, extending to them not being allowed to report lost battles or other bad news, all to uphold the image of the nazi forces as being undefeatable. One of the things the resistance did was bring their own newspapers, which contained actually accurate information(largely women, too.).

However, someone already cemented in their beliefs is unlikely to be swayed by such a poster. Someone who believes that Jewish people are falsely targeted will see the poster above and likely note it as a lie.

Non-propaganda Fiction generally aims to tell a story, and it is easy to tell it as fiction due to a lot of factors. First of all, the book is often labeled as non-fiction if it is not fiction, which can be signaled with words such as 'autobiography', or other non-fiction genres. Because we can generally tell what books/stories(games and such) are fiction, we aren't very likely at all to hold them for the truth. Third, fiction generally cannot convince someone that something reprehensible(eg murder) is acceptable if that person already finds it unacceptable. It is very unlikely to sway any held beliefs.

I may elaborate later, but I'm struggling to word stuff atm. I was simply pissed at antis constantly comparing dark fiction to propaganda.

#poorly worded so if anyone can reword it go ahead #general tw #tw nazi mention #tw antisemetism #ask to tag.

15 notes · View notes

hazardous-waste-containment · 3 years

Text

In this sequel to his 2016 book Fascism: Career of a Concept, Paul Gottfried turns his attention to antifascist critics and movements from the years immediately after the Great War up to the present day. The reader will learn that the contemporary treatment of fascism by self-described antifascists like Antifa

self-described governments like the Government

is very different from how Marxist and liberal critics responded to the ideology and its adherents in the first half of the 20th century. Today the fear of fascism is used as a political weapon by the post-Marxist left to bully their politically disadvantaged critics. It is a form of indoctrination that serves to reinforce official orthodoxy. “Fascism became,” writes Gottfried, “the favored term of political scolds and those who sought to trample on the historical liberties of those who offended them.”

To accomplish this political purpose, fascism is defined broadly to include those who have no ideological connection to its original historical meaning. No longer “firmly anchored in time and space,” fascism has become “a ubiquitous, continuing danger to democratic societies” and a term “wielded by the powerful…in such a way as to silence pesky dissenters.” Those who identify as antifascists today are not expressing a coherent worldview but rather “a collection of sentiments and attitudes” that amount to “a statement against the Western past.” The antifascist left is pushing the ruling class farther in the direction it is already moving: “toward transforming Western countries into multicultural societies, erasing the remnants of a reactionary historical past, and assuring popular acceptance of nontraditional lifestyles.”

first of all, based

second of all, personally, when i want to convince people that i'm not a fascist, i certainly don't write panicky screeds about the antifascist left erasing our western past, in which i use the word "reactionary" positively. but no, i'm sure benito mussolini was a big fan of multiculturalism and nontraditional lifestyles

The antifascist left smears their “fascist” opponents with the Nazi and anti-Semitic label. However, fascism and Nazism are not identical. Latin fascism, writes Gottfried, was not defined by extreme racism against Jews and Slavs or by a totalitarian state apparatus that was characteristic of the Third Reich.

THE WORD TOTALITARIANISM WAS COINED BY AN ITALIAN ANTIFASCIST. MUSSOLINI AND GENTILE THEN PROCEEDED TO USE IT POSITIVELY AS A SELF-APPELATION

"LATIN FASCISM" WAS ABSOLUTELY DEFINED BY RACISM THEY DID ETHNIC CLEANSING TO SLAVS AND BLAMED JEWS FOR COMMUNISM WTF ARE YOU SAYING

“It is difficult for me to see how the Nazi orgy of killing was simply a variation of Latin fascism or similar in character to something as anodyne as Austrian clerical fascism.” Mussolini’s embrace of German-style anti-Semitism in 1938 was a dramatic departure from longstanding fascist practice. Despite his authoritarianism, Il Duce was considered a leftwing reformer until his alliance with Nazi Germany.

this is literally a lie, conservatives and ultranationalists around the world fucking adored mussolini and leftists rightly despised him, in what fucking world was mussolini seen as "leftwing"

Members of his cabinet were vocal critics of Hitler. Only a couple years earlier, Jewish refugees from Germany were given asylum in Italy. Even some Eastern European Zionists “venerated” Mussolini for providing a nationalist blueprint for a future Jewish state. Early supporters of the fascist movement included Jewish members of the Italian bourgeoisie. Mussolini’s mistress was a Sephardic Jew.

