#aryan classics

[rickmg]

VSOLO MIKE

[quillsink]

AYYYY LADKI BEAUTIFUL KAR GAYI CHULL!!!! 💃🏻 💃🏻 💃🏻

[meluhha]

Alexander Balwinder Iskander Jaswinder

ever wonder why Punjabi names end in -nder or rather, why that isn’t unique to Punjabi?

[oariano]

[communist-ojou-sama]

The most grating thing about tumblr's wannabe aesthetes is the really obvious unearned superiority complex they have about their whiteness.

They so clearly speak from a perspective that, tacitly, everybody "knows" that art made by white westerners for white westerners is better than the art of the global south or from racial minorities, and surely, anyone with Real taste only deigns to know a few nonwhite classics, a Wong Kar-wai film here, a Borges novel there, maybe even a Fela Kuti album if they're really feeling adventurous, and of course a few token Black American recording artists (but nothing too scary and working-class) but the idea that Anyone would give any more attention than that to non-western non-white art, they could only be doing that if they have some political agenda, they must be forcing themselves to enjoy this lesser nonwhite art instead of our superior Aryan art. It's really, really vexing how ubiquitous this attitude still is on here.

[busket]

the truth is that all art is subjective, nothing exists that is objectively good. something can exist that is widely appreciated and lauded but that is not the same as being objectively good. and when you argue that a work is objectively good, you are saying it's value is beyond human opinion and critique because everyone who disagrees must be wrong, so there must be something else about the piece that makes it good and immune to lower opinions, right? this is a slippery slope into assigning moral value on to art, which is fascist. the term degenerate art, meaning art that that will degrade your moral character, is a nazi term and was applied to anything conceptual, abstract, anything that had a deeper meaning that did not support aryan "values". you know how trad weirdos always have classical marble statues as their icons on twitter? they value "beautiful" art for its shallow aesthetic appeal and how they perceived it to praise eras in human history that were marked by injustice and slavery. "look at this beautiful powerful art that was made when humanity wasn't infected by woke"

you can have art, media, music that you don't like, but there is no "bad" art because art is always subjective. someone out there will think it's good. and yeah, maybe you find a work of art to be extremely harmful, something with hate speech or something that appears to support taboo things without satire, and you can use your best judgment to say "I feel so strongly about this that I don't want to associate with people who appreciate this" and that's your right! but assigning moral value to any art flattens any varying analyzing or critique and is a slippery slope to censorship and dogma.

and I want nothing more than for people to stop using the term "degenerate" because as much as you argue, it doesn't refer to porn addicts or predators. the word was meant to refer to gay people, progressives, and anyone that didn't subscribe to the white supremacist and nazi agenda. that's the dogwhistle that you're blowing.

[scottishcommune]

For the next few days I'm gonna post an antifascist song every night, they will be tagged #ourbeats

Thought I'd start with a classic!

We're told that after the war the Nazis vanished without a trace

But battalions of fascists still dream of a master race

The history books they tell of their defeat in '45

But they all came out of the woodwork on the day the Nazi died

They say the prisoner at Spandau was a symbol of defeat

Whilst Hess remained imprisoned and the fascists, they were beat

So the promise of an Aryan world would never materialize

So why did they all come out of the woodwork on the day the Nazi died?

The world is riddled with maggots, the maggots are getting fat

They're making a tasty meal of all the bosses and bureaucrats

They're taking over the boardrooms and they're fat and full of pride

And they all came out of the woodwork on the day the Nazi died

So if you meet with these historians, I'll tell you what to say

Tell them that the Nazis never really went away

They're out there burning houses down and peddling racist lies

And we'll never rest again until every Nazi dies

[pjotvshownews]

One thing that we all agreed on was that we should do everything we could to preserve what makes Percy Jackson, Percy Jackson. That’s a combination of modern-day setting, classical mythology, action, and humor. One of the ways that that manifested is making sure that we found actors who were an age that was appropriate for the way Percy is at the beginning of the books, so that viewers could watch Percy [Walker Scobell] and Annabeth [Leah Sava Jeffries] and Grover [Aryan Simhadri] grow up on the screen, the way that you read about them growing up from age 12 to 16 in the five books. I’m certainly gratified that we did it that way, because the young actors that we found are fantastic.

