#at least he's anti-nazi

[badguysgalore]

My Two Cents on the Joker: My Love/Hate relationship with the Clown Prince of Crime

I think something we tend to forget in fandom is that you can like or dislike a character without liking or disliking everything about them. Before anything else said, I want to make this clear as crystal. This is my opinion. I am not saying it is right or that you have to agree. No one has to agree with me. All I ask is that you hear me out, acknowledge my opinion, and if you don't like it, agree to disagree. I fully respect the opinions of those who dislike/hate this character. Okay, let's talk about this frikkin' clown.

It is absolutely no surprise, to me or to anyone, that a lot of people LOATHE the Joker. And with good reason. He is a monster. In nearly every continuity he's in, he's done terrible things. He killed Jason Todd, paralyzed Barbara Gordon, abused and manipulated Harley, tormented and experimented on Tim Drake, turned Superman into a dictator, the list goes on. I understand why people hate him. Their reasons are valid, especially if they relate to his victims.

I myself have a love/hate relationship with the Joker.

Here's what I love about the Joker:

I love that he's Batman's opposite, a bright, loud, colorful clown.

I love that when written right, he can be scary AND funny.

I love his overall classic design. Purple suit, bow-tie, green hair, red lips, etc.

I love that he's deadly, as any Batman villain ought to be.

I love his genius-level intellect. Though, arguably, all the great Batman villains have that.

I love his weapons. Joker venom, acid-squirting flowers, ninja-star playing cards, etc.

I love the whole "Joker card as a calling card" shtick. To me, that never gets old.

I love how ruthless he is. Some of the best villains are ruthless.

I love his whole "agent of chaos" shtick.

I love the idea that he's a deadly maniac hiding behind the humorous image of a clown.

I love the fact that he's anti-nazi. Good to see he has some sort of standards, at least in one or two continuities.

I love his obsession with Batman and their rivalry.

Now here's what I hate about the Joker.

I hate that he has zero respect for anyone other than himself, or even if he does respect them, it's only as a means to an end. At the very least, he ought to have more respect for his allies.

I hate how he serves as a bad representation of mental health. I will not sugarcoat it or give it a pass. I have my own share of mental illnesses, so him serving as an example of the mentally ill? Terrible.

I hate the whole "Life's a Joke and only I know the punchline" shtick.

I hate the way he treated Harley. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. There's no hiding it, or excusing it.

I hate the growing amount of "edginess" the character has been given. He's a clown villain. At least half of his crimes should be nonsensical fun.

I hate how he treats the younger members of the Bat-Family. I know they're his enemies, but still.

I will never condone the Joker's actions, nor the actions of any villain. And again, I fully understand and acknowledge that my enjoyment of the Joker as a villain is unpopular. But I feel like I should be honest. At the end of the day, the Joker is one of my favorite villains. Do I like everything about him? No. But I don't have to.

[taliejane]

Omfg UK and US 18-25s I'm begging you to vote in the general/presidential election 😭😭😭 young people already don't vote and then to actively abstain (I get it, all your options suck) but then politicians will have zero reason to appeal to you ever! You're entirely excluding yourselves from the conversation! Vote strategically to vote OUT the worst dude but just vote fr

I know they're all doing genocide and it's fucked but like you literally are not preventing genocide by not voting you're just sitting on your hands

[kidrat]

what was the point of Golem. like its not as though wildbow thought he Did Something and failed. he just created a character and did nothing with him. guess you could argue that theo is Supposed to be a subversion of a chosen one thing and that him being boring and having no personality or opinions is part of his avoidance deal but like a) then why have him accept jack's challenge in the first place and b) i still do not care. motherfucker was raised by abusive nazis and doesn't even have an opinion on that one way or another CMON NOW go girl give us nothing!!!!!

[shadow-turtle-234]

Can't believe I am saying this...

but Loki is somehow better than Velma.

Yes. That fucking garbage Marvel show that actively shits on the title character and said character's fan base, as well as genderfluid folk; that has abuse, incest and fascism apologism sewn within the very blood stream of the series, is somehow better than Velma.

[roastedinmarch]

i keep thinking i’m done with kevin but i miss his videos sm. i can never go back to watching him, im so disappointed in his apology and i will never feel safe in his community again, but i love his content, i wish the whole thing just never happened.

[the-lady-general]

Election poster of the Nazi party (AFD) in Thüringen (via spiegel.de): "The [Nazi party] keeps the promises of the [conservative party]!"

And that's why we don't vote conservative either 🙃

[robertreich]

Why Big Money Supports Trump 

Fascism backed by Big Money is one of the most dangerous of all political alliances.

We saw it in 1930s Germany, when industrial giants bailed out a cash-strapped Nazi party right before Hitler’s election, thinking that Hitler would protect their money and power.

We are seeing something similar now. Earlier this year, the GOP was running out of money. So Trump turned to his wealthy backers for help. Many super-rich donors who once criticized Trump for stoking the violence of January 6 have since had a change of heart, deciding their profits are worth more than our democracy.

Trump has promised them that if elected, he’ll extend his 2017 tax cuts that went mainly to the wealthy beyond 2025 when they’re scheduled to expire, and hinting at even more.

