#from very liberal regimes

[crapeaucrapeau]

To add to this (and hoping not to intrude or derail the post), two things : something that's been said already, but which should be stressed, is that not only are fascist regimes inefficient, lawless and corrupt, they are terrible at winning wars, which is a big priority for fascists themselves and those attracted by them. Fascist regimes either lose wars (e.g. Germany and Italy during WW2) or actively go out of their way to avoid them to actually last (e.g. Franco's Spain). I first came across this perspective in this blog post by military historian Brett Devereaux, which I encourage you to read for the full argument.

Second, the obvious counter-argument from bootlickers would be : okay, but what if we get a real savior type, a strong hero who's infallible ? Not the dysfunctional idiots like Hitler and friends. To this I'd say : a) I sincerely believe fascism can't produce or attract anything but deadly, dysfunctional idiots, for hard-baked ideological reasons already outlined by others above. Ironically, it's an "ideology" of ressentiment.

Moreover, b) even if you look at authoritarian (not fascist) regimes with actual competent people running the show, the problem is at least twofold : 1) no one rules forever and no one is competent at everything. Even the most competent strongman can't know everything, do everything, run everything, and when they need to be replaced, it's a horror show : during power transitions, you're statistically likelier to get various shades of incompetency than in a democracy, if the regime survives, and it usually gets violent fast. Primogeniture in European-style monarchies (eldest male kid gets the funny hat) was a huge improvement over the Roman Empire's form of power transfer (e.g. none, i.e. down the line, whoever has the biggest legion left standing gets the funny hat), because there was no doubt as to who was gonna be king and no way for outside players to subvert the system ; to my knowledge, it's literally the one and only thing old-style monarchies are good at, and even then sometimes that fails (e.g. when your only heir is your adult brother, or the heir can't be defended from the spare, etc).

And 2) to come back to the subject at hand (people in charge of military policy in authoritarian regimes who are also competent at what they are doing), I'll take one of my fave examples, certified competent™ man French Cardinal de Richelieu from the horror show that is 17th century Europe. If you want a good start, I suggest reading this extreeeeeeeeeemely long essay/article on Richelieu's policies and principles, but basically, at the time Richelieu becomes chief minister of king Louis XIII, the main problem he's facing is : how do I keep France's long-standing enemies, the Habsburgs, from invading and conquering us, when a) they are currently the leaders of the biggest and wealthiest colonial empire with frankly unbelievable amounts of wealth paid in blood by the conquered Natives, and b) just about 100% of France's land borders are snugly next to Habsburg lands — meaning that France is quite literally surrounded by a hostile power with considerably more resources ?

The long and short of it is that, at great cost to the French people, and because Richelieu was quite competent, and because Spain's decision-makers were very unlucky, France wasn't subsumed by the Habsburgs. But a close examination of the situation will reveal that, at every single point, Richelieu was undermined by the various military officers he chose, because he was faced with the problem every single authoritarian leader has to face (and which is my entire point) : you need to give power to incompetent people who are loyal to you over competent people of questionable loyalty. Because in authoritarian regimes, the person in charge needs first to survive politically in order to be able to direct wars, and since your power is personal rather than institutional (i.e. you could be replaced at any time if you look weak enough to enough people with power of their own), staying in power in the medium-to-long term overrides what should be the only concern for winning wars : actually winning wars. Meanwhile, in a liberal democracy, your institutional position is stable, since the only way you can lose power is either by waiting out the end of your term or by quitting.

tl;dr : fascism is terrible at winning wars and at staying in power, it attracts and produces deadly incompetent idiots, and even if, by some frankly unthinkable happenstance a competent person was in charge (again, that's with obvious ethical and logistical failures aside), that Strong Independent Hypercompetent Man would run into the problems hard-baked into all autocracies — the need to have competent delegates and the inability to appoint them. If only there was a regime whose creation had been largely kickstarted by the intrinsic failures of autocracies, and in response to them— OH WAIT

The supposed efficiency and effectiveness of fascism was always propaganda: in reality, fascist regimes were deeply inefficient, hobbled by interpersonal rivalry, had institutions weakened or totally subverted by the personalist nature of leadership, and were deeply corrupt and lawless.

So it really, really bugs me how so much speculative fiction and even casual discourse since has taken WW2 era propaganda about fascism at face value, and depicted authoritarianism generally and fascism in particular as an intrinsic tradeoff between the chaos and disorder of liberty and the order of repression. Fascism is not orderly! That was always a lie. There is a reason right-wing authoritarian regimes have mid performance at best and at worst collapse due to infighting and military defeat—they suck at running states!

Democracy is the ideology of order and stability. Democracy provides for stable succession and can sustain rule of law in ways personalist rule cannot. Democracy can create avenues of accountability to reduce corruption that authoritarian (or even one-party rule) could never contemplate. “Democracy is chaos” is a lie invented by fascists to try to discredit liberal principles, and the apparent “chaos” of interwar democracies was often caused by the fascists themselves because they did not believe in liberalism.

I think of this most often in the context of video games about politics where it is assumed that authoritarian governance gives you efficiency bonuses at some cost to happiness or freedom—but I think these mechanics are backward. Fascism and authoritarianism are good for the narrow ruling clique at the top, the people they personally enrich, but they make for brittle and weak states, and they often fuck over even the narrow ethnic group or core citizenry whose will they are supposed to be channeling. Starting World War II was very bad for almost all Germans and Italians!

By contrast political scientists debate if a consolidated liberal democracy has ever deconsolidated, and the biggest challenges to democratic systems of government have tended to come when those systems are illiberal (as before the American Civil War), or being sabotaged by most participants (as Weimar Germany, where neither the left nor the right were really interested in democracy).

