#claimed it was ‘dehumanizing’ to call him antisemitic

[canichangemyblogname]

I open TikTok for the first time in a week and, oh holy fuck.

Non-comprehensive list of words that are not dehumanizing to call someone:

racist

colonizer

zionist

Islamophobe

antisemite

Karen

Trumper

antiblack

homophobe

misogynist

TERF

transphobe

incel

Also, because it apparently needs to be said, *do not*— I repeat: DO NOT— in any way equivocate being called something like “colonizer” with the dehumanization that Jewish people faced under Nazi rule. Do not say, “This is the same rhetoric the Nazis used to justify killing Jews,” when someone calls you a racist. Do not claim that you are being oppressed for being called something like “incel.” And DO NOT tell people that being called out on your bigotry is “exactly like the Holocaust.” It’s not. And claiming it is is nothing short of antisemitic.

[magnetothemagnificent]

franz kafka’s writings are often analyzed in a trans lens the person who wrote that was almost definitely a trans person who related. people who call kafka a trans woman are almost entirely trans women. there is also a huge subset of literature shitposter girls who use kafka and the metamorphosis specifically to talk about their experiences with womanhood. so while i agree that the trope you are talking about is antisemitic i don’t think that applies here. he’s not being called a woman in a disparaging way.

It. Literally. Doesn't. Matter.

Spoiler alert: trans people can be antisemitic!

Franz Kafka was a real person who died not too long ago, and just because a trans person relates to his writings doesn't mean they can claim he's trans. It's not the same as relating to a fictional character. You can't 'headcanon' an actual person. I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman. He was an actual person, not a fictional character you can project on. An treating Franz Kafka like a fictional character you can project any label onto and separate him from his actual life is dehumanization and *also* antisemitic.

It's no different than queer people co-opting Anne Frank's memory and erasing her story to just herald her as a "bi icon" when she never had the chance to live long enough to label herself. Queer gentiles need to stop dehumanizing Jewish people and turning them into blank slates they can project onto.

Kafka's Metamorphosis and writings about his depression are from the viewpoint of a disabled Jewish man who was watching as antisemitism was slowly escalating around him and Jews were becoming insects in the minds of society. And "he's not being called a woman in a disparaging way" is the dumbest excuse ever- antisemitism is antisemitism. I've seen trans people infantilize Jewish men, calling them "different breed of man" or "scrunkly" and then insist they meant it positively. Intent doesn't matter. Calling a Jewish man, who never ever indicated having any gender identity otherwise, a woman, or implying he's somehow not a full man, is antisemitic.

[honesty-my-policy]

How Germany became Nazis a warning to the world: Part Two - Private Antisemitism

Originally, I planned to start with racial theory and antisemitism in pre-WWII Europe, particularly in Germany. While I will still explore these concepts, the more I delve into the period between WWI and WWII, especially what many Germans later called "the normal years" of the Third Reich (1933-1939), the more I see how Hitler masterfully curated his public image. He understood what the public desired and how to sway a population that had lost faith in a system they saw as irreparably broken.

After his arrest for attempting a coup, Hitler recognized that his fanatical antisemitism appealed only to the already antisemitic. At the time, many Germans held what could be described as a "polite" or "cultured" antisemitism, common in both Western Europe and North America. However, they disapproved of the Nazis' extreme and violent methods. Realizing this, Hitler adjusted his approach during his trial, abandoning his usual frothing-at-the-mouth tirades against Jews for a more restrained and calculated rhetoric.

When he stood before the court, Hitler somehow knew that his typical rants wouldn’t sway those in power. To avoid severe punishment, he switched tactics, and this moment marked the beginning of a crucial transformation in his public persona. Virtue became his theme—not antisemitism, at least not overtly. He still referenced the "Jewish Problem" through euphemisms and loose terminology, but he framed his actions as motivated by an overwhelming love for Germany. In his testimony, he even accepted responsibility for violating the Weimar Republic's constitution, claiming that he was driven by a higher moral duty, placing morality above written law.

The court was charmed. Instead of being deported, Hitler was sentenced to five years in a Bavarian detention center, a sentence that he later reminisced about fondly. It was there that he dictated Mein Kampf—yes, orally dictated to Rudolf Hess, as the book was not hand-written by Hitler himself.

This story is the beginning of Hitler’s character transformation. When he was released after just nine months, he emerged not as the fanatical antisemite he once was, but as the embodiment of virtue. The irony is almost comedic, isn’t it? The same man who once spewed vitriol now wrapped himself in the mantle of virtue.

Some talking points never changed—his hatred for the Treaty of Versailles, for example, which was something all Germans hated. But as he reached out to the better educated, he kept his virulent hatreds in check, replacing them with things the crowds, instead of being repulsed by, would find funny. Racist wisecracks and side comments were par for the course back then—it was just jokes, right? He also employed medical euphemisms and metaphors, linking Jews and other "lesser races" to despised values like urbanism, materialism, and greed. Always, the Aryans were cast as trusting and vulnerable, pitted against Jewish deceivers.

To replace his vile antisemitism, Hitler became a preacher of ethnic fundamentalism. The uniqueness of Germans was to be celebrated. He was skilled at reducing complex issues into simple speeches that he delivered like sermons, igniting a fire in the crowds around him. In the end, Hitler called for ethnic Germans to unify, declaring that rival politics were pointless. He sold the German people idealism, and it had never tasted so good.

This was the foundation Adolf Hitler and the Nazis built upon to draw people into their circle. After that, it became much easier to influence them. Before this transformation, no one but other antisemites bothered listening to Hitler. But as his popularity grew, the German people, without even realizing it, began to accept the dehumanization of not just Jews, but many others, along with a new moral and ethical code.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[1][3]

[oops-prow-did-it-again]

So, I've seen a few people in the notes trying to shrug this off as "these people don't know exactly what they're saying," and while I get the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that people can't be that evil, I cannot stress enough that Donald Trump has appeared on InfoWars before, years ago. This is not NEW for him in any regard.

Alex Jones has also, on his show, claimed that Democrats, Jews, and various other people are inhuman things masquerading as people. Gremlin-wraiths, Renfields, vampires - it sounds like complete lunacy, and IT IS, but you have to recognize that while on the surface it sounds like complete bullshit and like nobody can be stupid enough to believe it, it isn't designed to be necessarily believable. It's designed to sink hooks into people that are already on that fringe line and designed to dehumanize groups of people. You can call Democrats and Jews and Black people and queer people something as emphatically meaningless as "gremlin-wraiths" because that word doesn't have to mean anything. It just has to mean "not human."

Also, on the vaccine thing - the far right wingnuts have been screeching for years that it is a poison shot and that it's killing millions. The people who were told this didn't fact-check it, they just took that news at face value, and were manipulated to believe that the death count they saw from COVID was in part DUE to the vaccine, not because of COVID itself. This also feeds into the dehumanization of (mostly Jews, admittedly) other people, because they believe that this was a concerted effort by their enemies (or, in specifically Alex Jones' alt right nutcase circles, the "New World Order") to kill off their opponents.

I know I'm bringing up specifically Alex Jones-flavored talking points to the discussion of alt-right nuttery, but that's because, despite the financial bashing he (rightfully) took as a result of the Sandy Hook suits, and how even most alt right whackos will talk about him like he's a joke, he and his goddamned show InfoWars hugely helped spearhead this bullshit.

People like those that dedicatedly watch Alex Jones' show have been steadily primed to believe that they are constantly under threat, that their enemies are trying to actively wrench away their freedoms and have been actively trying to kill them either through poisonous vaccine shots or through poisoned waters, that the people who do so are not human, and that it is up to them to instate people they can trust to power and to take matters into their own hands if need be via the second amendment (i.e., shoot and kill people).