He promised oil executives he would scrap regulations favoring electric vehicles and wind energy if they would give his campaign one billion dollars.

The Trump White House is for sale, and the wealthy are buying. 50 billionaire families gave at least $600 million in political donations as of May, with over two thirds going to support GOP candidates and conservative causes.

Elon Musk, one of the world’s richest men, who also controls and manipulates one of the world’s largest communications platforms, has committed to spending millions of dollars to elect Trump.

In previous videos, I’ve highlighted alarming similarities between fascist regimes of the past and Trumpism. The alignment of American billionaires with Trump’s anti-democracy movement is one of the most dangerous parallels.

The billionaires want the rest of us to fight each other so we don’t look up and see where all the wealth and power have gone, so we don’t join together and raise taxes on the super-rich to finance childcare, better schools, our health care system, and everything else we need.

They fear democracy because there are far more of us than there are of them.

We need to see through their fear tactics and vote in overwhelming numbers this November.

We can learn from history and spot the danger. We are not doomed to repeat it.

[bsof-maarav]

"[L]ate last month Rutgers required its RAs, whose job is to supervise students living in on-campus housing, to participate in a “bystander intervention” course aimed at training them to identify antisemitism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Several of the RAs, however, abruptly left the session after a Jewish speaker explained that Hamas’s antisemitism and desire to destroy the world’s only Jewish state precipitated the Oct. 7 massacre, which resulted in the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust.

The paper added that the RAs took issue with the program’s citing a definition of antisemitism offered by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). After walking out, they reportedly contacted Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which proceeded to author, on the RAs’ behalf, a series of Instagram posts denouncing the antisemitism trainings as racist and upholding white supremacy.

"The mandated training program organized by the Office of Residence Life requires RAs to learn about DEI, restorative justice, community engagement, and more — all of these are inspired by Indigenous practices meant to unpack systems of white supremacy,” SJP said. “On the contrary, this specific session worked to perpetuate Zionism, racism, and white supremacy.”

SJP’s post included comments from the RAs who involved them in the controversy. One of them, who claimed to be Jewish, said, “I am tired of the word antisemitism being used to talk over genocide, I am tired of antisemitism being inflated.” The RA added, “I fear that when the Nazis and radicals come once again for the Jews that no one will believe us … it will be your fault.”

Another who took issue with the Israeli nationality of one of the course’s presenters said, “One of the facilitators even identified as ‘Israeli’ and made mention of this multiple times. He justified his authority on the topic by citing his 12 plus years spent in ’48 Palestine, going so far as to call ‘Israel’ [sic] a ‘beautiful land.'”

A milieu of extreme anti-Zionism at the school has resulted in at least one death threat against the life of a Jewish student since Oct. 7. In November, a local news outlet reported, freshman Matthew Skorny, 19, called for the murder of a fraternity member he identified as an Israeli, saying on the popular social media forum YikYak, “To all the pro-Palestinian ralliers [sic] … Go kill him.”

Similar incidents at Rutgers have occured frequently. In the past few years, the school’s AEPi fraternity house has been vandalized three times. In one incident, in April 2022, on the last day of the Jewish holiday of Passover, a caravan of participants from a SJP rally drove there, shouting antisemitic slurs and spitting in the direction of fraternity members. Four days later, before Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, the house was egged during a 24-hour reading of the names of Holocaust victims.

In March, the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce launched an investigation of Rutgers’ handling of antisemitism, responding to complaints that it has, for years, allowed an open season of hate against Jewish students."

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Lincoln Brown

Beckett Law, a religious freedom advocacy group, has taken up the cause of three Jewish students at UCLA. The students claim that in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, they faced mounting antisemitism, which included barring them from access to areas of the campus. The students are also represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC.

In the lawsuit, Frankel v. The Regents of the University of California, the plaintiffs claim that pro-Hamas/anti-Israel protesters set up barricades on the Los Angeles campus, effectively creating a "Jewish Exclusion Zone." Beckett Law states that after creating the encampment, protesters not only constructed barriers but also linked arms to prevent Jewish students from accessing the most popular areas on campus. They also imposed an ideological test, and those whose views were deemed to be sufficiently anti-Israel were issued wristbands and allowed to pass unmolested through the "checkpoints."  

By contrast, Beckett law says that Jewish students were harassed and even assaulted. Law student Yitzchok Frankel was forced to find other ways to reach his classes because his route was blocked by the exclusion zone. Sophomore Joshua Ghayoum could not attend classes or study sessions because of the zone and the antisemitic activities on campus. Additionally, he was forced to listen to chants of "death to the Jews" and "death to Israel." Eden Shemuelian had trouble getting to her final exams because of the zones and had to listen to the vitriol from the encampment as she tried to study. These, said Beckett Law, are just three examples of the problems faced by Jewish students at UCLA.

Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, stated:

If masked agitators had excluded any other marginalized group at UCLA, Governor Newsom rightly would have sent in the National Guard immediately. But UCLA instead caved to the anti-Semitic activists and allowed its Jewish students to be segregated from the heart of their own campus. That is a profound and illegal failure of leadership. This is America in 2024—not Germany in 1939. It is disgusting that an elite American university would let itself devolve into a hotbed of antisemitism. UCLA’s administration should have to answer for allowing the Jew Exclusion Zone and promise that Jews will never again be segregated on campus.