[not-gray-politics]

Trans women. I'm grabbing you by the shoulders and yelling. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE SKINNY TO BE FEMININE AND PRETTY AND CUTE. PLEASE STOP MAKING DIETS PART OF YOUR TRANSITION GOALS. WEIGHT LOSS IS A SCAM. I LOVE YOU. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES. YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL.

[heritageposts]

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons. The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret. The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

. . . continues at the guardian (24th of may, 2010)

here's also a research paper published in 2004, which, looking at declassified south african documents, lays out apartheid south africa's rational for acquiring nuclear weapons (bombing, or 'deterring,' black liberation groups):

[psychotrenny]

Imperial Core Liberals love "forgetting" that a diversity of political opinions exist in other countries the second they see someone parroting an Imperialist talking point who happens to be from whatever country they're currently obsessed with intervening in. Like they'll take a single tweet from Juana B. Comprador saying "Thank you America for overthrowing that tyrant and bringing my people Freedom and Hamburger" as proof that Imperialist interference is good and anyone who disagrees is just a cruel, out of touch Westoid that's too arrogant to care about authentic lived experiences. And like you don't even need to think in Marxist terms of like class interest and national contradictions etc. to realise how stupid this; simple common sense should tell you "People in the Third World are not a hive mind; finding one individual who says a thing does not mean everyone in their nation agrees".

But that very simple and obvious fact is inconvenient to the self image of a "progressive" Imperialist, and so they simply don't think about it. Even when they're forced to admit that differences of opinion exist, they find some rhetorical framing to present such dissent as automatically illegitimate. Like clearly anyone from X country who disagrees with them is just a Russian agent or brainwashed stooge of the regime, not a free thinker that truly speaks for the people. It's a form of argument that relies on the patterns of dehumanisation that people in the Imperial Periphery are subjected to; as anonymised masses that lack any meaningful individuality, an "authentic" speaker for one is an authentic speaker for all. Their value in any conversation starts and ends as rhetorical constructs to affirm what you already believed; the complex thoughts and feelings of countless living humans do nothing but get in the way

[self-hating-slav-manifesto]

There are plenty of people who deny the event altogether, including the person on whose blog I found your post, so that's not how I read you adding (intentional genocide).

However I believe your clarification so peace and love

looking at these random words put together and thinking of something my ukranian jewish mutual said: "my family fled an actual genocide, not an invented one created to obfuscate the truth of what they did to my family"

[taliabhattwrites]

So Let's Discuss "Emasculation"

A few people have expressed the sentiment that "transemasculation" validates certain forms of male grievance politics that are usually expressed through the word "emasculation", so I'd like to expand on this a bit!

Firstly: Take a look at this argument, and my commentary on it.

Keep that one in the back of your mind.

Secondly: Have you ever seen an anti-sexual harassment campaign that uses "real man" language? "Real Men Don't <XYZ>" as a slogan or a pithy shibboleth?

This is because even in liberal-feminist discourses that purport to be about sexed equality, many cannot let go of the sanctitity of manhood. Manhood is something sacred, sacrosanct, an ideal, an aspiration, synonymous with power and agency and humanity itself.

In other words: The heirarchy of manhood as distinct from, non-overlapping with, and superior to womanhood infects even well-intentioned attempts to address misogyny.

All of which obscures the central truth that we are all aware of, but never name: Manhood can be revoked.

It is revoked often, in fact, and--this part is crucial--most often by other men.

For what is the ideology that manhood ultimately protects? What is the implication that no man can abide, that reduced even the "feminist ally" from the screenshot earlier to homophobic, misogynistic mudslinging to rival the deranged reactionary? It is, and always has been, male supremacy.

Because when you are designated as a proud Citizen of a Regime, someone who is expected to be its pride and uphold its edicts, you buy into the ideology that enshrines your own superiority, and violently lash out against anything that challenges that.

Cissexual men do, in fact, fear being unmanned, fear being seen as or like women in any way, and fear most of all the punitive censure of their peers if they do not enact (trans)misogynistic and homophobic rituals of brutalization that reify their sacred hierarchy.

Something I can attest to as someone who was frequently subject to that brutalization, assaulted, and harassed, degraded without end so that The Boys could feel like The Boys and not like whatever wretched creature I was or would end up being.

Misogyny amongst men manifests as protectionism, as loyalty, as "Bros Before <misogynistic term>", as the knowledge that if you do not participate in manhood, you will be its target.

Emasculation is, sadly, very real, and among the cissexual it's a very real threat.

I call it transemasculation because that same pressure to participate in manhood exists, the pressure to "prove" it through participation in what manhood means. The threat is the same for the in-group and for those "without", who are "seeking entry": If you do not Embody Manhood Correctly, you will be cast out into the wretched wastes of the degendered.

Does that make sense?

[ne0n-and-garbage]

Mandalorians as Jewish Allegory

First of all, we have this quote right here:

"We'll rebuild [Mandalore]. Isn't that our history? For thousands of years, we have been on the verge of extinction, and for thousands of years we have survived." ―Din Djarin

If you just replace the word Mandalore with Israel, it is a completely plausible thing for a Jewish person to say.

Anyway, on to my essay:

History:

Both Mandalorians and Jews have an indigenous homeland that is intrinsic to their culture and belief system, (Mandalore and Israel respectively). Throughout their entire history, they have been consistently under attack from various regimes seeking to commit genocide against them, (Jedi, Empire for Mandalorians, Romans, Nazis, Soviets, Arab colonialism for Jews), and yet each group has managed to remain alive and retain their culture. The Siege of Mandalore has a lot of parallels to the destruction of the Temple, and the Mandalorian Purges are very similar to the antisemitic Pogroms. Both groups are forced out of their indigenous homelands and into a diaspora, under which they are consistently hunted and attacked. Eventually, both groups regain control of their homeland from the colonizers who held previous rule over it.