These people live on another fucking planet, quite frankly, where they think the world is somehow out to get them and that they have to fucking shoot-em-up style blast their way into keeping their freedom. They have tons of dogwhistles. Even if it sounds insanely weird or over-the-top or bizarre to you, chances are, it probably means something to them, and while it's fun to make jokes about how chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay, it's good to do research and realize that that is actually still antisemitic as hell and being used to prime people to think they are under attack and that their life is in danger, for profit and for political gain.

this shouldnt be the funniest thing in the world to me but here we are

[cliverosfieldslefttiddy]

Y’all people aren’t asking Noah to apologize for being Jewish

People are asking him to apologize for the months he spent dehumanizing Palestinians and promoting those BS “Zionism is sexy” stickers, among other things

The folks claiming to want a free Palestine while being antisemitic in the process just want an excuse to hide behind while being antisemitic. But the true Free Palestine movement denounces antisemitism in all its forms.

If you see antisemitism in the wild, call it the hell out.

If you see anti-Palestinian rhetoric in the wild, call it the hell out.

Don’t lose sight of the goal: a liberated Palestine and the IDF being brought to justice for its crimes against the Palestinian people and land.

[105ttt]

So, I'm kinda new to Cookie Run, so I don't know a whole lot about the characters inpirations and all that so I hope you don't mind me asking, but what's up with Milk Cookie's design? I've seen people say it's problematic but no explanation on why it is, and I just feel a little lost and dumb lol

It’s okay! You’re not dumb! I’m happy to explain. I’m going to put this under a readmore because there’s… a lot wrong with him and his design. I’ll put a summary before the readmore in case you don’t want details.

TL;DR: Milk Cookie’s appearance, being likely based on the Crusaders and having motifs similar to the Iron Cross used by the Nazis, is antisemitic. Milk Cookie talks down to people of color and also destroys their property without their consent, even if he does not mean it in a malicious way. All of his actions are played off as cute or a joke, which is racist because it makes a white man seem like he can’t be blamed for things he did which were legitimately wrong and meanwhile makes the people of color he harasses seem like the ones who did something wrong. His contrast with Purple Yam Cookie in his release update and the other Cookies he meets is also outright racist, even if not intentional.

Disclaimer: I’m not Jewish or a person of color, so my opinions on Milk Cookie’s design as it relates to how it’s antisemitic or his character as it relates to him being racist are not important. You should consult Jewish people and/or people of color for their own opinions on Milk Cookie above all else. The things I’m about to list out are what I’ve heard from Jewish Cookie Run fans, people of color who play Cookie Run, or other minority groups sympathetic to Jewish people who have expressed their concerns about Milk Cookie’s design.

His appearance:

Milk Cookie’s physical appearance is a major problem for many people because it brings up antisemitic imagery. He is likely based on a paladin from Dungeons and Dragons, since Purple Yam Cookie and Mala Sauce Cookie are also based on Dungeons and Dragons classes. Paladins draw their imagery from the Crusaders, which is an antisemitic group from European history that claimed their religion was a valid reason to murder and oppress Jewish and Muslim people. Milk Cookie not only looks like a Crusader, but religion is a major theme in his design. The crosses, white clothing, and the fact that he is associated with Milk Angel all imply this. His story also says he is on a “divine mission” to bring peace to all Cookies, but a religious mission like that sounds dangerously close to the mission of the Crusaders. The crosses on his shield and mace are, as I already stated, also very visually close to Iron Crosses.

While all of this was likely not intentional on Devsisters’ part, it still brings these kinds of associations to mind. This is why many Jewish people in particular are uncomfortable with Milk Cookie’s design and do not like to see him or talk about him. It does not help that he is always smiling and has rosy cheeks, as it makes him seem “cutesy” and “trustworthy” compared to a character like Purple Yam Cookie, who always scowls and has slashes on his face and chest.

His character and actions:

Milk Cookie’s character is racist in that it makes him, a white man, seem automatically more likable and good as a person than any person of color he meets by virtue of how the story portrays his actions and the people around him. From his debut, he has always been portrayed as a “kind”, “gentle” person who does nothing wrong. Even when he verbally and physically threatens Purple Yam Cookie despite Purple Yam Cookie not threatening him at all, he faces no repercussions for it. Later, he stalks Purple Yam Cookie even after Purple Yam Cookie tells him to leave him alone. Rather than being punished for this creepy behavior, he gets defended by Purple Yam Cookie from a giant Jellyworm and later stays at Purple Yam Cookie’s camp (once again, against Purple Yam Cookie’s will). Later, Purple Yam Cookie nearly falls into a volcano, and Milk Cookie saves him by grabbing onto his clothes. As he does so, however, he says demeaning things to Purple Yam Cookie. Rather than Purple Yam Cookie rightfully being allowed to be mad at Milk Cookie, the story portrays them as bonding afterward. It’s very awkward for a black man to suddenly forgive a white man for his creepy, condescending behavior just because he saved his life.

The Dino-Sour Cookie update included a scene where Milk Cookie told Purple Yam Cookie to mind his manners when speaking to Dino-Sour Cookie, which is very condescending. Purple Yam Cookie is an adult, so he should be allowed to do whatever he likes. A white man speaking over a black man and telling him to “watch his manners” is very textbook racist.

In the Mala Sauce Cookie update, Milk Cookie is once again portrayed as more “kind” than Purple Yam Cookie when he scolds Purple Yam Cookie for not offering to help Mala Sauce Cookie with her tribe’s issues. This is once again a case of Milk Cookie talking down to Purple Yam Cookie, as Purple Yam Cookie is implied to have just met Mala Sauce Cookie and therefore is not close enough with her to the point where he should want to undertake the big task of helping her. In addition, Purple Yam Cookie has his own goal which he wants to stick to, and as an adult, he has the right to want to pursue it before anything else. Milk Cookie’s condemnation of Purple Yam Cookie’s choice to focus on his own goal is just plain rude. Later, after the Dragon’s Valley Squad meets Pitaya Dragon Cookie and receives their advice on how to solve Mala Sauce Cookie’s problem, Milk Cookie once again calls Purple Yam Cookie selfish for wanting to continue his quest rather than stay with Mala Sauce Cookie. All-in-all, it’s a big mess.

In the Mango Cookie update, Milk Cookie suggests that he and Dino-Sour Cookie dig into Pineapple Mountain to try to find Ananas Dragon Cookie. Mango Cookie begs him not to do so, as it ruins the island’s landscape and enrages Ananas Dragon Cookie, but he starts digging without listening to Mango Cookie. When Mango Cookie asks what he’s doing, he ignores Mango Cookie’s obvious concern and says he’ll use his shield to defend them all from the Dragon when it arrives. Thus, Mango Cookie’s concern is played off as a joke. The defilement of the island, which is inhabited by Pacific Islanders, by a white man is extremely reminiscent of imperialism in real life, and it would likely make Pacific Islanders uncomfortable that it is played off as a funny story. Ananas Dragon Cookie’s rightful rage about the whole thing is played off as ridiculous too, which doesn’t make it any better.

Milk Cookie compared to those around him:

Every important Cookie Milk Cookie has come into contact with in the Dragon’s Valley story was not white, and almost all of them exhibits traits of racist stereotypes about non-white people that make Milk Cookie look more “perfect” and “likable”. The biggest victim of this is Purple Yam Cookie, but we’ll get to him in a moment.