The suit notes:

Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of the free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference, as secured by the California Constitution, through a policy and practice that treats Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated non-Jewish individuals because Plaintiffs are Jewish.

Defendants furthered no legitimate or compelling state interest by engaging in this conduct.

Defendants failed to tailor their actions narrowly to serve any such interest.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been injured by losing access to educational opportunities, losing access to library and classroom facilities, losing in-person learning opportunities, losing the ability to prepare for exams, being denied equal participation in the life of the university, suffering emotional and physical stress that has diverted time, attention, and focus from study, and by other harms.

In addition to seeking compensation for damages, the primary goal of the lawsuit is to hold the leadership of the University of California accountable and ensure that such a situation never arises again.

As usual, "never again" is here and now. The fact that these "students" take a great deal of pride in slinging the term "Nazi" at anyone with which they disagree yet use tactics that echo those of the Third Reich is ironic and chilling. But their savage nature can be attributed, at least in part, to those who educated them. 

Given that, one must ask if the regents of the University of California were merely caving to mob pressure. Did they turn a blind eye to the madness out of fear or because of the optics? Ideally, there should be nothing wrong with discussing the war and even debating whether or not Israel's response to the Hamas attack has been proportionate. 

The regents, president, vice-president, and chancellors never stopped to think, "Gee, it seems to be getting awfully brownshirty around here." And if they did, they were too cowardly or indoctrinated to say a word.

[opencommunion]

since zionists want to act obtuse about why we're criticizing a superbowl ad, here's an explanation from before the ad even aired. it was openly designed to act as pro-genocide propaganda. fighting antisemitism is a worthy goal but that's not what's happening here:

"The New England Patriots’ 81-year-old owner, Robert Kraft, writes seven-digit checks to the right-wing Israeli lobbying machine AIPAC, but his personal, political, and financial ties to Israel run deeper than the occasional donation. The multibillionaire married his late wife, Myra, in Israel in 1963 when Kraft, then 22, was older than the nation itself. Together they set up numerous business, athletic, and charitable ties to Israel, a record of which is proudly proclaimed on the Kraft company website. In particular, the Kraft Group boasts of its 'Touchdown in Israel' program, where NFL players are given free, highly organized vacations to see 'the holy land' and come back to spread the word about 'the only democracy in the Middle East.' (Not every NFL player has chosen to take part.) Kraft also attends fundraisers for the Israel Defense Forces, currently—and in open view of the world—committing war crimes in Gaza."

Now, as Israel wages war against the civilians of Gaza—more than 25,000 Palestinian have been killed with at least 10,000 of them children—Kraft is again flexing his financial and political muscles in order to defend the indefensible. His Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS) will be spending an estimated $7 million to buy a Super Bowl ad titled 'Stop Jewish Hate' that will be seen by well over 100 million people. Under Kraft’s direction, the ad’s goal is to create a propaganda campaign to counter the reports and images from Gaza that young people are consuming on social media. 

... The content of the Super Bowl ad is not yet known, but FCAS has afforded Kraft the opportunity to make the rounds on cable news saying things like, 'It’s horrible to me that a group like Hamas can be respected and people in the United States of America can be carrying flags or supporting them.'

This is Kraft enacting the mission of FCAS: fostering disinformation. He is far from subtle: A Palestinian flag becomes a 'Hamas flag,' and people like the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets of Washington, D.C., last month to call for a cease-fire and end the violence are expressions of the 'rise in antisemitism.' Without a sense of irony or the horrors happening on the ground in Gaza, Kraft says he is giving $100 million of his own money to FCAS, because 'hate leads to violence.'

Let’s be clear: What Kraft is doing politically and what he will be using the Super Bowl as a platform to do is dangerous. He appears to think any criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. For Kraft, it is Jews like myself, rabbis, and Holocaust survivors calling for a cease-fire and a Free Palestine that are part of the problem. Kraft seems to think that opposition to Israel, the IDF, and the AIPAC agenda is antisemitism.

... Right-wing Christian nationalists, with their belief in a Jewish state existing alongside their conviction that Jews are going to Hell, are welcome in Netanyahu’s Israel and Kraft’s coalition. Left-wing anti-Zionist Jews are not. The greatest foghorn of this evangelical right-wing 'love Israel, hate Jews' perspective is, of course, Donald Trump. Kraft, while speaking of being troubled by events like the Charlottesville Nazi march and the right-wing massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, counts Donald Trump as a close friend and even donated $1 million to his presidential inauguration.

No one who provides cover for the most powerful, public antisemite in the history of US politics should ever be taken seriously on how to best fight antisemitism. No one who funds AIPAC and the IDF and opposes a cease-fire amid the carnage should be allowed a commercial platform at the Super Bowl. But given that the big game is always an orgy of militarism, blind patriotism, and big budget commercials that lie through their teeth, perhaps that ad could not be more appropriate. We can do better than Kraft’s perspective on how to fight antisemitism. Morally, we don’t have a choice."

[dontforgetukraine]

"I watched a film today at the Venice Film Festival titled "Russians at War." Since our film is in the same section as this one, I usually wouldn’t speak publicly about it. However, in this case, I cannot remain silent, because it’s not just about films and art, but about the lives of thousands of people who die in this war— a war that has instrumentalized propaganda as its weapon.