there were also antisemitic italian fascists though, and although mussolini was very inconsistent on race he himself was using 'judeo-bolshevist' conspiracism as early as the 1920s. and in any case none of this changes the fact that starting in 1938 fascist italy did persecute jews and after 1943 enthusiastically collaborated with the nazis to genocide jewish italians.

anyways libyans, ethiopians, socialists, and slavs were initially more prominent outgroups of italian fascism than jews, since as paxton explains in the anatomy of fascism the cultural particularity specifies the diabolized group. all you're doing here is whitewashing the brutality of mussolini's regime

also yeah there were some zionists that liked mussolini, how is that supposed to make him left-wing lmao

How the definition of fascism changed gives us insight into the transformation of the political left over the course of a century. Gottfried justifies his study with the claim that an understanding of today’s left is not possible without an appreciation of what it rejects. He insists with some justification that traditional Marxism does not inform the thinking of the antifascist left today. Unlike the modern left, traditional Marxists prioritized the welfare of the working class against bourgeois owners of capital. They did not deny human biology,

fucking nazi apologia

oppose national borders,

WHAT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE INTERWAR LEFT DIDN'T OPPOSE NATIONAL BORDERS WDHDJSAJDJD

or cavort with a globalist ruling class.

ding ding ding! we have another dogwhistle!

They would have identified the lifestyle revolution of the modern left as evidence of Western decadence.

nightmare world where paleoconservatives and homophobic marxists do a red-brown alliance against decadence

Gottfried believes Antifa is an anti-patriotic force that seeks to tear down Western institutions rather than build or reform. Antifa, he writes, is “far too irrational and nihilistic to be Marxist.”

hell yeah dude

Many progressives have formed alliances with multinational corporations to advance their goals.

what is this even doing here. this isn't elaborated or sourced at all and "progressives" is such a meaningless slippery term. what is the point of this line

Groups like Antifa justify their violence with the absurd claim that mob violence in the short term will preserve democracy from a fascist resurgence.

street violence - physically preventing fascists from organizing - was a major tactic of interwar antifascists too you fucking dipshit

Gottfried debunks the ludicrous claim that conservatives are proto-fascists. When fascism was a real thing, classical liberals like Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) were critical of Mussolini even though they saw in Hitler a far graver threat.

von mises also praised fascism for saving european civilization from communism, so, you know. maybe not the best example

also a hell of a lot of interwar conservatives loved fascism, they thought it formed a necessary bulwark against the left and a sound alternative to the failings of liberal modernity. some of mussolini's earliest imitators were british tories like lintorn-orman

American Depression-era conservatives like Albert J. Nock (1870-1945) and John T. Flynn (1882-1964) feared that New Deal policies were a first step toward European-style fascism. The post-WWII Anglo-American Right largely ignored the study of fascism because of its Cold War preoccupation with communism. Gottfried insists that “this movement was never profascist or even soft on fascism.”

see that's funny since it was a tory prime minister that spearheaded appeasement and, as i said, in general a lot of conservatives around europe and elsewhere saw value in mussolini's project. also within italy and germany it was conservatives like victor emmanuel and hindenburg that handed power to mussolini and hitler

Nor does the modern right “threaten” anyone because it is either too weak or, in some cases, ideologically compromised. Conservative intellectuals have often expressed pessimism about the ability to conserve anything given the powerful forces arrayed against them.

blah blah, victim complex, conservatives are the real oppressed ones here when you think about it actually etc etc

Paul Gottfried is no exception. He believes the post-Marxist left has the upper hand because of how Western societies now define morality. The modern definition of democracy “privileges pluralism and equality while rejecting social hierarchy and ethnic homogeneity.”

The neoliberal and globalist establishment exaggerates the threat to their hegemony from populist political parties.

no no go on about the dastardly globalist elites

Populist leaders who do manage to secure power are not the bogeymen their critics make them out to be.

this is probably true, establishmentarian libs place far too much emphasis on the "populist" part of right-wing populism than on the "right-wing" part, though i'm an anarchist and i think populism generally sucks so i don't have a horse in this race.

but if we're going to play that game then like: concentration camps, secret police, militarized crackdowns, classicidal pandemic mishandling. that's your "bogeyman"

Antifascism is as much a book of history as it is a book of political science. Gottfried critiques several antifascist historians who engaged in revisionism for seemingly political purposes. Scholars have long inquired whether nationalism gave rise to Italian fascism.