Rick Riordan for The Hollywood Reporter

[the-olympics-olympics]

Hitler was a devout reader of Greek mythology and drawn to the torch as a symbol of ancient Greece. The Nazis compared themselves to the ancient Greeks, and a Nazi myth argued that “a superior German civilization was the rightful heir of an ‘Aryan’ culture of classical antiquity.” Hitler wanted to use the torch as a propaganda symbol, akin to the torchlit parades and rallies that the party regularly hosted to draw youth and adults to the Nazi movement. Adolf Hitler saw the link with the ancient Games as the perfect way to illustrate his belief that classical Greece was an Aryan forerunner of the modern German Reich. The event was designed to demonstrate the growing influence and power of the Third Reich. It is now disassociated from its Nazi origins and is considered one of the most central traditions of the modern Olympic Games.

Having easily won his first two races in the 2000 meters single sculls, Pearce had built a hefty lead against Frenchman Vicent Saurin in his quarter-final before he came across the ducks. In his words: “I heard wild roars from the crowd along the bank of the canal. I could see some spectators vigorously pointing to something behind me, in my path. I peeked over one shoulder and saw something I didn’t like, for a family of ducks in single file was swimming slowly from shore to shore. It’s funny now, but it wasn’t at the time for I had to lean on my oars and wait for a clear course.” Saurin wasn’t quite the animal rights advocate that Pearce was, and built a lead of five boat-lengths as the Aussie waited for the ducks to pass. As it was, it didn’t matter. Pearce still won by nearly 30 seconds.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

i have this excerpt from Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto: The Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum printed and framed

Like, I paid an etsy seller to print it for me on the nicest cardstock with the best ink, and then I waited in line and paid a stupid amount of money to have it framed at the Michael's custom framing counter. And I have zero regrets. I've probably posted this excerpt here before but I don't care. It is everything.

The heroic girls, Chajke and Frumke—they are a theme that calls for the pen of a great writer. Boldly they travel back and forth through the cities and towns of Poland. They carry “Aryan” papers identifying them as Poles or Ukrain­ians. One of them even wears a cross, which she never parts with except when in the Ghetto. They are in mortal danger every day. They rely entirely on their “Aryan” faces and on the peasant kerchiefs that cover their heads. Without a mur­mur, without a second’s hesitation, they accept and carry out the most dangerous missions. Is someone needed to travel to Vilna, Bialystok, Lemberg, Kowel, Lublin, Czestochowa, or Radom to smuggle in contraband such as illegal publica­tions, goods, money? The girls volunteer as though it were the most natural thing in the world. Are there comrades who have to be rescued from Vilna, Lublin, or some other city?— They undertake the mission. Nothing stands in their way, nothing deters them. Is it necessary to become friendly with engineers of German trains, so as to be able to travel beyond the frontiers of the Government General of Poland, where people can move about with special papers? They are the ones to do it, simply, without fuss, as though it was their pro­fession. They have traveled from city to city, to places no delegate or Jewish institution had ever reached, such as Wolhynia, Lithuania. They were the first to bring back the tidings about the tragedy of Vilna. They were the first to offer words of encouragement and moral support to the sur­viving remnant of that city. How many times have they looked death in the eyes? How many times have they been arrested and searched? Fortune has smiled on them. They are, in the classic idiom, “emissaries of the community to whom no harm can come.” With what simplicity and modesty have they reported what they accomplished on their journeys, on the trains bearing Polish Christians who have been pressed to work in Germany! The story of the Jewish woman will be a glorious page in the history of Jewry during the present war. And the Chajkes and Frumkes will be the leading figures in this story. For these girls are indefatigable. Just back from Czestochowa, where they imported contraband, in a few hours they’ll be on the move again. And they’re off without a moment’s hesitation, without a minute of rest.

He only namechecks Chaike Grossman and Frumka Plotnicka here, but I can tell you for a fact that he's also referring to Tossia Atlman, Tema Schneiderman, and Lonka Kozybrodska. At least.