This film may mislead you into believing that it is an anti-war film, one that questions the current regime in Russia. However, what I witnessed is a prime example of pure Russian propaganda. Here’s why.

The filmmaker begins by expressing her surprise at the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In her film, she always uses the term “invasion” and never "full-scale invasion." She does not mention that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. These two events seem to not exist in the world of this film. The filmmaker also states that her country hasn’t participated in wars for many years and that she has only read about wars in books. Thus, the war in 2022 was a complete shock for her. It’s interesting how the filmmaker could overlook the fact that her country has been inherently involved in various wars and occupations for at least the last 30 years (1992-93 Transnistria, Abkhazian War, 1994-96 and 1999-2009 Chechen Wars, the 2008 war in Georgia, and the 2015-2022 invasion of Syria).

The filmmaker starts her narrative with a Ukrainian who now lives in Russia and fights on the Russian side. This is a very intriguing choice for the beginning of a story about Russians at war. Later, this character will claim that a CIVIL war began in Ukraine in 2014. He will also suggest that Ukrainians bombed the eastern parts of their own country (and this is why he moved to Russia). Another character will declare that Ukrainians are Nazis. We’ve heard these narratives before; they are (and apparently still are) widely and actively propagated by Russian media. One of those horns of propaganda is Russia Today channel, for which the director of "Russians at War" has previously made several documentary films.

Throughout the film, all characters express their confusion about their actions in Ukraine, stating they want the war to end and that most of them are fighting for money. In the final part of the film, the battalion is moved to Bakhmut, and most characters die in battle. We then see their comrades and relatives grieving at their graves. All of them repeat that they don’t understand why this war is happening and who needs it. In the end, the filmmaker concludes that these are poor, ordinary Russian people who are being manipulated into war by larger political games. I found this perspective amusing because the filmmaker—like putin and his regime—plays an interesting game with these people. They deny them the simple ability to possess dignity and to think and decide for themselves. To her, these people are merely powerless objects. If those engaged in a war that has lasted over 10 years were not powerless, it would imply that they, in the majority, actually support this war, wouldn’t it?

You will feel pity for the people depicted as dying in the film and for those we see crying for their loved ones. And you should—if you are a normal human being, you should feel pity, sadness, and emotion. However, it is also important to remember that these individuals joined the army that invaded an independent country, many of them willingly, as we learn from the film. You should also recall Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol, and the civilians who were murdered there. Remember the thousands of children who were illegally transported from Ukraine to Russia. While I’m writing this and while you’re reading it, missiles are striking Ukrainian cities. The buttons are pushed by ordinary Russians. Are their crimes any less significant simply because they claim to be unaware of why they are involved in this war?

By the way, the director asks one of the characters if he thinks the Russian army commits any war crimes. He answers “no,” claiming he hasn’t witnessed any war crimes. Interestingly, the director echoes this in her interviews, stating she saw no signs of war crimes during her time near the front (https://www.reuters.com/.../russian-soldiers-given-their.../). We can only be happy for her that she was fortunate enough not to witness any war crimes. Unfortunately, thousands of Ukrainians have not been so lucky.

I could continue, but I believe it’s enough to understand that this film presents a very distorted picture of reality, spreading false narratives (calling the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea a civil war; suggesting that the Russian army does not commit any war crimes; presenting those who are part of the aggressors army as victims).

If you decide to watch it, I recommend following it with another documentary about Russian soldiers titled "Intercepted," directed by Oksana Karpovych. "Intercepted" also opens a door into the lives of ordinary Russians fighting in this war. You’ll be curious to explore it, as it will undoubtedly surprise you. You may also want to add "20 Days in Mariupol" to your viewing list, just to be able «to see through the fog of war," as the director of "Russians at War" so aptly put it."

—Darya Bassel, Ukrainian film producer of war documentary “Songs of Slow Burning Earth

[matan4il]

Have you noticed how almost everything that the anti-Israel crowd accuses people who simply recognize Israel's right to exist of, is (in additional to usually being false) stuff they're guilty of themselves?

"You support ethnic cleansing!"

What do you think it means, when you chant the English translation of "From water to water, Palestine will be Arab"?

"You support an ethno-state!"

Do you call for the destruction of every single nation state, such as Germany, Japan, France, and so on? No? Then so do you. Have you called for the establishment of a Palestinian state? Then, so do you. Between Hamas ruling Gaza and being genocidal when it comes to Jews, and Mahmoud Abbas (president of the Palestinian Authority) stating no Israelis will be allowed in the State of Palestine (and by "Israelis" we all know he doesn't mean the Arab citizens of Israel, he's talking about Jews) that's going to be an ethno-state, too. Oh, you meant a "pure" ethno-state. Those don't exist in today's reality, and Israel, with 27% of its citizens being non-Jews, is no exception.

"Oct 7 didn't happen in a vacuum, you're ignoring the context of the past 75 years!"

You are ignoring big chunks of anti-Jewish violence during these 75 years, you're ignoring the expulsion of almost 900,000 Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, you're ignoring the anti-Jewish violence and persecution that preceded the establishment of the Land of Israel, and you're ignoring all 3,500 years (at least) of Jewish existence in and connection to our ancestral homeland, Israel.