Defenders of nationalism ask whether it is legitimate to associate national pride with an authoritarian political ideology or whether antifascist warnings against the resurgence of populist political movements are warranted. One historian Gottfried calls out for unfairly associating Italian nationalism with fascism is Denis Mack Smith (1920-2017), who established his reputation as a critic of Italian unification in 1954 with his first book Cavour and Garibaldi. At Cambridge, Mack Smith was a student of George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876-1962) and Herbert Butterfield (1900-1979). The latter fellow and Master of Peterhouse, whom Gottfried admires as a promoter of free and open historical inquiry, would have classified Trevelyan’s studies on Italian unification as quintessential examples of the “Whig interpretation of history.” Should it be surprising to find Mack Smith objecting to his mentor’s overly rosy view of Italian unification as, in Gottfried’s words, a “nineteenth century liberal achievement,” given the series of political crises that have plagued modern Italy?

Mack Smith’s contrarianism had justification. Piedmont connived to annex the papal states by funding and arming revolutionaries whose violent disruptions would provide a pretext for a military invasion. The nationalist insurgents who failed to garner popular support had to secure their power with foreign troops. Only the upper class, a distinct minority in the cities, rallied to the nationalist cause. A plebiscite was organized to legitimize the new nation but the residents of the newly occupied territory were not allowed to vote for their former leaders and the election was plagued with ballot box stuffing and voter intimidation. Whig historians like Trevelyan defended Piedmont’s aggression with allegations of papal state maladministration, despite denials from the British and French ambassadors in Rome. Cavour was famous for the slogan “a free church in a free state” but his anti-clerical policies failed to deliver the promised religious liberty. In his Syllabus of Errors (1864), Pope Pius IX’s reactionary condemnation of “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” was directed principally at Cavour. The illiberal liberalism of modern Italy’s first prime minister made fascism possible, argues Mack Smith, because it prevented English-style constitutional government from taking root.

Mack Smith’s scathing indictment of liberal Italy’s frequently authoritarian and repressive political classes and his fierce attacks on old anticommunist liberals like Benedetto Croce for perceived fascist sympathies

i'm ignoring most of this section because it's boring but i'd just like to point out that croce's support for fascism isn't "perceived," he openly supported mussolini in 1922 (and regretted it later when it was too late)

made him a darling of the academic left and a villain of the nationalist Italian Right despite his stated desire to remain above partisan politics. Needless to say, Denis Mack Smith is not immune from criticism. His contentions about the origins and nature of Italian fascism have been challenged by some Italian historians. Modern Italy’s founding fathers were nationalists by definition but they were more liberal than fascist.

true! mussolini still lionized them and preached a "second risorgimento" though

However, even Gottfried acknowledges that there was a merging of traditions after the First World War. He records how Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944), a prominent theorist of fascism, highlighted the movement’s “revolutionary and nationalist origins” when he “looked back to the democratic advocates of Italian unification in the nineteenth century…in finding progenitors for his movement.” Gottfried can reasonably argue that fascism was not an inevitable result of Italian unification but this does not mean that the fascist movement and state did not stress “nationalist and irredentist themes” or that it was “the opposite of liberal nationalism.” Indeed, he reports how Mussolini broke with the socialists during WWI over the need to secure “unredeemed lands” from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

yep. so what was the point of this section then if you're just going to admit that fascism was nationalist anyways

Some readers may not share Gottfried’s pessimism. For instance, at the time this book was written he could plausibly claim that President Trump “failed to rally a majority of the electorate.” If true, authentic conservatives might justifiably lament the nation’s future. But even Gottfried knows now—as evidenced from several damning cover stories in the October issue of Chronicles, a publication he edits—that “Trump should have beaten Biden hands down” if not for “glaring irregularities” and the machinations of deeply corrupt plutocrats who conspired to “ensure the defeat of Donald Trump.”

oh boy here we go

(also: deeply corrupt plutocrats, unlike uhh. donald trump.)

Knowing how thoroughly compromised our political and cultural institutions are can instill paralysis in fair-minded citizens. On the other hand, knowing that Trump would have won handily if not for the greatest election “fortification” effort in U.S. history should be an occasion for hope—at least in the wisdom and groundedness of the American people. Antifascism does provide an unvarnished assessment of the threats posed to our civilization by the post-Marxist left. But it also provides plenty of intellectual firepower for patriots who refuse to let them prevail.

when american fascism comes this man will passionately support it

#reading #it's so bad

4 notes · View notes