Dino-Sour Cookie falls into the stereotype of being animalistic. He has sharp teeth and lives alongside dinosaurs, and he even seems to communicate with Jellysaur somehow. Attributing these kinds of characters to a man of color is a classic kind of racist stereotype which tries to make him seem more alike with animals than humans. Simply put, it is dehumanizing. People call Dino-Sour Cookie “feral” because of how he’s portrayed, and that’s… not good when you’re talking about a man of color.

Mala Sauce Cookie, who would likely be Chinese if she were human because mala sauce is a Chinese sauce, falls into a similar stereotype to Purple Yam Cookie. That is, her personality centers around combat. There is also the fact that she’s from a tribe, and her Costume contains motifs like animal skins and dangling golden jewelry which are typically racist when applied to people of color. Devsisters may have been intending for Mala Sauce Cookie to be Mongolian, based on her Costume and her living in a tribe, but that just makes her even more of a stereotype as she’s portrayed with Mongolian stereotypes (like the helmet in her Costume and living in a warrior tribe). Whether Mala Sauce Cookie is Chinese or Mongolian, she is still very obviously a woman of color, and so applying these stereotypes to her is… not good. (And we’re not even getting into how Cookie Run loves to make dark-skinned female Cookies more masculine than the ones with lighter skin, which is a racist stereotype that dehumanizes women of color and invalidates their right to be feminine if they so choose.)

Mango Cookie and Ananas Dragon Cookie both are portrayed as ridiculous for objecting to Milk Cookie’s destruction of the pineapple island, which makes them seem ignorant of “the greater good at hand” and selfish when they are simply trying to defend their home and their dignity.

Purple Yam Cookie has been with Milk Cookie since the beginning, and he is by far the biggest victim of the racism inherent in Milk Cookie’s character. He has always been juxtaposed to Milk Cookie. Even on the title screen for their release update, we see Purple Yam Cookie depicted as “rowdy” and violent, looking at the player with a smirk and wielding his mace, while Milk Cookie in that same screen is partially turned away from the viewer. He is smiling politely, and his mace is nowhere to be seen; we only see his shield. This contrast alone signifies how their different characters clash, and how Milk Cookie is supposed to seem more “likable” and “pure” than Purple Yam Cookie.

Purple Yam Cookie’s character is literally a racist caricature of black men. He is angry, violent, and loud - all the time. Even when he seemingly has no reason to be angry or violent, he shouts, complains about how angry he is, and acts in such a way that the player is supposed to see him as “selfish”. His trauma about the Oven is played off as a joke, claiming that it’s the reason why he’s always angry. The game treats his PTSD as a joke for the sake of making him a racist stereotype. His loading lines in-game are all either about fighting or being angry. He yells in most of his dialogue, emphasizing words that don’t even make sense, just for the sake of making him seem grumpy and rude. He even says things that don’t make sense at all just to keep the angry personality trait! If you equip his Champion of Valor Costume, he claims that “shiny colors” and “fancy clothes” make him angry, and his Costume description contains him yelling at people for complimenting him. He is also depicted with sharp teeth in some cutscenes, which is reminiscent of racist remarks made about black people by white people throughout history, calling them “animalistic” by nature. All of this taken together, combined with the fact that his Skill is all about destruction and that his whole character motive is to fight Dark Choco Cookie to reclaim his title as Champion, makes him into a character you are “supposed” to dislike and view as mean.

Contrast that with Milk Cookie. His dialogue in most cutscenes is polite. He gives encouragement to the player in his loading lines for his Costume. Most of his loading lines are also uplifting and encouraging. He has never been shown to be unnecessarily mad except for once, when he threatened Purple Yam Cookie after hearing he was planning to fight Dark Choco Cookie - and he was not punished for this or made to seem violent by the narrative! Milk Cookie’s backstory is about wanting to thank Dark Choco Cookie, not wanting to fight them. And the fact that he has sprites where he smiles and seems happy, whereas Purple Yam Cookie only ever smiles in canon when he’s being violent, just makes Milk Cookie seem more “pure” and “gentle” to the player. Devsisters likely did not make Milk Cookie and Purple Yam Cookie this way intentionally. It was likely the product of internalized racism, but even so, that doesn’t make it okay or make the racist elements insignificant.

There is probably a lot more I could talk about when it comes to why Milk Cookie as a character is problematic, but these should be enough details to get the gist of it. As I said before, you should consult Jewish people and people of color when it comes to this topic before anything else, but I hope this explanation clears things up.

[thats-a-lot-of-cortisol]

I’ve been seeing (and sharing) some things about certain prophets and scriptures and such. So I’m going to share my unsolicited opinion about this. I’ll preface by saying that I’m not Black and don’t pretend to know the full extent of the harm from the racism in the Church. I’m coming at this from what I’ve heard and learned and studied; if I say something inaccurate, please let me know!

 I’ll make it as organized as I can. It’s gonna be long so it’ll be under the cut.

First of all, I know that we’re told to listen to the prophet’s voice. D&C 21:4-5 says:

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed to all of [Joseph Smith’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

(Brackets added by me).

This says that we need to heed the voices of the leaders of the Church because they’re mouthpieces of the Lord. It also says that we need to have patience and faith. To me, this means that sometimes they’ll say things we disagree with. This is often looked at as “oh you need to pray and learn to be okay with the doctrine”, which is the case sometimes! But sometimes, to me, this also means “you need to pray and figure things out for yourself, keeping the faith when your leaders decide to spread their opinions instead of or alongside doctrine”. It’s odd to me that we say that our leaders are imperfect but then refuse to truly admit when a previous leader (you know the one, though there were plenty more) were, in a word, wrong. Brigham Young was an imperfect person who supported slavery and took away Black mens’ rights to hold the priesthood. He did some awful things! And guess what? He was wrong. Ezra Taft Benson said that Martin Luther King was a communist. Guess what? He was wrong. Saying that someone was a prophet and brought forth doctrine and saying that they had wrong/harmful opinions are not mutually exclusive. We readily criticize Joseph Smith for being bad at money but we have a hard time criticizing Brigham Young for being racist and pro-slavery. Honestly, I consider Young to be worse in that regard, so I’m not sure why we’ve refused to acknowledge it for so long. A couple other people who are held up as religious leaders who did the Lord’s work include:

-Martin Luther, who was antisemitic for a large part of his life and died holding those views.

-Paul, who was sexist. (I’m not going to get into the debate about whether or not the verses in question were actually his words because I’m not very knowledgeable on the topic, but they are attributed to him as of when I’m writing this so that’s what I’m going with).

Paul is well loved and respected by Christians, at least from what I’ve seen. Martin Luther was a crucial part of the Reformation. We say that those views are outdated and harmful despite the fact that those men were “a product of their time”. In the secular sphere, we say this about Confederate generals and slaveholders. We recognize the culture they grew up around but critique their views anyway because we know better now. On top of that, cultures are never monolithic, so not everyone’s going to have the same views. Heck, Martin Luther wasn’t antisemitic at first. “Their time” included people who weren’t sexist or racist or antisemitic or any other bad “-ist”. Their time period isn’t an excuse.

So why are we allowing it to be an excuse with our leaders? Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the Lord’s Church in the latter-days, was anti-slavery! He appointed Black men to the priesthood! Some examples: Elijah Abel was the first Black man to be called to the Seventy. He went on three missions. He was ordained to the priesthood! Joseph T. Ball was a branch president! He was also ordained to the priesthood. I said it earlier and I’ll say it again: Brigham Young took the blessings of holding the priesthood away from Black men. This goes directly against what Joseph Smith, one of the first to hold the priesthood in the Restored Church, did. And this stance was held up by other racist leaders until 1978.