"You support collective punishment!"

The same way you do, when you chant, "When people are occupied, resistance is justified"? Because that's what it means, that for the sin of Israel supposedly being a colonial state (a false claim, since Jews are native to Israel), you're justifying raping 13 year old girls, shooting them in the head, murdering Holocaust survivors, burning babies alive... what's that if not supporting collective punishment? (that's before we get into the fact that Israel not surrendering in a war started by Hamas is NOT collective punishment, or else we would have to define the allies not surrendering to the Nazis in WWII as collective punishment of the Germans)

"You suppor apartheid!"

All Israeli citizens have the same civil rights. Apartheid in South Africa was a system where citizens of the country had their rights limited based on skin color/ancestry. The issue in South Africa wasn't that racism existed (IDK a single country where racism doesn't), it's that it was codified into law, and used against the rights of that country's own citizens. Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs have the same rights. Non-Israeli Palestinians not having the same rights as Israelis, including as Israeli Arabs, is the same as French Canadians not having the same rights in the US as French Americans. It is NOT proof the US is applying a system of apartheid unto French people. And if it were, then I have news for you, every country applies different rights to citizens vs not citizens, so every country would be an apartheid state by this criterion. Which would make the word meaningless, and it would diminish the suffering of non-whites under South Africa's apartheid (as some young black South Africans who have actually been to Israel now point out). Meanwhile, I'll point back up to where Mahmoud Abbas said no Israelis (i.e Jews) will be allowed in Palestine, and that under the Palestinian Authority, a Palestinian can be jailed or executed for selling land to Jews, which means the PA demolishes the right to property (of Jews to own it, and of the PA's Palestinian citizens to sell it as they see fit) based solely on the ancestry of the buyer... And you support the PA, right?

"You deny the Nakba!"

I had never encountered any Israeli denying that roughly 850,000 Arabs fled Israel due to the War of Independence. Pointing out that the Arabs are the ones who started that war isn't the same as denying it happened. Meanwhile, the people who make this accusation, largely deny the expulsion of the Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, deny the suffering, discrimination, expulsions and massacres Jews had endured for centuries under Arab and Muslim regimes, and deny the atrocities of Oct 7.

"You support colonialism!"

Say the people who deny the native rights of the Jews, who act as if these rights are limited by time (as if such a limitation benefits anyone other than actual colonizers), who ignore the fact that Palestinians wouldn't exist here without Arab colonialism, or who wish to confer a native status unto them by virtue of... being settler colonialists for a "long time" (to be clear, the way the UN's definition of a Palestinian refugee works, it only requires a person to have been an Arab* settler colonialist in Israel during the 2 years prior to the founding of the Israeli state, to be recognized as a Palestinian. To become a US citizen, in addition to other requirements, you have to live in the US for at least 5 years, 3 if married to an American citizen. That means in June of 1946, it was easier to become a Palestinian "native" in the eyes of the UN, than an American citizen). Don't get me wrong, Palestinians have a right to live in the place where they were born. I can both recognize that they're here due to Arab colonialism, AND be okay with them living here. Just like I can recognize that no Americans today deserve to be displaced, even though the majority of them are there thanks to colonialism. And I don't have to pretend like Americans of European descent have suddenly become native (something that if I did, would probably hurt actual Native Americans), in order to recognize their right to live where they were born. It's just ironic that if we took the logic of the anti-Israel crowd when it comes to native Jews, and applied it to all native peoples, this would harm the natives, erase their rights, recognize their colonizers as natives, and generally help colonialism.

There's probably more, but I think this is demonstrative enough.

* Technically, the UN didn't specify ancestry. As an idea, you could be Arab, Jewish, a Polish Catholic priest living in a convent in the Land of Israel from Jun '46 to May '48, and you'd be recognized as a Palestinian by the UN, but in reality this definition ended up favoring all non-Jewish colonizers of the land. In 1952, Israel said, "It's okay, we'll take care of the Jewish refugees displaced by the War of Independence. No need for the UN to do so. This is what we set up a Jewish state for." This is in addition to Israel taking care of the Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries, and Jewish Holocaust survivors. And for Israel's show of responsibility, the now-Israeli Jewish refugees have been punished. They don't get recognized as existing, as having been displaced by, and having suffered due to the war the Arabs started in the Land of Israel against its Jewish communities. "Palestinian" refers to non-Jews only from the second The British Mandate in Palestine's Jews became Israeli Jews, but that doesn't stop the anti-Israel crowd from falsely claiming there are Palestinian Jews today... even though since May of 1948, there aren't, and before that, those Palestinian Jews were British subjects, not the citizens of an Arab independent state called Palestine (something that has never historically existed). Thanks to the exclusion in practice of Jews from the definition of Palestinian refugee, the UN agency for taking care of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA became a tool of spreading anti-Jewish hate.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[decolonize-the-everything]

WW3 will be white supremacists vs everyone else.

Not a singular Western country in support of Israel is innocent of colonization, war crimes, treaty violations, or having white supremacists in politics.