Culture:

Mandalorians are either born into the culture or adopt the Creed, which is similar to born Jews and Converts. There are groups of Orthodox Mandalorians, such as the Children of the Watch, who observe the traditional laws regarding the Creed, as well as headcoverings, (similar to Orthodox Jewish people). In contrast, there are also more liberal factions of both Mandalorians and Jews. There are specific foods and religious clothing associated with both groups, their own languages, their own mythical beasts. Also, both cultures have a ceremonial bath/Mikvah associated with rituals and conversion.

Overall, I think it's fair to say that Mandalorians are an excellent allegory for Jewish people. Mandalorians are Space Jews. You can't change my mind.

This Is The Way

Am Yisrael Chai

[arijackz]

PICK A CARD: What Era Is Your Beauty From?

☯︎ “A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Disclaimer: This is a general reading, take what resonates. I am not suggesting any of these descriptions are cannon to your ancestral history, these are just how my intuition perceived, and then presented your beauty’s energy.

p1 → p2 ↙︎ p3 → p4

🂽 Pile One 🂽 (the devil, 2oC rev., ace of cups rev., 4oW, 3oC, king of swords, the tower, the world)

❖ Pile one, I feel like I’m watching the Game of Thrones out of context. Just flashes of people from around the Medieval 1400s living their day-to-day; singing, dancing, eating together, and then… not.

❖ The imagery I got when I asked what era your beauty came from, was very longing in nature. There was a lot of joy and celebration but it felt like I was watching the film through teary eyes and a heavy heart.

❖ The “movie” flashed between a thriving culture sharing tales of triumph and having happy, drunk sing-song moments together; and then those same people under a war-torn regime of a very cruel but powerful man. I sense themes of religious persecution, nationwide government-forced famine, and general desecration of the once-peaceful way of life. The population was going through collective mourning.

❖ People lamented over their unfulfillable desire to reconnect with their homeland and all of their loved ones. With the World card at the end of the spread and the Empress at the bottom of the deck, I get the clear image that your beauty is the physical embodiment of a large collective’s longing for the sanctity of their community. You invoke that feeling people get when they remember a bitter-sweet memory that hums fervor in their chest and gives them the fire they need to push forward.

❖ Your beauty comes from an era where the genuine smile and cheer of a pretty girl sparked a nation’s hope for reformation. You are the last remaining connection to long-lost celebration and the heart of a forgotten city.

How Do You Paint The Divine Image of Hope?

🂽 Pile Two 🂽 (7oC rev., 4oP rev., full moon, leo, sacral chakra)

❖ WHOOOAAaaaaa Ammberrr is the collluuhhhhh of ya enneergyyy!! WHOoaaA, shades of gaawwllddd displayyy naturraalllyyyyyy…..

❖ Just know I was HOLLERING that. This is my hippie pile. My people. Yea that’s right, I’m talking the late 1960s - early 1970s.

❖ Your beauty arose at a time when society desperately needed color (specifically seeing some of you wearing a lot of bright colors or eye-catching jewelry or hairstyles). The world was bleak and the war’s aftermath on the overall mental and emotional welfare of the general public pushed people to radical ideals and birthed a revolution centered around liberation, pleasure, and community.

❖ Your beauty is all sunshine and rainbows. Psychedelics and organic food. The best music in human history (feel free to argue with me, but know that it is going straight out the other ear, mama) and week-long outdoor festivals full of peace, love, and vulnerability with total strangers.

❖ Your beauty brushes people with the chilling winds of shameless pleasure. The taste of unadulterated personal freedom that is almost a societal taboo. Your beauty is so purely liberating.

❖ Lmao, I imagine a guitar riff going off everytime you walk into a room.

❖ You are the physical embodiment of eccentric love and vivacious rebellion.

Play That Funky Music

🂽 Pile Three 🂽 (The lovers rev., the High Priestess rev., Ace of Swords., 4oC. 7)

❖ Revolution is a running theme for all of the piles. This collective’s beauty awakens people.

❖ I’m seeing a brilliant man going mad at the lack of creative intelligence around him and pushing for societal rebirth. A complete cultural shift from the Dark Ages (pile one), to modernity. This is my Renaissance pile.

❖ You embody the mystical fusion of art, religion, architecture, and science. You are all the world’s intrinsic beauty rolled up into one figure. You are the art that attracts painters, inventors, and philosophers alike.

❖ You have the beauty of an all-around muse. You invoke the spirit of creative passion. It is like people see you and get a stroke of inspiration. Something that kicks them in the ass and tells them to go outside and create.

❖ This pile is very romantic. A classical beauty, like red roses and bottle poems. The universal innate desire to dream big.

❖ Shoutout to my Aquarians, 11th housers, and Shatabhisha natives.

The Medieval-Modern Muse

🂽 Pile Four 🂽 (king of pentacles, 2oP, 5oP rev., 9oP)

❖ OKAY PLOTWIST?? I don’t know what era this pile’s beauty is from because it’s set in the future.

❖ It’s funny how the last piles were all set in periods of revolution (putting in the WORK) and your pile, the final pile, is set in a better world full of financial stability, the end of inequality, economic fairness, and universal abundance (the fruits of the labor).

❖ Dude, I was trying to read the message at first and was just scratching my head. I was like, “When has anywhere, literally ever been this good???” Then I saw the ace of wands reversed at the bottom of the deck and saw impending change and it clicked.

❖ I also saw some star semblance, and see that your beauty is a reminder to mankind that the “impossible” is already set in motion. The hell we have created will crumble.

❖ You are a physical embodiment of society’s future triumph. You radiate wealth and fairness. My Venusians, especially Libra. You also look regal, something about you makes people want to stand taller.

❖ You got the pride card, I see that you give people the feeling of victory. You are living proof of future triumph in a better world where greed and sorrow are eradicated.

❖ You are the harbinger of the next era.

Introducing The First Titanium Man On The Moon!

[matan4il]

An incomplete "there's a good chance the icon you love and support is a Zionist" list

🌟 Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish Holocaust survivor, whose family was murdered during it. Lemkin is responsible for coining the term "genocide," and for every legal provision that exists today against it. His work against genocide was inspired by his Zionism.

🌟 Martin Luther King, Jr., who did not only support Israel and its right to security, a fellow participant at a dinner with MLK shortly before his assassination quotes him as having stopped a student attacking Zionism, and replied, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism." He also encouraged Americans in 1967 to support the Jewish state, as Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran, endangering Israeli citizens by cutting the country off from its oil supply.

🌟 Emma Lazarus, a Jewish American poet, whose words ("Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free") are engraved on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal, after they helped raise the money needed for its completion. Drawing from the value of Jewish solidarity, she also wrote, "Until we are all free, we are none of us free," adopted as a slogan by intersectionality (while many in the movement exclude Jews from it). She was a great supporter of establishing a state for Jews in the Jewish homeland, having argued for this idea years before the word "Zionist" was even coined.

🌟 The 14th Dalai Lama, the leader of the fight against the occupation of Tibet, who was invited in 1994 to Israel, at a time when China's communist regime did its best to prevent his visits anywhere in the world, and who came to Israel more than once, talking about the 2000 years long Zionism of Jewish culture in exile as an inspiration and role model for Tibetans. "Among Tibetan refugees, we are always saying to ourselves that we must learn the Jewish secret to keep our traditions, in some cases under hostile circumstances."

🌟 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who spoke more than once about how her pursuit of justice is a continuation of that very same thing in Jewish tradition. She had repeatedly referred to American Zionist Jews as sources of inspiration. For example, in 2018, during her fifth visit to Israel, in a speech she gave when receiving the Genesis Award, she mentioned two such women, Emma Lazarus and Henrietta Szold.

🌟 Nelson Mandela had an ambivalent view of Israel, but repeatedly recognized its right to exist, which makes him a Zionist, he also called upon Arab states to do the same, and was favorable towards the Zionist Jews who supported him during his underground days. Mandela being critical of Israel and still a Zionist is an apt reminder that criticizing the Jewish state and opposing its very existence are NOT the same thing, and only one's antisemitic.

🌟 Felix Salten, the Jewish author of Bambi (the book Disney's movie is based on). The tale was originally a metaphor for Jews suffering antisemitism, something Salten personally had to cope with. He was also an ardent Zionist, feeling the self-liberation at the core of this ideology suited his idea of how to deal with Jew hatred.

🌟 Sun Yat-Sen, who helped end the rule of China's last imperial dynasty, was its first provisional president, and is nowadays honored as an important Chinese leader in both China and Taiwan (sometimes referred to as "Father of the Chinese Nation"). He was an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism. Among other instances of expressing that, he wrote in a 1920 letter to a leader of the Jewish community in Shang Hai about Zionism that it is, "one of the greatest movements of the present time. All lovers of Democracy cannot help but support wholeheartedly and welcome with enthusiasm the movement to restore your wonderful and historic nation, which has contributed so much to the civilization of the world and which rightfully deserves an honorable place in the family of nations."

🌟 Magnus Hirschfeld, a gay Jewish sexologist, nicknamed among other things "The Einstein of Sex" and "The Father of Gay Liberation," because his medical and scientific work on human sexuality, as well as social advocacy for women's, gay and trans rights, was nothing short of pioneering. He was persecuted by the Nazis to the point where he died in exile. They broke into his institute of sexual research, where the world's first clinic performing sex reassignments surgeries was located, and burned down the institute's library. Hirschfeld had attended a Zionist conference following the Balfor Declaration of 1917, and his work on sexual liberation found inspiration in young socialist Jewish Zionist workers he met during a visit to the Land of Israel in 1931-2.

🌟 Marcia Langton, a professor and prominent Aboriginal rights activist from Australia, who has been leading the fight against racism and for her community. She spoke out against the hijacking of native rights movements by terrorist sympathizers and antisemites, and has clearly stood against all loss of life, including that of Israelis.

🌟 Felix Zandman, a Holocaust survivor whose work on resistors is integrated into many smartphones, laptops, cars, satellites, hospital ventilators (saving many Covid patients), airplanes and more. Whenever the anti-Israel crowd is scrolling social media on their phones, they're enjoying the work of a Zionist, who enthusiastically supported the State of Israel, and even introduced an important improvement to the Israeli Merkava tank, which has likely saved many Israeli lives, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, and others like him, since Israel's high tech is considered only second to Silicon Valley (going back to at least the 1990's). If they truly wish to boycott everything that's been "contaminated" by Zionism, they should probably just boycott technology.

🌟 Rosa Parks, an African American leader of the civil rights movement (and someone who personally demonstrated how one can resist without turning violent). She was one of 200 notable black American leaders who publicly organized to express their support and respect of Zionism as the Jewish right to self-determination, and Israel as the manifestation of that right.

-> Like I said, this is VERY incomplete, even just in terms of how the overwhelming majority of Jews are Zionist, and have been since the inception of Judaism, which is itself Zionist. Over the years, this led to many non-Jewish human and native rights champions to be supportive of Zionism, too. Take note of who is being vilified, when the term "Zionist" is ignorantly used as if it means anything other than belief in the equal right of Jews to liberation and self-determination in the Jewish ancestral land. Especially when it is used as being inherently evil.

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

[ceilidhtransing]

Having spent pretty much the entire year immersed in studying Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and genocide more broadly, my heart is bursting with the need to stress how much you should take Project 2025 seriously. This is a long post but please stick with me.

Don't take this post as an attempt to concretely predict anything. We can't ever fully know the future and I think it's silly to say with total certainty “if Trump wins then America will become just like Nazi Germany” - not only because the future isn't written yet, but also because Germany under the Nazis was a very specific regime with its own quirks and peculiarities and I don't think that even a worst-case-scenario Trump regime would look exactly like Hitler's Germany. No two regimes ever look exactly alike: it would use the same colour palette as all far-right dictatorships but be constructed from a different medium, like what a watercolour is to an oil painting.

But just because Trump is a very different person from Hitler, and a worst-case-scenario Trump dictatorship would not literally be “Nazi Germany all over again”, that doesn't mean that what happened in Germany isn't instructive here. Forget the specifics of whether or not Trump as a dictator would organise a state identically to how the Nazis organised Germany or whatever; on a far broader and more relevant level, there is a distressing number of similarities. And too many people are falling into the same thought traps as they did then.

Please don't assume that Trump is “way too incompetent” to achieve what's in Project 2025 or Agenda 47. They said the same thing about Hitler. They said that there was no way this showman could govern effectively - holding big rallies and making speeches that get people riled up isn't the same as being good at running a functioning state and achieving what you want. The New York Times even wrote after he became Chancellor of Germany that this would only “let him expose to the German public his own futility”. And in many ways Hitler was pretty incompetent. But that didn't end up mattering. The greatest crime of the Nazi regime, the Holocaust, was masterminded mostly by a whole load of people besides Hitler, who were delegated the nitty-gritty task of actually orchestrating it. Hitler's personal incompetence didn't prevent war or genocide.

Please don't assume that Trump is “just a wacky nutcase” who “can't possibly be a real risk”. They said the same thing about Hitler. The mainstream media gave constant coverage to all the crazy extreme things Hitler said as if he was merely a bit of a joke and not a massive threat. The Nazis were quite happy with this. To quote Goebbels repeatedly in his diary, “The main thing is they're talking about us.”

Please don't assume that being in power will “moderate” Trump and that “of course he won't be able to do all the crazy stuff once he actually has to govern”. They said the same thing about Hitler. It was a common sentiment in the early 1930s that all the sensible politicians around him would force him to moderate his stances. Fritz von Papen, the last Chancellor of Weimar Germany, persuaded President Hindenburg to make Hitler the Chancellor by assuring him, “In a few months, we will have pushed [Hitler] so far into the corner that he will squeak.” It turns out that power doesn't “moderate” people who are openly talking about a dictatorship.

Please don't assume that there's any truth to the whole “Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025 and trying to link it to him is just liberal hysteria” line. They said the same thing about Hitler. People repeatedly asserted that Nazi street violence wasn't really representative of the party leadership; it wasn't representative of Hitler. He was even subpoenaed by a very brave lawyer in 1931 in a bid to prove that recent violence by Nazi stormtroopers was committed with the knowledge and encouragement of the party leadership, with part of the prosecution's argument hanging on a pamphlet by Goebbels that promised a violent overthrow of the state if the Nazis couldn't come to power legitimately. Surely no legal political party could be publishing that. In a successful attempt to escape criminal charges, Hitler repeatedly lied that the pamphlet was not official Nazi Party material and that he didn't know anything about it. No Trump didn't write it, no it isn't an official GOP manifesto, but the links between Project 2025 and Trump, the previous Trump administration, and Trump allies are extremely well documented. Just the other day, Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought was caught calling Trump's disavowals of the document “graduate-level politics” and saying, “what he's doing is just very, very conscious distancing himself from a brand ... he's in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy.”

Please don't assume that “there's no way something like that could happen here; we're way too educated and advanced”. They said the same thing about Hitler. The Germany of the 1920s and 1930s was one of the most educated and most scientifically and industrially advanced nations in the world, and its cities were some of the most progressive in the world. People were stunned and horrified that it was in Germany of all places - Germany, land of music and art and science and literature! - that fascism took root. Germany's economic and social advancement didn't stop about 40% of its voters choosing the Nazis. It didn't stop them taking power.

Please don't assume that Project 2025 is “just a wishlist” and “not actually a serious plan”. They said the same thing about Hitler. As is hopefully very clear by now, plenty of people did not think that the Nazis were capable of, or would dare to try, putting into actual practice the horrific ideas about race that undergirded so much of their ideology. “I like Hitler; he talks sense economically and I think all this stuff about Jews is just bluff and bluster.” “Every party has a loony wing, right? You have to understand they're not serious when they talk about this stuff; they're just telling their base what they want to hear.” “God have you heard this crazy race science shit about head shapes and stuff? It's hilarious! I'm sure none of them at the top really believe that; there's no way they'd be that nuts.” When a group of people like this tells you what they believe and tells you what they want to do with power, believe them. No matter how ridiculous they seem, they're not joking.

In the words of Hans Litten, the lawyer who subpoenaed and cross-examined Hitler in that court case in 1931, “Don't listen to him; he's telling the truth.” Litten was arrested on the night of the Reichstag fire in 1933 and spent the rest of his life being tortured in concentration camps before dying in Dachau in 1938 at the age of 34.

A tyrannical dictatorship can often be seen coming a mile away. I don't want to imply for a second that what the Nazis did came as a surprise to everyone and couldn't possibly have been predicted. There were people who saw this coming in the 1920s and 1930s and tried to sound the alarm while they still had a chance. But they were too often in the minority, taking the threat seriously while others had convinced themselves that there was no need for concern because the Nazis wouldn't really do all the things they repeatedly talked about wanting to do. Everyone should have seen this coming, but too many people wanted to believe it couldn't be true.

Don't let this scare you. Let it energise you. Talk to the people in your life about Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Push back against people who assert that “they'd never actually do all that stuff” or “Trump didn't even write Project 2025” or “it's not a real plan, just a list of crazy shit to get the base riled up”. Have conversations with folks you know who are on the fence about voting or about who to vote for and who seem persuadable. Make sure you're registered to vote, and keep making sure, especially if you live in a red state where people keep mysteriously dropping off voter rolls.

Now, again, please don't read this as some confident prediction that Trump will be a Hitler figure. I want to stress that is a worst-case scenario. If a Trump presidency is what happens, I would much prefer the best-case scenario: that he spends four years fumbling around and not really accomplishing anything and then gives up power at the end without much of a fight. But it would also be a folly to be smugly overconfident that the worst-case scenario “won't” or “can't” happen. It could. It has happened before. There is no reason it couldn't happen again.

[lavellane]

i genuinely love love love the iconoclast path in rogue trader SO MUCH. its one of the things that ultimately enamors me to the warhammer franchise as a whole despite empathy being so antithetical to its world and genre. its not just because iconoclast is the Nice Person route or because it subverts the foundational principle that In The Grim Dark Universe There Is Only War............ but mostly i love it because its the best way to actually engage w the morality system presented in 40k and explore it the way it deserves to be explored. its so unique parsing through the choices of the game and navigating how one might actually ACHIEVE goodness through - or more accurately without - the lens of liberal modern morality. because adhering to what we presently would call morality is arguably crueler than some of the dogmatic choices - or at least the game wants you to reflect on that and decide if that kind of morality still has value or not. and i like that they give you the opportunity to do that. youre rarely rewarded for kindness in this game and in fact your oftentimes actively punished for it (void shadows was a TRIAL for my iconoclast rt) which presents another question: are you being good because of a reward you believe you'lll be entitled to, or are you being good for the sake of goodness itself??? in saying that i do LOVE how there IS payoff in the iconoclast route eventually - when youve bleed and suffered for it enough. but theres a quality to it thats so..... so BITTERSWEET, because yippee you Empathed your way to the top - but also what IS the top?? congratulations, you are the kindest autocrat in the most bloodthirsty fascist regime in human history, sitting on your throne on a voidship run by all your slaves and serfs who die by the hundreds every time you make a warpjump for some dumbass sidequest. what the fuck. can you actually call that goodness ????? is whatever goodness-adjacent thing youve achieved worth it even if you cant change the system in the ways that matter ??? lastly - the iconoclast ending is both so wildly universe-altering to the point of feeling like a heretical ending - but also kind of. not mattering really lol. because even though its hopeful, the "good" ending still feels soooo tentative with the likelihood that its very likely not going to last. but that in itself is my favorite take away from playing this game as The Last Good Guy in the Galaxy: because the love DIDNT change anything. and it DOESNT save anyone. but ohhhhhhhhh my fucking god does it absolutely matter that it was there.

[mageofminge]

REMINDER TO BOYCOTT EUROVISION

Here's a quick run down of everything they've done + why you should boycott

Despite banning Russia for its actions in the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel is still in the contest (despite committing war crimes, attacking Gaza with genocidal intent etc)

"But Hamas attacked first on Oct.7" - Then why is Israel also bombing southern Lebanon if Hezbollah and the Lebanese government aren't involved?????

Israel often uses ESC as a platform for propaganda

One key example is their promotions for their 2019 broadcast, where they tried to turn attention away from the occupation and portray the country as a liberal haven of democracy, with the lines "... it's a land of war and occupation. But we have so much more than that!" and pointing out its the only place in the middle east where "gays are hugging in the street". (as if the rest of the Levant INCLUDING PALESTINE isn't actually relatively chill when it comes to gay rights)

Another example is them sending an Ethiopian Jewish singer to perform a song called "Set me Free" the same year they stormed Al-Aqsa during Ramadan, which seemed to be very intentionally trying to shift the narrative away from Israel as a colonial occupier, and more as a persecuted people who have finally found safety

As well as the issues with Israel as a competitor, ESC is SPONSORED by MoroccanOil, an Israeli company (ik the name is misleading, but speaking as a Moroccan Israel just really loves to steal our culture while treating our people they stole like shit [I could go on an entire rant ab this but I won't])

So what this means is we can't just boycott this year and then forget about it the next. Until Israeli presence is completely removed from EUROVISION, your views and your money will be funnelled to support an Apartheid regime. I already know people who are still watching Eurovision despite not supporting the occupation, because they love the artists and the spectacle. But no spectacle is worth supporting an Apartheid regime. The best way we can help the Palestinians is by making Israel a pariah state, and pressuring politicians to cut all their funding. That way they won't be able to put down uprisings and maintain the brutal police state they have - at which point they can only resolve the conflict peacefully and end occupation, or find themselves in the throw of a violent revolution. It was these strategies that ultimately helped end the apartheid regime in South Africa, and it is these strategies which can help end Israeli apartheid.

[djuvlipen]

controversial radblr opinion: the left isn't just as bad as the right and leftist men aren't just as bad as right-wing men. It is absolutely true that there is a liberal left and an antifeminist left that wants to decriminalise prostitution, that embraces porn, that deplatforms and boycotts women and lesbians for defending sex-based rights, that supports abusers and tolerates sexual violence, but there is also a left that wants to abolish porn and prostitution and supports women's rights (and yes, there are men advocating for this. I am not pulling a 'not all men', just stating the fact that there are leftist men who oppose TRA politics and the sex industry). Right-wing parties have absolutely never offered women that kind of support. Pretending that left doesn't exist anymore is plain wrong and frankly disrespectful to leftist activists who advocate daily for the abolition of prostitution and for holding abusers accountable (I am in such a party).

Claiming the left is just as bad as the right when it comes to women's rights is so disingenuous and irresponsible given the current political climate in Europe, where fascist parties have been steadily growing and becoming the #1 political force on the continent. It's not leftists who want to deprive women of their reproductive rights, who want to establish religious authoritarian regimes, arrest prostituted women. It's the right.

Feminism is a left-wing political movement and overemphasizing the differences between the feminist movement and leftist politics is irresponsible. Claiming you are 'politically homeless' is irresponsible and a pretty privileged thing to call yourself when poor women, disabled women, woc and lesbians don't have the luxury of not voting for the left. Divesting from left-wing parties because you disagree on their support of transactivism is irresponsible.

Politics won't wait for you, we shouldn't leave the entire leftist political platform to men and TRAs. Feminists have to invest leftist parties (and be active in those parties) if we want to have a political platform.

Feminism has its roots in Marxist thought. Read de Beauvoir, MacKinnon, Firestone, Federici - they all extensively rely on Marxist theory to analyse men/women power relationships. You can't be a serious feminist if you refuse to engage with Marx's work because he was a man. You can't be a serious feminist if you don't know some basic Marxist concepts (dialectical materialism is the one that comes to my mind) and if you disregard absolutely everything Marx ever did or said and even reject the label 'marxist'. Anti-leftist sentiment is very prevalent on here, and I absolutely get where it's coming from, but it's a misrepresentation of reality to say all of the left is just as misogynistic as the right. And I'm so sick of hearing they are one and the same when my country's far-right party (who opposes gay marriage, wants to restrict abortion access, and such) has been winning all our recent elections

[pumpacti0n]

We should always be aware that it isn't some innocent mistake that authoritarian "leftists" have constantly failed to acknowledge systems of power other than a vulgar "anti-capitalism" or "anti-imperialism", like they've carelessly left out an ingredient in a cake recipe.

"Whoops, we've acknowledged one abusive hierarchy, but the other ones slipped through our fingers, silly us!" Nope. The reason this analysis of power isn't included in their ideology and praxis is because they consider these hierarchies useful to their projects.

This is why they'll mock or ignore discourse related to youth liberation, disability justice, gender self-determination or anti-patriarchal struggle, for example, or engage in apologetics for capitalist regimes in other countries -- they want to "have their cake, and eat it too".

A key reason why "the left", as some might call it, is not as powerful as it could be isn't because of some lack of discipline (or "degeneracy"), but rather a lack of intersectionality, a criticism that many of those within the black radical tradition, (black feminists and transfeminists more specifically,) have been highlighting in one way or another for at least 50 years.

Authoritarian "leftists" don't want to sacrifice the power that these hierarchies afford them, which explains why they're largely not opposed to prisons, borders, police, the enforcement of gender roles and even capitalism itself, if it's under the purview of the "socialist" ("workers") state and its bureaucrats.

And this is why I keep putting "leftist" in quotes...We're not free until we're all free, so the implication that we should settle for addressing one or two systems of domination while allowing all the others to flourish until we address them in some vague point in the far future is a distortion of what truly radical liberatory politics should entail.

It's simply a myth that we can address capitalism while leaving racism, ableism and misogyny etc. intact, as if they aren't mutually reinforced by one another, as if fascists and reactionaries will forget that they exist once capital is abolished. This is a fantasy, a delusion.

Authcoms love to pose questions like "without a state to enforce class rule, how will the proletariat defend itself?" but a better question would be: "if we fail to acknowledge the hierarchies that atomize and disempower the masses, how could we ever be a threat to capitalists in the first place? how would abandoning the most vulnerable populations serve the interests of the "working class" and "anti-imperial" struggle?

For example, (cis) women make up approximately 50% of the world's population -- so if women are still subjugated by patriarchal rule and the gendered division of labor, how will we have the numbers to fight?

Similarly, a significant portion of the world's population are currently incarcerated. If we don't abolish prisons, allowing the State to continue extracting labor from prisoners and destabilizing untold millions of social relations in the process, how can we hope to match or exceed their powers?

If we do not challenge the capitalist, productivist logic of endless resource accumulation, with its constant pollution of the environment and the displacement and erasure of indigenous peoples and non-human animals, there will be no habitable planet left for us during this "revolution", because we will have destroyed all of it in the name of profit...so what would be the point?

These aren't minor concerns that we can put off indefinitely, and it isn't some innocent mistake that they are left out of the discourse, but are instead deliberate attempts to co-opt liberation struggle for the sake of advancing counter-revolution and authoritarian projects.

It's no wonder then, that they are eager to dismiss any criticism of their projects the result of "western propaganda", as if these same critiques aren't leveraged by very people belonging to populations they constantly tokenize whenever it suits their agenda.

They'd much rather treat every marginalized community as some monolith or as primitive victims in need of saving and representation by a vanguard. This chauvinist, colonial, assimilationist, antisocial attitude is endemic in (often white,) authoritarian circles, because it forms the basis of their position towards racial and gender hierarchies, that they are a natural and inevitable factor of organization itself. They are wrong.

In this sense, they aren't meaningfully different from the capitalists they pretend to hate so much. In truth, they are just jealous and greedy for more cake.

[taliabhattwrites]

I’m sorry if you’ve answered this, or if it should be obvious, but you does your substack say trans/rad/fem? What is trans radical feminism? How does it differ from just radical feminism?

Yep! It says Trans/Rad/Fem, as does the title of my book.

The short version is that your average online hate speech aficionado who calls themselves a TE"RF" is no more well-versed in actual radical feminist literature than the billionaire writer. The most feminist literature they've read is likely wizard kidlit, and maybe the most hateful bits of 'Transsexual Empire' or a bit of Sheila Jeffreys if you're lucky.

Meanwhile, the radical feminist tradition was one that itself emerged as a materialist, inclusive, and more working-class counterpoint to the First Wave's doddering Friedanism. People don't recall much of the first wave, but it engendered such ironclad feminist arguments as "lesbians are not oppressed by patriarchy because they do not marry and are not confined to the domestic sphere", or "mothers and fathers are equally responsible for women doing to the bulk of childcare, because mothers are so reluctant to let go."

Truly, it's a miracle there were any subsequent waves at all.

Adrienne Rich's essay on Compulsory Heterosexuality can be viewed as something of a turning point, a collation of a more materialist framework (since I don't believe Rich necessarily originated all the points she raised). She, rather gently and with more patience than I have ever demonstrated, addressed the arguments of the heterosexual feminists and highlighted the coercive nature of patriarchy and of heterosexuality itself, which could be considered a social regime, a model that attempts to subsume all women into domestic servitude and sexual labor for men.

(A quick aside--if you've ever encountered any arguments on this site along the lines of "CompHet is only for lesbians", do note that the original text involves Rich, a lesbian, laying out the argument to hetfeminists that all women, even straight women, are subjected to a mandatory heterosexual existence, and are punished for trying to live outside of it, as by pursuing economic independence or choosing to be childless.)

For me personally, given the rather dismal state of Indian feminism, which is dominated by affluent liberals and ignores the more radical prolefem and dalit feminist elements attempting to come to the fore, it was refreshing to finally behold a piece of feminist literature that identifies and names forced marriage as an aspect of patriarchy, one that a significant chunk of women all over the world, both within Western territories and without, live with. So much mainstream feminism in the 2000s and beyond was located in the interpersonal, the foregrounding of choices women "should" make, ignoring that for the vast majority of us, patriarchy either denies us any choice at all, or presents us with false ones, harshly punishing us for some choices while presenting them as "free".

(Liberal ideologies and systems, bound up as they are in a veneration of contracts between equal parties, account very poorly for contracts between parties on unequal footing, where one is at a significant material disadvantage and cannot truly make a "free" choice.)

Besides, it is neither true that modern feminism entirely discarded the second wave--look at "gender is a social construct" and "heteronormativity" for now-banal feminist concepts steeped in radfem origins--nor is it true that the "third wave", such as it was, was entirely aa step forward in inclusivity, trans-acceptance, class consciousness, or even racial justice. One need only look at the state of modern feminist discourses to see how well the latest "waves" have managed to argue the case for trans liberation, and my current most well-known essay is a deep dive into the Orientalist, transmisogynistic origins of "third genders", an idea the queer academy has uncritically absorbed and even championed.

I am under no misapprehensions that second-wave feminists would be my pals. A lot of them were white, for one thing. It is, however, a tradition that is both more diverse than the prevailing image of white, middle-class lesbian academics would have you believe, and one that has more than a few useful things to say, especially to a transfeminist.

I don't think we are best served by erecting a cordon sanitaire around the second wave and refusing to engage with it critically. I've read Transsexual Empire, for fuck's sake, and doing so revealed to me just how paper-thin this reactionary movement has always been. That book is as farcical and easily disproved as Hilary Cass' recent bilious screed, but both were elevated to legislative and political relevancy not due to their veracity, but because institutions simply need any literature to provide a veneer of legitimacy to their transphobia. That the texts exist at all is enough.

I have, in short, made my life's work engaging with scholarship that has historically ignored us, vilified us, or instrumentalized us, and that is as true for second-wave feminists as it is for cultural anthropologists. I just believe that Monique Wittig and Adrienne Rich made valuable contributions to feminist thought, and even as we remember all that their missteps, we should not erase what they did right.

On a personal note, I can think of no better revenge than taking the abandoned threads of the radical feminist tradition and finally fulfilling its aborted potential, as a transfeminist. The trans question tore the movement apart because of a subset of zealots who couldn't and wouldn't see us as sisters in the feminist struggle.

I am going to finish what they started, and make the conclusions that they couldn't. We're good at cleaning up other people's messes, after all.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[ThePrint is Indian Private Media]

Speaking to ThePrint minutes after Hasina left Bangladesh, Yunus, who has been charged by the Hasina government in over 190 cases, said, “Bangladesh is liberated… We are a free country now.”

“We were an occupied country as long as she (Hasina) was there. She was behaving like an occupation force, a dictator, a general, controlling everything. Today all the people of Bangladesh feel liberated.”[...]

Yunus was convicted by the Hasina-led government in January for violating the country’s labour laws and is currently out on bail.[...]

Yunus, founder of the pioneering microfinance system that lifted millions of poor out of poverty in Bangladesh, ruled out any role in active politics. “I’m not the kind of person who would like to be in politics. Politics is not my cup of tea,” he maintained.

Currently in Paris, he said he would soon return to Bangladesh and continue to work for the people the way he did earlier.[...]

“I will continue with my work in a more free environment that I didn’t have during the regime of Sheikh Hasina because she was always attacking me. I will continue, devote myself to the things I could not do before,” he said.

Earlier in the day, coming down heavily on the Hasina-led government, Yunus had in a separate interview with ThePrint demanded that she resign immediately.[...]

He added that unlike the US, India has played a “major role” as far as Bangladesh is concerned.

“I don’t know what role they are playing now in this scenario and what role they will play in the upcoming situation,” he told ThePrint.[...]

The Nobel Laureate said that with Hasina no longer calling the shots in Dhaka, things have changed in Bangladesh and he is not sure what role opposition parties including former PM Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) will play in the current scenario.

He added that the BNP was silent so far because they have been under attack all along. “Now in a free country, how they emerge, how they decide their policies and actions, if there is an election, what role they will play in the elections, how they perform in the elections, is not very clear as of now.”

[Dhaka Tribune is Bengali Private Media]

The coordinators of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement have announced an outline for an interim government headed by Nobel Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus.

This information was conveyed in a video message by key coordinators of the student movement, Nahid Islam, Asif Mahmud, and Abu Bakar Mazumdar, at 4:15am on Tuesday.[...]

The army chief also mentioned that he would soon meet with representatives of students and teachers.

He expressed confidence that the situation would return to normal soon and sought all-out cooperation from people of all classes and professions, including students, regardless of party affiliations and opinions.

5 Aug 24