So far the count of Jewish women (that I'm aware of) who have responded to "They are a theme that calls for the pen of a great writer" with a book (or long-planned book) are three: me, Dr. Lenore Weitzman (who won't return any of my emails) and Judith Batalion (who did return my emails, had lunch with me, and told me that Dr. Weitzman wouldn't respond to her emails either). I hope more Jewish women--in and out of the academe--continue to take up this call, and I hope they keep getting published and aren't rejected because it's "too similar" to mine and Batalion's. No like seriously like two months after I signed with my agent, and one month after I got my book deal, I received a rejection from a lit agent saying that my book was "too similar" to Batalion's. Ok first of all it's not. I read Batalion's the day it came out, and they're very different books with very different focuses, goals, and approaches; the only thing they have in common is that they're both about this underserved, underappreciated group of amazing women. There SHOULD be multiple books about each and every one of them. There SHOULD be multiple books about one day Tossia spent in Vilna. Every white man who looked sideways at WW2 and the American Civil War have like, 87 terrible books dedicated to them, and I DEMAND at least 3 for each of these women. And 17 for Queen Zivia. (Who does have a biography, written by Bella Gutterman). Plus a biopic. So this post went in a direction.

tl;dr:

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Logic of “Deep Ecology”

We suffer, these days, from a bad habit. We eat “fast food,” nibble at “fast ideas,” scan “fast headlines,” and buy our panaceas in the form of easily swallowed pills. The need to think out the logic of certain premises is almost totally alien to the “American Way” of the late 20th century. Devall and Sessions’ Deep Ecology and the “movement” they have helped to launch under the presiding icon of Arne Naess, provides what is exactly needed to lull us into a acceptance of “fast ecology.”

As it turn out, however, we cannot say “A” without passing into “B,” or “B” into “C” until we reach “Z.” And there is a “deep” or “deeper ecology” movement of which Devall is a member, formed around a periodical called Earth First! to which Devall is a contributing editor and Sessions a valued contributor. If there is anything fascinating about “Earth First!” as a movement and especially as a periodical, it is the fact that the periodical does go from “A” to “Z” and draws all the logical conclusions from “deep ecology,” conclusions that Devall and Sessions often bury with metaphors, sutras, poetic evocations, and pretensions.

“Earth First!” means exactly what it says and what “deep ecology” implies — the “earth” comes before people, indeed, people (to the periodical’s editor, David Foreman) are superfluous, perhaps even harmful, and certainly dispensable. “Natural law” tends to supplant social factors. Thus: is there a famine in Ethiopia? If so, argues Foreman to an admiring Devall in a notorious interview, nature should be permitted to “take its course” and the Ethiopian should be left to starve. Are Latins (and, one may add, Indians) crossing the Rio Grande? Then they should be stopped or removed, contends Foreman, because they are burdening “our” resources. Devall, who apparently recorded these golden views, doesn’t express a word of protest or even dissent. Nor is there a known denunciation, so far as I know, from Sessions.

Given the preoccupation of Devall and Sessions with the need for an eco-culture — or religion? — what kind of culture should we protect, asks Ed Abbey, the theoretical Pope of “Earth First!”? It turns out that our society has been shaped by a “northern European culture,” declares Abbey — or should we say “Aryan”? Hence there are presumably sound “cultural” reasons — an expression that some might interpret as “racial” — to keep Latins from polluting “our” culture and institutions with their hierarchical attributes. What is the “litmus test” of our adherence to “Earth First!” asks Foreman? It is the question of “population growth,” you see — not capitalism and the competitive market place. No one in that entire crowd, to my knowledge, takes the care to note that if the world’s population were reduced to 500 million (as Naess suggests for a demographic desideratum) or even 5 million, an economic system based on competition and accumulation in which a failure to “grow” is a sentence of economic death in the market place would necessarily devour the biosphere, irrespective of what people need, the numbers they reach, or the intentions that motivate them. American capitalism wiped out some 40 million bison, devastated vast forests, and dessicated millions of acres of soil before its population exceeded 100 million.

If an inherently “grow-or-die” market economy cannot produce cars, it will produce tanks. If it cannot produce clothing, it will produce missiles. If it cannot produce TV sets, it will produce radar guidance systems. “Deep ecology,” with its bows to Malthus, is totally oblivious to these almost classic almost economic principles. Its focus is almost completely zoological and its image of people, indeed, of society is very deeply rooted in “natural forces” rather than social tendencies. Characteristically, it speaks of a “technological society” or an “industrial society” instead of capitalism, a piece of verbal juggling that shrewedly conceals the social relationships that play a decisive role in the technologies and industries society develops and the use to which they are put.