Each one of them has been ignoring protests and strikes in their own countries for human rights and protections. Human rights and protections that have thus far been denied btw. Meanwhile they give themselves raises and protections against protesters and so called "terrorists." They inflate military budgets while their people grow more agitated and they don't care.

Not a single one of them have a thriving, happy people.

Historically they've been awful for Black, indigenous, and immigrant populations despite many of their countries being founded on immigration. And even in modern times all of them currently have trials going on to combat state violence such as genocide, rights violations, or police brutality.

None of them have ever been paragons of human rights. None of them represent the world's moral compass least of all Germany.

So why and how is it that you can look at the USA and German support of Israel and your thought is "finally!" instead of seeing a red flag.

White supremacists are teaming up in a Big way.

And this time they're letting white Jewish people count as white which seems to have short-circuited ur brains so let me remind y'all that Nazis hate Jewish people but not every white suprmacist is a Nazi. And white supremacists have a long history of providing white Jewish people with conditional white privileges

White supremacists exploiting white Jewish people for their vote or political support is nothing new and continues to be no surprise.

We can look at Trump's attempt to do exactly that as recently as 2019. We know he isn't an ally of any Jewish person anywhere and yet here he is trying to get right-wingers hyped up with virtue signaling.

The same article addressed how this right wing rhetoric and trying to incite it among Republicans is itself antisemitic and careless.

The past 24 hours have cemented President Donald Trump's reputation as America's "racist in chief." After tweeting a hateful diatribe about how four Democratic congresswomen of color should "go back" to where they came from, the President attempted to justify his racism with accusations that these members of Congress are anti-Israel. On Monday morning, he tweeted that these lawmakers "have made Israel feel abandoned by the U.S." and cited South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who called them all "anti-America" and "anti-Semitic."

[...]And despite his feigning concern about anti-Semitism, nearly three-quarters of Jews feel less secure than they did two years ago and the majority of Jews attribute their rising insecurity to Trump's policies. More specifically, many are concerned about Trump encouraging right-wing extremism and Republicans tolerating white nationalism within their ranks. In fact, according to a March Gallup poll, more than 70% of Jews continue to disapprove of Trump and only 16% now identify as Republicans.

....then Biden supported a fucking genocide in the name of trying to establish a safe place for Jewish people. When we all know his interest is actually oil in the middle east.

There is no fucking way either of them or the USA cares about any Jewish people or had their best interest in mind.

So that entire argument aside....

We can't keep letting white supremacists play these identity politic games and turning us on each other so we're keeping each other oppressed instead of helping each other be free.

Right now there are white queer people in my asks calling me (an Ojibwe) a Russian psyop for not wanting to vote blue.

That's the shit I'm talking about.

At the end of the day I don't want anyone except white supremacy and white supremacists to be decimated. I want a liberated and free people all over the globe.

Is that what you want too?

Then we have got to start focusing on the big picture. You are not my enemy and I am not yours. Our enemies are the same and they are unified.

We should be too.

International solidarity against white supremacy for the first time, for forever.

[antifainternational]

Lennart A. is one of four antifascists convicted in May 2023 by German courts for defending the city of Leipzig from neo-nazis. He was sentenced to at least two years and three months in prison.

Fighting hate is not a crime.

Anti-fascism = self-defence.

Solidarity is our weapon!

[mesetacadre]

Regarding your post on Stalin and Lenin, I want to ask in good faith: how can honest Communists, in good conscience, acknowledge the material harm and the death tolls of the deportations of the Crimean Tatars, Soviet Koreans, and Chechens + Ingush carried out by Stalin's administration?

I at least understand why Marxist-Leninists dispute calling the Holodomor and Kazakh famines genocides, on the grounds that they came about as a mix of failed policy, bad weather, and unintended consequences.

However, while Stalin's influence on the Famines is debatable, allowing the deportations to be carried out (which DO constitute a genocide) must certainly fall on his head. This is doubly so because Lavrentiy Beria - the principal architect of the Crimean Tatar and Chechen deportations - was a close ally of Stalin.

A big reason I ask this is because I frequently see other communists either gloss over the material harm of these deportations, or treat them as a regrettable footnote in an otherwise proud career. I find both approaches problematic, because I do not see them as an honest assessment of Stalin's wrongdoing with regards to ethnic minorities within the Soviet Union.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to reading your assessment, should you chose to answer it. Have a good day.

[context]

I'll get to the ask itself in a moment, but first I want to point out how you're doing exactly what the post you're replying to is criticizing, how every mistake and imperfect policy of the USSR between 1924 and 1953 is scapegoated to Stalin. You're ignoring both the very important structures of democracy and accountability within the party as well as in the administration of the state. He wasn't a dictator and policy was not a direct extension of the man's thoughts. The party leadership was a collective organ made up of at least a dozen people, of which Stalin was simply the chairman, with the same vote as everyone else. And every single one of these members were beholden to democratic recall at any time.

Let's start on the common ground, we understand that the famine which struck Ukraine, southern Russia and western Kazakhstan in the early 1930s has a context of cyclical famines, grain hoarding, rushed collectivization, and bad weather. There has been a strong effort on the part of capitalist powers to both exaggerate the effects of the famine and to place it all with intent to exterminate Ukranians specifically. The policy of collectivization and antagonism towards the grain-hoarding rich peasants was one approved by and carried out by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. We can debate the degree of maliciousness, the severity of its effects, etc. But what is indisputable once you know just a little of how the USSR worked, to pretend that it could all be carried out by Stalin's sole will is absurd.