Our leaders through the years have claimed to have been praying for an answer about this, and I’m sure they were, but they didn’t receive the go-ahead to lift the ban. I commonly hear people justifying this by saying that such a radical stance would have killed the Church because the world wasn’t ready for it. But there were plenty of anti-slavery churches who actively helped and protected slaves and free Black people at that time and afterwards. So to me, the logic doesn’t add up, and it’s never sat right with me.

But here’s the thing: we know that the Restoration is a process. We know that we learn and grow “line by line, precept by precept” as we are willing to apply what we are taught. You can pray for whatever you want, but if you’re not truly open to the answer you won’t get it. I’m sure many of us have had those times where we say that we’re open to whatever the answer is but we aren’t yet; I know I have. I, personally, think that that’s what happened. The apostles and prophets weren’t truly ready. And guess what it took? It took them realizing that a community of Saints in Brazil (if I remember correctly) who wouldn’t be able to go into the temple being built in their area raised money to build it anyway. 

In a similar vein, we know that some of the teachings used to justify those views are false.

-”Mark of Cain”: used to say that Black people were unworthy of temple covenants because they’re descendants of Cain. This is false and dehumanizing.

-”Valor in Heaven”: this is the belief that people who aren’t white are that way because they were “less than faithful” during the war in heaven. This is false. A lot of things have grey areas, but I feel like this is pretty straight forward: either you ended up on the Savior’s side in the pre-existence or you didn’t. Everyone reading this in a physical body ended up on the Savior’s side. I, personally, don’t think Heavenly Father would quantify it, either. Is someone who joined the Church later in life any less qualified for the Celestial Kingdom? What about someone who doesn’t accept the gospel until the afterlife, but gets all of the saving ordinances by proxy? Do they get stuck in a Kingdom lower than what they actually should get? “Valor in Heaven” flies in the face of our teachings and is dehumanizing.

-The Lamanites’ curse: this was a specific situation that applied to a specific group of people. Quick note: I’m wrestling with these verses myself, but this is where I’m at with them right now. This is definitely “gospel according to Jean” territory, partly because I’m not sure how often recent leaders have discussed it: we’ve been avoiding the topic all together for a while now.

It didn’t make their culture monolithic. Both they and the Nephites went through phases of righteousness and unrighteousness. The main issue was that the Nephites (who started out righteous) were actively being killed by the Lamanites. The curse was a way to tell them apart, yes, but it would have been the same whether it was “the Lamanites will have blonde hair” or “the Nephites will be dark” (to use the terminology in the Book of Mormon). Also, what does Jacob tell the Nephites in Jacob 3? One, to “revile against them no more because of the darkness of their skins” (verse 9) and two, that they were more righteous than the Nephites were at that time. Jacob gives a couple reasons for this: firstly, they loved their wives and didn’t cheat on them or participate in polygamy that wasn’t given the go-ahead by the Lord (this is what the Nephites were doing). Secondly, the hatred they felt towards the Nephites was passed down by their fathers. Their fathers were Laman and Lemuel, who actively tried to murder their brothers and even their father, and taught their children to do the same to their cousins. The Lamanites hated the Nephites because they were taught that Nephi stole the brass plates (which held genealogy and doctrine) and tried to take the right to rule from his older brothers. I, at least, can understand the logic of that, even if it’s not really what happened according to the Book of Mormon. They were acting on what they knew. It was a lasting blood feud between family, not “oh one group is Not White so they’re bad”. This, besides the fact that the Lehites hailed from Jerusalem. So, Middle Eastern. Also, “filthiness”, from what I can tell, was used as another way to say “unrighteousness”. It’s not that they were literally “dirtier”, as I think many people take it to mean.

When one group was righteous and the other one wasn’t, the righteous group sent missionaries to the other. We use it to justify racism and slavery. There’s also the fact that sometimes the scriptures say that the Lord caused something to happen when really it was more that He let it happen. He didn’t actually harden the Pharaoh’s heart, He just didn’t violate the Pharaoh’s agency to un-harden it. I wonder if the “curse” was something similar.

So all that to say: we should absolutely hold Brigham Young, Ezra Taft Benson, and the others accountable for the harm they did. They were human! And humans are never just good. It’s okay to say “we recognize that these men furthered the Restoration, but they also did and said awful things that are not acceptable.” That’s not disrespecting their roles as prophets, seers, and revelators, it’s ensuring that we don’t conflate their opinions with doctrine. Is it so hard to apologize? To not ignore the pain this caused? But until us and our leaders both start actively working to undo the racism inherent in the system, we’re not going to get anywhere.

[sethshead]

The lesson never changes, so why is it so hard for some people to learn: No one is free until everyone is free. As Martin Luther King Jr. explained: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.” So, let’s act like it. If we’re going to be outraged by injustice, let’s be outraged by injustice against anyone.

Kareem is true to his name and lives by the Reverend Doctor’s words. I am deeply grateful.

He shouldn’t have to do this; Abdul-Jabbar is vastly more representative of black opinion than are the public figures he criticizes here. Polls have shown that Jews have higher favorability in black America than in white. African-Americans are less antisemitic than the average and our people’s alliance for justice continues, too aware that a threat to one is a threat to the other. So why is it so often black antisemitism that makes the news?

I don’t think its media manipulation or reactionary propaganda. From high school on, I grew up experiencing personally all the antisemitism we hear from the likes of Ice Cube, DeSean Jackson, Stephen Jackson, Nick Cannon, etc. It came from Hebrew Israelites, from Hoteps, but also from CCNY students and people in the street. It is very real, if incongruous. Rather, I think it’s an availability heuristic. I lean left in a very blue city. My colleagues and friends are in the arts and lean even further left than I. All would denounce right-wing white antisemitism without hesitation and likely with hyperbolic reductio ad Hitlerum, yet few have likely traveled far enough outside this town to meet in the flesh an actual Nazi sympathizer. I haven’t. But the left is notoriously reluctant to confront those for whom it claims to advocate, and it, especially its privileged white gatekeepers, have a very undifferentiated, patronizing view of African-Americans - one deprived of agency, responsibility, and independence. They imagine a Louis Farrakhan and those who praise him to be as committed to justice as they, unaware that in a black context he represents a black supremacist separatism every bit as extreme right-wing as any white supremacists. They excuse or defend antisemitism according to the source and do nothing to stop its spread in spaces close to home. That there are no consequences for such bigotry on those perceived by an oblivious left to be left themselves gives unrepresentative hate power and distorts the ideological makeup of leadership positions in social justice organizations. See also, the Women’s March. Bigotry injures most however the moral compass of the bigot; hate corrupts the hater. As with individuals, so too with movements. Being an effective opponent of hate means consistently confronting it wherever it is found. Otherwise we tear ourselves apart in our own hypocrisy. We fail to suppress the most toxic and damaged, divisive, untruthful and cruel voices among us and grant them opportunities to steer the course of our cause towards their own personal agendas and vendettas. We lose control, cohesion, and focus. And in the end, we lose.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Martin Luther King are right about “injustice anywhere.” Not just as a sentimental platitude or vague call-to-arms, but as a stern admonition that we ourselves cannot achieve justice if we tolerate injustice, or prejudice, or scapegoating and slanders, in our own midst. If we seek to redress legacies of dehumanization, we cannot indulge ever the same error.

[progressivemillennial]

My Ten Favorite Absurd False Equivalencies of 2018

To ring in the new year, I wanted to take a look back at a few of the most ridiculous comparisons I heard last year in political discourse. While most of these are self-explanatory, I'll provide a few explanations later for the less self-evident examples.