Technology in itself does not produce the dislocations between an antiecological society and nature, although there are surely technologies that, in themselves, are dangerous to an ecosystem. What technology does is essentially magnify a basically social problem. To speak of a “technological society” or an “industrial society,” as Devall, Sessions, and “Earth First!” persistently do is to throw cosmic stardust over the economic laws that guide capital expansion which Marx so brilliantly developed in his economic writings and replace economic factors by zoological metaphors. Herein lies the utterly regressive character of “deep ecology,” “Earth First!” and its religious acolytes like Charlene Spretnak, Kirkpatrick Sale, and the diaperheads who float between Hollywood and Disneyland, indeed, who threaten to remove every grain of radicality in a movement that is potentially, at least, one of the most radical to emerge since the sixties. If the biggest “hole” in the Green movement is the need for a “sustainable religion,” as Spretnak would have us believe, then we have created a donut rather than a movement.

[tyrantisterror]

Twitter (or “X”, I guess) is currently losing its mind over a media analysis video that implies King Kong might have some racially charged (or even racist) themes. Thoughts?

I actually talked about this recently here: https://tyrantisterror.tumblr.com/post/730214779314176000/kaiju-twitter-is-currently-in-a-tizzy-because

But I also think King Kong (1933) has a somewhat undeserved sterling reputation in general. Even critics who have otherwise been quick to be hypercritical and dismissive of monster movies talk about King Kong as if it's a "perfect" movie, because historically King Kong has always been considered a classic. And, like, historically speaking, yes, King Kong will always be an important and groundbreaking film. It's a landmark moment in special effects.

But if you take the special effects out of it... you're not really left with much to rave about. The acting in King Kong ranges from passable to outright bad (and racist when you consider the islanders and Charlie the inexplicable Chinese Stereotype cook who exists for... comic relief? I guess?), the characters themselves are thin, the dialogue can be very good but also outright atrocious, and the camerawork (again, outside of special effects) is nothing to rave about. King Kong has a reputation for perfection that's solely hinged on cool special effects and a shitload of nostalgia. It does not have the depth to its storytelling of, say, Godzilla (1954), which had to claw and fight over decades to be reappraised by critics for its many virtues. All King Kong has is groundbreaking special effects.

And those special effects are really good, don't get me wrong. You feel for that monkey before the movie ends, and the wonder and terror of Skull Island's ecosystem of monsters is rightfully iconic. But if you dig past that - and you have to if you want to analyze the movie, because most of it is surface level stuff - you're not left with much to analyze, and what there is to analyze are a bunch of racist tropes that were old and timeworn by the time King Kong was made, and much more so now. Evil black savages who want to sacrifice a white woman because of her enchanting Aryan beauty, a giant ape who's horny for said white woman because of said enchanting Aryan beauty, heroic white men risking everything as they plunder an evil, backwards island of degenerate relics from the past that were best left forgotten, Charlie the Chinese Cook who is exactly as grating a racial stereotype of Chinese people as you'd expect from the 1930's - yeah, all of these tropes have racist roots, and whether or not the racism was intended by the creators doesn't really matter, because they certainly did nothing to try and mitigate it or divorce the tropes from those racist roots. It's a racist movie, an undeniably racist movie, which isn't something that should surprise people because it's from the 19fucking30's.

And that doesn't mean we have to condemn King Kong, and that watching it makes you a problematic Nazi MAGA chud, or that we're not allowed to praise what's good about it (i.e. the special effects). It just means that, maybe, after 90 years of completely untempered praise from all corners of the film world, maybe it's time to admit that King Kong, while still a classic, is not a perfect movie. That it has some flaws. And maybe we can start by admitting the really obvious flaw of it being a movie from the 1930's that reflects the 1930's attitudes about race which were, you know, not great, and then from there we could maybe talk about how it reflects 1930's attitudes about gender (also not great), and then to how the acting in it is mostly bad, and then to how the scriptwriting is... let's say uneven, and then maybe admit that really we just like the monster bits and the rest is kind of forgettable at best, and that Godzilla is a far superior movie in all respects.