And what is the context of the deportations? The fascist invasion of the USSR. This is an extraordinary circumstance, every facet of the USSR was being attacked and threatened with sabotage. It wasn't even the first time they had had to deal with internal sabotage, like it was revealed in the trials following the assassination of Kirov. Throughout the 30s, Nazi Germany's strongarm diplomacy was practically enabled by their ability to create fifth columns, to instigate conflict and to infiltrate. They were in the process of setting up a coup d'etat in Lithuania when, with only a week to spare, it was voted that Lithuania would join the USSR. So, the fear that, as the front advanced, the nazis would do everything in their power to turn the tapestry of nationalities close to the front against the USSR, wasn't only unfounded, it was certain. Fascists are also quite famously brutal against the minorities in the territories they conquered. Their modus operandi whenever they captured a population was to kill any elected leaders and start to instigate anti-semitism.

This was the rationale that drove the policy of resettlement. It was a rushed wartime decision, such was the context, and people definitely died unnecessarily in transport. They decided that the negative consequences of resettlement outweighed the risk of sabotage, destroyed supply lines, and of a completely certain brutal destiny for these minorities if the front advanced past them. It was not a genocide, and it had nothing to do with whatever personal relationship you think Stalin had with Beria. (As a tangent, in this interview, Stalin's bodyguard said that Beria was "neither his [Stalin's] right hand man or left hand man"). I reiterate though, the personal relationships of one man did not dictate the policy decided on democratically by the CPSU.

I don't see the problem in understanding the context of these decisions and understanding the rationale behind them without kneejerking into discounting Stalin's competency. It's very easy to criticize a decision with 80 years of hindsight, without the pressure of the largest land invasion ever carried out advancing steadily. You can't understand the policies of a country containing hundreds of millions of people and hundreds of nationalities through the lens of a single man's personal failings, especially in wartime. Admitting these mistakes, but understanding the context in which they were made, is the only way to learn from other attempts at developing socialism. What is not productive is to insist on pinning every mistake, every unnecessary pain, every inefficiency, as the wrongdoings of a single man. It's dishonest to both the past, and to how communists organize today.

[7thedisasterdyke]

Kamala has already supported KOSA (Project 2025). She has told us she is going to continue to murder babies and families. She wants to turn Gaza into real estate for white supremacists. She invited right wing goons to speak at the DNC. The Biden admin just funded alt-right chuds in Venezuela to riot because Biden thinks the socialist cheated and thinks Venezuelan Trump won instead. As a queer, indigenous person, I know Kamala will be just as bad as Trump for my rights if not worse because she wants conservatives to vote for her. The Democratic party and AIPAC has ousted progressive dems in their primaries and replaced them with obedient right wing Dems. The Biden admin sends weapons to nazis in Ukraine who killed 14,000 Ukrainians who protested against the Right wing coup that Obama supported a decade ago. Obama is responsible for many innocent deaths (but y'all treat him like a celebrity saint). Obama and Hillary had Gaddafi killed. Libyan had it all. Obama ordered a drone strike on paramedics rescuing people from the wedding he just bombed (they call it the Obama two tap). Anyway, you can keep defending the Dems moving 3 clicks right because it's better than 10 clicks right with Republicans, and saying it's an evil system, but you're helping to enable it. If we get Trump, it's nobody's fault but the Dems. I actually thought Kamala would be better than Biden. I was wrong. I'm not gonna vote for anyone who is responsible for murdering children and selling the rights of marginalized people (including myself) to Republicans. You can say "Oh but she said 'trans rights'" all you want but this is my 4th election and Dems keep supporting transphobic dems and anti-abortion dems and they parade them around like the good guys. The marginalized people you claim to support are all screaming at you to not support these right wing Dems and join them on the left. You don't get to sell them out for your own comfort. Your rights aren't more important than mine and vice versa. We've been asking you to move left with us since at least Obama turned out to have lied about codifying Roe and decided bailing out his bank buddies was more important. But we're watching you move right. We will survive either way but the dems want you to use scare tactics because they want to be the ones at the wheel of the fascist machine. So if you don't like it then don't participate. Don't play their game. They both play for the same team. They want your consent for nuclear war against made up enemies. It's sick. Stop believing their lies and supporting them. Supporting Kamala is the same as supporting Trump. You're just voting for aesthetics. Lots of liberals have already lost their way anyway and say they'd rather be fascists than socialists. Human rights begin on the left and the dems have never been left of center. Ffs liberals pulled out of a pride fest because of Palestinian inclusion. Lots of them already are self admitted zionists. Do you want to belong to a political party that openly supports white Christian supremacy cosplaying as judaism to avoid criticism? The two party system is white supremacy and they are using a black woman to play identity politics with people who only see her as color and refuse to see that she's a tool to them. Anyway there's room at the leftist table. Or you can keep going to the right until you no longer remember what you stood for.

I'm not gonna lie, sending one big chunk of text with no space for me to breathe between paragraphs is tough for me to read, but I'm going to anyway, because I foresee I'm gonna get quite a few of these.

So I'm going to go through this one point at a time:

Support of KOSA: sadly true, but that's an easy thing to change minds on. Not like she's the only one in the senate who wants it passed on either side.

Continue to murder babies and families: I can't tell if you mean the border or Gaza, but in either case, Trump will do many times worse.

Gaza into WS real estate: no she doesn't. She's been more outspoken in favor of an end to the genocide than any other presidential candidate in modern history.

Invited right-wingers into the DNC: first, I don't think she personally invited them. Second, even if she did, she still needs to pull Trump supporters and marginally right-wing independents to vote for her. We want a better society for everyone, after all.

Venezuela: the "socialist" has a proven track record of human rights abuses, and other than that, I don't know enough about the country to speak further on the subject.

Just as bad for queer/indigenous as Trump because she wants the right to vote for her: seriously, this is just point 4 worded differently. The purpose of an election (in the US) is to make yourself palatable to as many people as possible so you can beat the massive core of voters each party has. Also, again, we're trying to make a better society for everyone, right?

Dems/AIPAC ousting progressives in primaries: sure, AIPAC has a large amount of money to outspend progressives, and even still, the only actual "ousting" I've heard of was Cory Bush.

Biden sending weapons to Nazis in Ukraine: ok look, I'm sick of leftists parroting Russian propaganda. The government of Russia is authoritarian and right-wing, Trump idolizes Putin, and Putin has allied himself with Kim Jong-Un, who Trump also loves. Also, a few far-right nationalist groups fighting to maintain their nation (alongside non-far-right troops) is to be expected. And respectfully, I don't care how Obama was involved, because that's irrelevant to Russia literally invading.

Obama having innocents killed: yeah, duh, he was a US president in the US Empire's Military Age. That doesn't mean anything, and Harris was never even part of his administration, so your point is just a complete non sequitur to begin with.

"Defending Dems moving 3 clicks right when it's better than 10 clicks with Repubs": would you rather have the 10 clicks? Like, actually. Democrats are already right-wing. Harris's policies would work to move the country left, actually.

"If we get Trump, it's nobody's fault but the dems": actually, no, it's the fault of people who try to persuade the minority of far-left democrats to not vote for the best possible option.

Dems keep supporting transphobic/anti-abortion dems: yeah, sure, I'll give you that one, because guess what? They're more easily convinced to vote in their trans constituents' best interests regardless. They're more likely to vote to maintain abortion rights because they're more likely to listen to those constituents.

Marginalized people screaming at me to join them on the left: I am on the left. Incredibly far left, in fact. I'm just not stupid enough to think that we have enough people to change things. Want me to vote third party? I think I'd rather go with the safer option for marginalized people and pick someone with any chance of beating Trump.

I'm a sellout: no, I'm really not. I just understand that the system is overwhelmingly rigged against the non-establishment picks.

Dems want to be at the wheel of the fascist machine: better the one who has a chance at turning it around than the one who'll turn up the throttle.

Don't like it, don't participate: this isn't like a boycott. If every left-winger decided not to participate, Trump would almost certainly win by default. We "play their game" because without the game's existence, Trump's devoted followers would have already had every minority expunged from the country.

They both play for the same team: they're not even playing the same game! Trump and his Republican lackeys want to eliminate the concept of voting entirely, wants to end freedoms for all minorities, and wants to establish theocracy. Democrats want to maintain the democratic system, establish more rights for minorities, and make life better for Americans. This is also my answer to "Supporting Kamala is the same as supporting Trump": it's just not true.

Lots of liberals are self-admitted Zionists: believing Jewish people have a right to the chunk of land the Jewish ethnoreligion originated from, in this world with borders, where they can be unequivocally safe from the historic oppression they have faced for the last several thousand years in... is a fairly common sentiment. That is Zionism. There is a difference between believing that, and believing that they should be the only ones living in that specific region that was inhabited when they got there, which is Kahanism. In order to figure out, in a way that makes as many people happy as possible with the outcome, what to do with Israel, we need someone at the helm of the US who is not Kahanist. Trump notably supports Kahanists. Harris, notably, does not. At least not publicly. Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret as a presidential nominee?

The two-party system is WS: YES! It is! But we're not going to beat it from the outside because, and this is important, they have the power to silence us if we get too loud, and they will absolutely use it. The US has the third largest military in the world by active personnel, at 1.3 million. Do you think we would be able to train enough people to beat that? Think we can afford enough fighter planes to defeat 4 of the top 5 air forces in the world? Until the answer to that is yes, I'm going to keep voting in US elections for the lesser of two evils, because I'd rather fight them, than the trigger-happier alternatives.

"You can keep going to the right until you no longer remember what you stood for": also known as "doing anything a different flavor of leftist doesn't like".

I'd like to end this with a series of open questions:

Did you know that, of the third-party candidates for president, only Jill Stein has any chance of winning enough states?

Did you know that she's only ever won Massachusetts?

Did you know that the Claudia de la Cruz can only win by write-in?

Did you know that Cornel West isn't even on enough ballots to win?

I've seen leftists calling for votes for all three.

Final question to everyone voting "third-party or not at all":

Which one of them will beat Harris in every state?

Have a good night, and stay whelmed.