1. Anti-fascists are the real fascists! 2. Anti-racists are the real racists! 3. Feminists are the real sexists! 4. National Socialists (Nazis) were actually on the left. Look! Socialist is in their name! 5. Asylum-seekers and migrants are invaders. 6. Supporting Palestinians' humanity and corresponding rights is antisemitic. 7. What about Obama? * 8. Trump being called a Cheeto is as bad as calling a minority a gorilla, monkey, dog, or other animal. ** 9. American dissidents are criminals and/or terrorists even when no crimes or terror occurs. *** 10. So-called blue lives and black lives ****

Should you have any questions about the first six examples, please feel free to ask me about them. I'm happy to explain them further. Let's investigate the final four items below:

* The oft-used knee-jerk reference to Obama in response to denunciations of Trump is a bit different than the others listed here because sometimes there's a nugget of truth behind the comparison. For example, it's true that Obama did deport record numbers of immigrants, something that Trump has been criticized for.

At the same time, pointing to Obama reveals a lack of scrutiny of the differences between the two Presidents and of critical thinking. Obama's policies and implementation of them often lacked the extent and viciousness of Trump's approach. Other times, Obama literally did not do what Trump has done. Moreover, the equivalence of Obama and Trump has served as a critique of liberal hypocrisy which erases the many people who did not support Obama and did protest him. Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and Standing Rock are but a few examples of mass protests occurring during and--to varying extents--against aspects of the Obama presidency.

Finally, the "but Obama" response often deflects from the real injustices occurring under Trump and distracts us from the greater truth: the American system perpetuates great injustices regardless of who's in charge. We need to have a discussion about how to change the system.

** The equivalence of Trump's presumably artificial skin tone and minorities' skin color appears to stem from explicit racism in some cases to an utter lack of historical knowledge in others. The bottom line remains that calling people of color animals has been and remains a technique to dehumanize them.

*** Plenty of information on the unconstitutional efforts to criminalize protest and dissent over the last few years can be found via the ACLU, New York Times, The Intercept, and countless other outlets and organizations. The Guardian did an excellent series of pieces on how Standing Rock activists were approached and surveilled like domestic terrorists.

**** Blue Lives Matter is a reactionary response to the Black Lives Matter movement and has at its core a false equivalence. In short: policing is a choice and an occupation, the color of one's skin is neither. Because of their skin color, black people have been subject to centuries of violence and oppression; on the other hand, police have not been systematically oppressed. Instead, police wield the power of the state while black Americans historically have felt the immense power of the state used against them. Police have been a tool in the oppression of black people in this country. The police are not oppressed. The police have not been enslaved, been subject to Jim Crow laws, been imprisoned en masse, faced segregation, or been subject to a racist legal system. However, they have been used to enforce that racist legal system against minorities. The comparison of police lives to black lives is as insulting as it is ignorant.

And before I continue, I realize a few people may claim I'm saying police lives don't matter. I'm not saying that, nor am I dismissing the fact that police may find themselves in dangerous situations while they work. Should it be unclear to you what I'm saying, please feel free to ask.

I've brought this information to you for a few reasons:

1. Sometimes, it helps one's sanity to call out nonsense--particularly nefarious nonsense, 2. I anticipate we will see these and other false equivalencies more in 2019, and 3. To give you information to help you combat these phrases and understand why they don't make any sense and should not be used.

Until next time!

In peace and solidarity, Tom

[petalsbleedingbeak2]

The only terrorists in the area are IOF Nazis.

Zionism is highly antisemitic and its current pro-IOF form is literally built on the ideological grounds of the Holocaust.

Let me give you a lesson on history and political science, bitch.

Zionism in its modern sense is antisemitic on so many levels it's hard to comprehend.

First, "Israelis" and zionism in general claims that actions of IOF speak for all Jews. Therefore, they

- actively erase the history, culture, and to a sense the very existence of Ashkenazi Jews and other non-Palestinian diasporas who have no ties to Palestine and therefore to what zionists call "Israel".

- "Israel" was created by the Western occupants of Palestine in 1947. Prior to the WW2, in 1935/36, before the Holocaust began, Hitler "offered" Germany's Jews to the Western powers. It was of course a scam for he knew that nobody would accept several millions of refugees. Bear in mind that the reluctance of the West was also caused by their racism not very different from that of Third Reich's. Most prominent European and US universities had a Department of racial hygiene up to the WW2. I only put this in to illustrate that the racial ideology that was a ground to Nazism was at that point considered a valid scientific theory, just like phrenology a century prior. This is not an excuse, but it may help to understand why this entire monstrosity of the Holocaust was allowed to happen to begin with. Anyway, West's reluctance to accept several millions of refugees was abused by Hitler's ideology. They were refused mostly because they were in droves, not because of their Jewish ethnicity. Nevertheless, Hitler warped this into the "The West refused our Jews, therefore nobody wants the Jews, thus the extermination of the Jews is justified" rhetorics. It was, of course, utterly psychopathic, yet it was what it was. The horrors of the Holocaust happened, leaving 6 million dead and many more lost, uprooted, and damaged beyond repair.

Now, after the WW2, the entire West double downed on Hitler's "justification" of the Holocaust. They were like Okay, this Hitler guy was a cunt but he was right. We don't want the Jews here, but we can't say it now when we condemned him for saying that. So let's do this. We make this huge ghetto in Palestine and remove all the refugees there, but we tell them we give the land to them so the Jews are gone and we still look like the good guys.

"Israel" is nothing but a ghetto built on the ideological foundations of the Holocaust and Nazism.

Now, IOF claims and acts as if it was a sole authority on Jewish experience. Not only is this incredibly insulting to Jews in general, but IOFs claims of being some sort of pan-Jewish holy homeland actively erases the entire history, experience, and really existence of Ashkenazi Jews. Mind you that IOF silence Jewish voices worldwide if they do not spew zionist lies.

Moreover, IOF not only declares itself a sole authority on Jewish experience, but it disregards any criticism of it as antisemitism. That leads to several interesting phenomena, such as

- Jews who criticize IOFs act of terrorism being labelled antisemitic,

- all Jews being equated to IOFs acts of terrorism,

- (recent) with current Netenyahu's calls for utter extermination of Gaza and dehumanization of the Palestinians, IOF are literally copy pasting Nazi propaganda that dehumanized the Jews, comparing Palestinians to animals and literally calling for genocide. Netenyahu is literally using Goebbles' words to describe the Indigenous people.

I'm not even going to adress your remarks toward islam; not only are you proving your islamophobic bias and utter lack of knowledge of islam in general (not that there wasn't anything to criticize but you prove that your pseudocriticism has utterly no ground beyond your islamophobia), but you also prove lack of knowledge of the Palestinian history and culture since majority of the Palestinians are actually christian.

Here is professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were murdered during the Holocaust, activelly calling out "Israel" on its cosplaying Nazi Germany:

I admit I didn't know this before but this rabbi explains how zionism is actually against the Torah:

If you are a zionist, you are antisemite. If you support IOF, which is currently copying the acts of Nazi Germany, you are a scum who would support the Nazis in 1930s, and an antisemite. Eat shit and snuff yourself, you Nazi twat.

Oh, and

[flange5]

narukyuu replied to your post “Hi Jordan. I've been hearing some disturbing things about the way...”

A part of the problem is how the writer and the PR team are trivializing the legitimate concerns of fans. telling people to just read and wait for the big reveal that will make it all okay while ignoring the main issues that people have brought up, ridiculing them repeatedly and pegging them as "fake fans", the story might be great, I don't know, maybe the big twist at the end will really be the greatest piece of writing ever and will justify everything...

I understand where you’re coming from, but I would argue that there is literally no plot twist, no ending, no arc that would make these choices acceptable, justified or “all worth it.” I don’t need to “wait for the ending,” as we are being urged to do before we “rush to judgment.” I know enough and it has nothing to do with plot lines.

The reason why I say that is this: when Marvel employees and creators make appeals like this, they are asking us to leverage our desire to enjoy our favorite characters and storylines against the pain and dehumanization of other fans: Jewish fans, Romani fans, LGTBQIA fans, disabled fans. 

Storylines like this trivialize their pain, profit off of that pain, normalize the rhetoric that made and makes it possible to frame their experience of everyday life as marginal and expendable, and do so in the context of a political landscape that daily exacerbates their sense of anxiety, isolation, and pain. 

When a creator says ‘read until the end, we promise it’ll be worth it,’ whether or not they are fully aware of it, what they are saying is ‘We have made other people’s pain into a tool for our PR to get shock value, and we trust that you will put your emotional investment in your fave character over those other fans’ need to feel safe and welcome, that you will choose us and Cap over them and their desire to feel fully human, valued and welcome in this fandom.’ 

Marvel has a nasty history in the past several years of using reader outrage in order to fuel short spikes of interest in new events and characters, claiming that they’re world altering and permanent. These changes are meant to provoke reactions out of pain-the pain of identification betrayed, of outrage, of public humiliation, of rejection and dehumanization from a zone of putative enjoyment--Marvel deliberately provokes these reactions in order to create media attention, interest, and brief spikes in atypical readership and profits. 

At the same time, the awareness of comics readers that this is hyperbole leaves them in an ugly position where they either choose to ignore the provocation and keep quiet, thus appearing to normalize and consent to egregious, offensive, and often exclusionary content, seeming to throw marginalized readers under the bus, or they can respond and be pegged as rubes who don’t know that of course this is hyperbole and the whole thing will reset later, obviously you’re not real fans and are just here for the outrage train (and therefore your complaints are invalid, how convenient). 

Notice that both responses allow Marvel to ignore any complaints--the attempt by some to avoid giving voice outrage because they know it’s a trap can lead Marvel to say that it’s only a small number of vocal misinformed people (who probably aren’t reading in the first place; that’s why they’re misinformed see; if they just read to the end, they’d know and until then they have no cause for complaint because they don’t even know what the story is, they’re just complaining to complain), who thus should be ignored, rather than ruin the fun of all the others. If you complain well, see above-you’re probably not a real fan and even if you are, you’re a jumping the gun kind of fan who doesn’t even finish the story before you pronounce judgment-why should they listen to you?

At the heart of this though, is that real peoples’ pain is being used as a tool-a PR tool, a narrative tool, and a rhetorical tool, and then weighed against our collective hypothetical enjoyment of a commercial product and we are being told that it will be worth it (to Marvel, to a certain definition of “us,” which is exclusionary of anyone who doesn’t consent to this form of gaslighting abuse and instrumentalization of ourselves or others). 

Marvel and its proxies can claim that its narrative is not ultimately antisemitic, homophobic, ableist, yadda, yadda. Their tactics, by presuming the pain of those groups is worth it and by attempting to get our collective buy in on that, absolutely are all of the above. 

Let me put it this way. A few weeks ago, I was teaching a class on literary theory and we had just started feminist theory. Two of the men in the class started objecting to almost everything we had read, but from vastly different positions. 

One was clearly working from a place of pushback in which he had never encountered these ideas and they were blowing his mind and unnerving him him. 

The other was mockingly taking potshots and making sexist comments flat out dehumanizing women and then when he was called on it, claimed he was ‘only joking.’

Later that week, the second student emailed an apology to me (though notably not to the other women in the class), saying his behavior had been inappropriate, and that he wasn’t really sexist like the first student, but just using humor because he was uncomfortable. 

In my mind, there is nothing less sexist and it could be argued that there is possibly something more sexist about the second student. He actively gained enjoyment and a greater sense of power and self-worth from belittling us as women, and he made a choice not only as to whose feelings did not matter to him in a schematic and purposeful way, but he derived enjoyment (humor) from actively provoking our pain which he saw as inconsequential in the face of his benefit-enjoyment and the exercise of power he got from getting us to respond and then telling us our feelings were unwarranted. Our pain was literally not invisible to him, but inherently a joke. He was a sexist bully, and I still don’t think he has fully realized that.

This is essentially how I see Marvel and its defenders right now when they claim the story “will be worth it.” It’s the equivalent of a white dude telling a long, egregiously racist “joke,” all the while telling listeners not to get upset because the punchline will make it “worth it.”  They are telling us whose feelings matter, whose are to be used for their own commercial and personal gain, and whose pain and outrage is there to not only be manipulated, but also treated as foolish, because don’t we all know none of it matters in the end? 

It matters to the people who are told their history and trauma is a narrative gimmick, and if they’re poor sports who point it out, they must not be real fans and are expendable to Marvel. It matters when they see their fellow fans get out the scales and give more weight to creators and characters who would dehumanize them than to them. 

That many creators and decision-makers at Marvel do not see this, that many fans don’t, is a critical failure in empathy. 

I’m going to close with TMBG’s immortal line: You can’t shake the Devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding.

[schraubd]

The Epidemiology of Antisemitism

The New York Times has hired conservative columnist Bret Stephens, lately of the Wall Street Journal, to provide an additional conservative perspective to the Grey Lady. Controversy immediately erupted, first over Stephens status as a climate-change denier, and then more recently over a 2016 column that characterized antisemitism as "the disease of  the Arab mind" (it came in the context of an Egyptian Olympian who refused to shake the hand of his Israeli competitor). NYT Cairo Bureau chief kicked off the discussion with this tweet:

Not cool: new NYT columnist @BretStephensNYT once wrote about the "disease of the Arab mind". https://t.co/duylYvCQSd (h/t @hahellyer)

— Declan Walsh (@declanwalsh) April 15, 2017

And his colleague Max Fisher succinctly articulating what I think is our legitimate squeamishness at hearing an entire group of people characterized as possessing a "disease of the mind."

@declanwalsh @BretStephensNYT I guess we just all have to agree to disagree as to whether it is acceptable or correct to call racial groups pathologically "diseased."

— Max Fisher (@Max_Fisher) April 16, 2017

Now, I've responded to a Bret Stephens column once, and it was not one I was impressed by -- a tiresome bit of neocolonialist claptrap seeking to establish which peoples are sufficiently civilized to deserve self-determination. So I don't have any particular interest in defending Stephens per se. That said, this controversy did interest me because of an angle I don't think I've yet seen explored: the widespread literature on the "epidemiological" approach to racism. I first came across this view in an article by prominent Critical Race Theorist Charles Lawrence III, but it is hardly restricted to him. It is a perspective that is at least familiar to anyone who spends significant time in the literature on contemporary racism and prejudice. The epidemiological view treats racism as, well, a disease -- a public health crisis that demands intervention. Among the motivations for articulating racism in this way is the belief that an epidemiological approach steps away from the focus on conscious choices (we don't choose to be infected) and with it, the politics of blame (we don't view cancer patients as being morally inferior because they have a disease). Rather, thinking of racism as a disease channels our focus onto (a) the devastating social consequences that can occur when racism is widespread and unchecked, and (b) what we can do to check the spread and, eventually, find a cure. As it turns out, the use of the epidemiological approach for antisemitism has deep roots -- deeper, perhaps, than its use to analyze racism. Re-reading Lawrence's article while writing this post, I discovered that it actually contains a significant discussion of antisemitism as disease, as an epidemic -- and one that he investigates through the specific case of Black antisemitism right alongside the parallel case of Jewish racism.  Even more interestingly, a 1949 book by Carey McWilliams on "Anti-Semitism in America" claims to have found "hundreds" of examples of antisemitism being defined in epidemiological terms -- a "theme" that runs through descriptions of what antisemitism is. Among the statements he found was the claim that antisemitism is, simply, "a disease of Gentile peoples." Under this view, then, the rhetoric of epidemiology and disease is meant to be gentler -- not stigmatizing to those it labels, not concerned with separating out the bad people from the good. But as Fisher observes, there is at the very least another set of tropes associated with "disease" rhetoric that is not so benign. Under the latter usage, "disease" connotes those groups which are dirty and mutated; those who need to be isolated, sequestered, or purged. Rhetoric of various outgroups -- including Jews, Arabs, immigrants of all backgrounds -- being "diseased" and therefore dangerous has a been a staple of racist fearmongering for generations. Again, it is not for nothing that we squirm when we hear talk of a group being "diseased". I don't think that Stephens was intentionally referring to the literature on the epidemiology of racism. But leaving his particular case aside, here's my question: Do the concerns of Fisher et al mean that the epidemiological approach is inherently tainted and must be abandoned? If not, what interventions are necessary so as to use the method (and its necessarily attendant rhetoric of disease, infection, and so on) without triggering these problematic associations? My familiarity with the epidemiological approach gives me some sympathy towards it -- I think it is at least a useful way of thinking through how racism and antisemitism operate, how they spread, and how they should be combatted. Yet at the same time, my familiarity with how rhetoric of disease is used to degrade and dehumanize means I am sympathetic to the concerns that it would do so here. The questions in the previous paragraph are those made entirely in earnest, and I in turn invite earnest replies. via The Debate Link http://ift.tt/2pKQS3K

[matan4il]

4 young soldiers are dead. One of them was an Arab. Someone the anti-Israel crowd would call Palestinian, and claim they care about him. But when he's killed by a suicide drone, sent by extremist Shiite Muslim terrorists from Lebanon, who are financed by extremist Shiite Muslims in Iran, that crowd does say a word to protest his death. They only care about the Palestinians who can be used as a weapon against the Jewish state. It's deeply dehumanizing, racist and antisemitic.

4 soldiers killed, 7 more are seriously injured. They weren't even active yet, they were still in training. They were, in order to protect Israeli civilians from the threat of rockets and suicide drones such as the one that killed them.

IDK, it's just really hard to process the level of apathy towards the value of life when it comes to the people of this region, Jews and Arabs alike. None of us are treated any better than as pawns in western narratives...

May the memory of the murdered be a blessing, and may the injured all make a full and speedy recovery.

While we were having a party on a base for soldiers down south, we heard the news of an IDF base that was hit with a drone up north.

67 are injured, some are critical.

Uri Goby

[fullspectrum-cbd-oil]

AOC Gets Blasted for ‘Disgusting’ Claim That US Is ‘Running Concentration Camps on Our Southern Border’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is receiving backlash after she claimed the Trump administration’s detention facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border are “exactly” like concentration camps.

In a live video Monday evening, the self-described Democratic socialist took a swipe at President Donald Trump as she called him “fascist.”

“The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border and that is exactly what they are. They are concentration camps,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

She continued:

“If that doesn’t bother you… I want to talk to the people that are concerned enough with humanity to say that ‘never again’ means something. […] I don’t use those words lightly. I don’t use those words to just throw bombs. I use that word because that is what an administration that creates concentration camps is. A presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist and it’s very difficult to say that.”

As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out, the Trump administration announced last week plans to move hundreds of migrants children to a then-Japanese internment camp during World War II. However, it is now the Fort Sill Army Base, which the Obama administration also at one point used to house migrants, as USA Today reported — former President Barack Obama later stopped after criticism.

Watch the video below:

Ocasio-Cortez falsely claims Trump is operating concentration camps, compares the situation to the Holocaust: “The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border and that is exactly what they are. … ‘Never Again’ means something … we need to do something about it” pic.twitter.com/F2MmZ8y2dT

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) June 18, 2019

This comes at a time that the border officials are becoming overwhelmed as a massive influx of migrants flow to the U.S.-Mexico border, leading to a surge in numbers with a 32% increase from April to May as there were 144,278 migrants apprehended in the month of May alone.

Ocasio-Cortez is coming under fire as Twitter users labeled her remark “disgusting.”

“Usually I find humor in the profound idiocy of @AOC but not here,” Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) former Chief of Staff Josh Holmes tweeted. “This is an alarming and dangerous false equivalence that suggests a breathtaking lack of appreciation for the unparalleled evil of the Holocaust.”

Check out the reactions below:

In which @AOC exploits the Holocaust for political gain. Disgusting, and not a good look when your party can't condemn antisemitism on its own.

Oh, and they're not "immigrants." Nor were the murdered Jews of Europe. https://t.co/SqIhCc6Dob

— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 18, 2019

Usually I find humor in the profound idiocy of @AOC but not here. This is an alarming and dangerous false equivalence that suggests a breathtaking lack of appreciation for the unparalleled evil of the Holocaust. https://t.co/e2feQ2n2xK

— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) June 18, 2019

The problem is she knows this is a lie. She knows the detention centers are nothing like the concentration camps. Her saying this is gaslighting half the country, creating division. She doesn’t want unity; she wants outrage. So she lies.

— Jessica Fletcher (@heckyessica) June 18, 2019

Concentration camps were death camps. None of what detention centers are fits the description of a concentration camp. pic.twitter.com/RF1JvRuROC

— Jessica Fletcher (@heckyessica) June 18, 2019

Which begs the question, what did AOC mean when she said: “we need to do something about it”?

She is saying Trump is Hitler and is running concentration camps and then says “we need to do something about it”

That sounds an awful lot like incitement

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) June 18, 2019

AOC says Trump is running “concentration camps” at the border.

Can someone please tell her what a concentration camp is? pic.twitter.com/jbSpOTl4OC

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) June 18, 2019

Does she even know what a concentration camp is? #disrespectful https://t.co/hLgektTKv3

— Madison Gesiotto (@madisongesiotto) June 18, 2019

DISGUSTING!

My grandparents were gassed to death in concentration camps by the Nazis, millions of Jews, men, women & children were gassed to death then burned to ashes in those camps. @AOC comparing ICE detention centers to that is absolutely disgusting pic.twitter.com/yJXYJ718wM

— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) June 18, 2019

Doubling down on her claim, Ocasio-Cortez pointed to an Esquire article, “An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That’s Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border,” on Twitter Tuesday morning.

“This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying,” she tweeted. “This is not hyperbole.”

And for the shrieking Republicans who don’t know the difference: concentration camps are not the same as death camps.

Concentration camps are considered by experts as “the mass detention of civilians without trial.”

And that’s exactly what this administration is doing.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 18, 2019

However, Trump doesn’t seem to be letting up on his strong stance to address the crisis at the southern border, as he took to Twitter late Monday to announce that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to deport next week “millions” of illegal migrants “who have illicitly found their way into the United States.”

“The only ones who won’t do anything are the Democrats in Congress,” Trump added. “They must vote to get rid of the loopholes, and fix asylum! If so, Border Crisis will end quickly!”

As IJR Red previously reported, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) revealed over the weekend that he’s having a serious discussion with a Democratic lawmaker to fix the U.S. immigration laws.

from IJR http://bit.ly/2ZqdQim via IFTTT

[the-light-of-stars]

They now have said I am "relativising the holocaust" because I pointed out how jewish leftist have repeatedly said they don't want to be associated with Israel and that Germans have a tendency to use antisemitism as a shield for racism without questioning it. I have linked them multiple articles written by jewish leftists on the topic but they said that they think the opinions of jewish academics on the topic of antisemitism aren't worth more than the opinions of white german academics, and that saying they are is 'leading the argument ad hominem'.

Furthermore they claim I have "put words" in their and the vice chancellor's mouths because I pointed out how the language he used in his speech aligns with racist, dehumanising colonialist language as pointed out by Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth, and because I pointed out how the vice chancellor's stance is firmly pro-Israel (something he makes clear in his speech multiple times), as well as pointing out how them agreeing with large parts of his speech, defending him and his speech as not racist as well as saying that they don't condone some of Israel's settlements and attacks while also stating that they do believe Israel should and needs to exist as a state is racist and colonialist, as well as that them claiming the vice chancellor is "less likely to be racist and bigoted" than other white politicians by nature of him being a member of a liberal party , that this means the statements made in his speech are equally less likely to be racist and that saying they are is misinterpretation, is as well racist.

They keep claiming that I am not interpreting his speech correctly, that I lack reading comprehension, that I am not being objective because I am pointing out that a politician one sidedly calling the attacks of the 7 Oct "beast like" and uniquely inhuman and cruel while not even so much as making the most milquetoast statement about Israel's attacks being bad other than a vague "sure, people have died due to the bombing but even so it is our main goal and reason of state to support Israel in any way we can, alongside our american friends" (paraphrased, link to the speech) is racist and dehumanizing.

Meanwhile their statements about the speech not actually being racist and supportive of colonialism (or at the very least less so) because "it is less likely for a liberal politician to be racist" and that "denying this colonial state the right to existence is relativising the holocaust, no matter if jewish academics say it isn't, because their opinions are not more relevant than the opinions of white non-jewish academics" are objective and true, clearly. (also because they keep coming at me for paraphrasing and analysing people's statements in addition to just quoting them: analysing statements is how (academic) discourse works. Calling analysis and paraphrase a 'lack of reading comprehension' and 'twisting of facts' is a cheap argument, especially considering that this discussion is carried out in the comments of a tumblr post and not in an academic setting. Sorry that I can't put footnotes into a two sentence long tumblr comment. Not to mention that they kept interpreting and paraphrasing just as much as I did.)

Anyways, this is why self proclaimed leftists and progressive need to check their own privilege, xenophobia and racism because this refusal to properly question their own bigotry as well as the bigotry of politicians simply because "[they are] left leaning and thus less likely to be racist" (and that claiming they did say something racist is 'putting words in their mouth' ) is why immigrants and members of minorities, like me, feel excluded from leftist discourse in western white non-immigrant circles, which , like this person, tend to talk over us and not listen to us while seeing themselves as our white knight saviors that will free us from xenophobia and racism...

So turns out the german "leftists" that argued with me about the vice chancellor's speech being "good actually and not racist at all! why are you being so mean to him?" are unquestioning colonialism supporters.

Checks out.

[petalsbleedingbeak2]

@everydayarsonist it looks so and that's the point. I've said it a hundred times, but "Israel" and zionism as a whole pretend to care for the Jews but are actually deeply antisemitic systems.

I've said it before so I'm just gonna copy my older post instead of writing this entire shit down again. Here we go:

Zionism is highly antisemitic and its current pro-IOF form is literally built on the ideological grounds of the Holocaust.

Let me give you a lesson on history and political science, bitch.

Zionism in its modern sense is antisemitic on so many levels it's hard to comprehend.

First, "Israelis" and zionism in general claims that actions of IOF speak for all Jews. Therefore, they

- actively erase the history, culture, and to a sense the very existence of Ashkenazi Jews and other non-Palestinian diasporas who have no ties to Palestine and therefore to what zionists call "Israel".

- "Israel" was created by the Western occupants of Palestine in 1947. Prior to the WW2, in 1935/36, before the Holocaust began, Hitler "offered" Germany's Jews to the Western powers. It was of course a scam for he knew that nobody would accept several millions of refugees. Bear in mind that the reluctance of the West was also caused by their racism not very different from that of Third Reich's. Most prominent European and US universities had a Department of racial hygiene up to the WW2. I only put this in to illustrate that the racial ideology that was a ground to Nazism was at that point considered a valid scientific theory, just like phrenology a century prior. This is not an excuse, but it may help to understand why this entire monstrosity of the Holocaust was allowed to happen to begin with. Anyway, West's reluctance to accept several millions of refugees was abused by Hitler's ideology. They were refused mostly because they were in droves, not because of their Jewish ethnicity. Nevertheless, Hitler warped this into the "The West refused our Jews, therefore nobody wants the Jews, thus the extermination of the Jews is justified" rhetorics. It was, of course, utterly psychopathic, yet it was what it was. The horrors of the Holocaust happened, leaving 6 million dead and many more lost, uprooted, and damaged beyond repair.

Now, after the WW2, the entire West double downed on Hitler's "justification" of the Holocaust. They were like Okay, this Hitler guy was a cunt but he was right. We don't want the Jews here, but we can't say it now when we condemned him for saying that. So let's do this. We make this huge ghetto in Palestine and remove all the refugees there, but we tell them we give the land to them so the Jews are gone and we still look like the good guys.

"Israel" is nothing but a ghetto built on the ideological foundations of the Holocaust and Nazism.

Now, IOF claims and acts as if it was a sole authority on Jewish experience. Not only is this incredibly insulting to Jews in general, but IOFs claims of being some sort of pan-Jewish holy homeland actively erases the entire history, experience, and really existence of Ashkenazi Jews. Mind you that IOF silence Jewish voices worldwide if they do not spew zionist lies.

Moreover, IOF not only declares itself a sole authority on Jewish experience, but it disregards any criticism of it as antisemitism. That leads to several interesting phenomena, such as

- Jews who criticize IOFs act of terrorism being labelled antisemitic,

- all Jews being equated to IOFs acts of terrorism,

- (recent) with current Netenyahu's calls for utter extermination of Gaza and dehumanization of the Palestinians, IOF are literally copy pasting Nazi propaganda that dehumanized the Jews, comparing Palestinians to animals and literally calling for genocide. Netenyahu is literally using Goebbles' words to describe the Indigenous people.

I'm not even going to adress your remarks toward islam; not only are you proving your islamophobic bias and utter lack of knowledge of islam in general (not that there wasn't anything to criticize but you prove that your pseudocriticism has utterly no ground beyond your islamophobia), but you also prove lack of knowledge of the Palestinian history and culture since majority of the Palestinians are actually christian.

Here is professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were murdered during the Holocaust, activelly calling out "Israel" on its cosplaying Nazi Germany:

Here is rabbi Yisroel David Weiss, explaining how the entire idea of zionism is violating the Torah:

Zionism is antisemitic and IOF are worse than actual OG 1930s-1940s Nazis.

Educate yourself before you spew Nazi propaganda. Or snuff yourself, I don't give a fuck. But your zionist bullshit proves you don't care for the Jewish people, or anyone else. All you care about is the bunch of Nazis who created world's largest ghetto.

death to israel

i sincerely want everyone with even an ounce of power in that wretched country killed publicly and painfully

the nuremberg trials need to happen again at this point