But I think what's likely to happen is people will viciously defend the movie without thinking about it critically for a moment, because nuance and honest self reflection is for chumps.

[hella-hound]

i have yet to see any posts talking about the actress who plays Clarisse and i’m obsessed with her?????? okay yeah i love Walker and Leah and Aryan and yes their portrayals are amazing but i can’t wait to see MORE of them because we are just at the cusp of the trio and their journey (quest lmao) of tlt .

But Dior???? she fucking KILLED that role. We get a very very brief glimpse of clarisse in tlt, and as we know now as readers of the original series, her role becomes so much more important than the classic Background schoolyard Bully character.

i’m so excited to see how she plays this role throughout all the seasons if she stays on. it’s seriously going to be a treat because i can already tell she is going to make it that Grumpy fan favorite type of character

[romanceyourdemons]

demons (1985) is Awesome in the most classic 1980s way possible. the godson of giallo and arnold schwarzenegger has slasher action and body horror and men with katanas and ripped-to-shreds shirts over gleaming muscles. the soundtrack is all heavy metal, the hairstyles are extreme, and everything it does, it does respectably well. unfortunately, as a quintessentially Awesome 80s movie, it is also a paean to normative white masculinity. punks are fetishized and brutally killed, as are the pimp-and-whore stock characters that put the “xploitation” in “blaxploitation”—and the film’s structure and portrayal of its female characters makes the slumber party massacre (1982) look like a feminist masterpiece. the villain in the film is an ill-realized boogieman of degeneracy and endless hedonism; after all this, the gun-toting hyper-aryan family that comes to the rescue at the end was enough to turn my stomach. of course, the action and scares of demons (1985) are good, even impressive—but it is unmistakably an example the hegemonic model that black, female, and otherwise marginalized horror creators must push back against

[oariano]

[al-kol-eleh]

What is Antisemitism?

“We still have not understood what antisemitism is and the role it plays in the legitimation of evil. It is the first warning sign of a culture in a state of cognitive collapse. It gives rise to that complex of psychological regressions that lead to evil on a monumental scale: splitting, projection, pathological dualism, dehumanisation, demonisation, a sense of victimhood, and the use of a scapegoat to evade moral responsibility. It allows a culture to blame others for its condition without ever coming to terms with it themselves. The antisemitism flooding through the Arab and Islamic world today is as widespread and virulent as it was in Europe between 1880 and 1945, and it is being disseminated worldwide through the Internet. Antisemitism is only contingently related to Jews. The real targets of Christians in the age of the Crusades were the Muslims, not the Jews. The targets of Nazi Germany were the European nations that had defeated it in the First World War and humiliated it thereafter. The real targets of the Islamists are secular Islamic regimes and the West, especially those who defeated the Ottoman Empire in 1922 and divided up its spoils. Jews, however, played an essential function in the group psychology of these movements. By fulfilling the role of the scapegoat, they could be blamed for everything bad that happened to the group. As the mysterious, omnipotent, all-embracing enemy, they united the group, silenced dissent, distracted the mind from painful truths and enabled otherwise utterly incompatible groups to become allies. Today, for example, Islamist groups find it hard to win Western support for the imposition of Sharia law, the beheading of captives, the forced conversion of Christians or the sentencing to death of blasphemers. But when they criticise Israel, they find they no longer stand alone. This brings within the fold such strange fellow travellers as the far right, the anti-globalisation left, and some notoriously politicised human rights organisations, surely the oddest coalition ever assembled in support of people practising terror to bring about theocracy. Note that antisemitism, to succeed, must always disguise its motives. It did so in the Middle Ages by accusing Jews of killing Christian children and spreading the plague. It did so in Nazi Germany in terms drawn from medicine. Jews were the cancer in the midst of the Aryan nation. Today it does so by blaming Israel or Jews, in classic Blood Libel/Protocols of the Elders of Zion style, for controlling America, dominating Europe, manipulating the economy, owning the media, perpetrating 9/11 and all subsequent terrorist attacks, creating AIDS, Ebola, the 2004 tsunami and global warming”

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks