#mention of fascism

[shoujoboy-restart]

O’Shae Sibley's killer may have lied about his religion during the attacks as a way to incite division.

August 8th

A witness said a group of men that included the teenager charged in the killing used homophobic slurs and told Mr. Sibley that they were Muslim, and he should stop dancing. Some initial media reports picked up that account. Mayor Eric Adams and the police held a news conference at which the mayor stressed that the killing was not evidence of Muslim hatred of gay people. Now, it appears the man charged with Mr. Sibley’s murder is not Muslim at all. The suspect, Dmitry Popov, 17, is Christian, his lawyer said, altering at least one aspect of a killing that has drawn national attention.

Mr. Popov, 17, a high school student from Brooklyn, turned himself in last Friday and was charged with second-degree murder, second-degree murder as a hate crime and criminal possession of a weapon. He was denied bail in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn on Monday and is being held in detention. Court documents said that a witness heard the group with Mr. Popov say, “Stop dancing here, we are Muslim.” But at the court hearing and in an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Popov’s lawyer, Mark Henry Pollard, pushed back against some of the initial narrative: Mr. Popov is not Muslim, Mr. Pollard said. “He’s Christian,” he said in a phone interview. “Somehow they got it confused, he’s not a Muslim. I could understand if there were other friends that were, but he was the only person arrested.”

Also confirmed by his grandma and mother prior, but since this is a lawyer during a court hearing I think is much more safe to think.

It's very scary how manipulative this creature was, not only killing a person because he was just dancing and enjoying life more than this parasite probably had going to church and slaving away at two jobs during his useless life time(based on claim by the mother and grandma) but trying to use his death as a political wedge to attack other minorities to paint them all as just as extremist for brianwashed as him for another week of digital religious crusades.

I hope this gets stuck into people's heads that fascist terrorists do in fact lie about their identities and exploit it explicitly to innocentize and sanitize the far right and to muddy it's regressive genocidalist history so today's lobotomized right wingers can come on the internet and act like they have nothing to be held accountable for while demanding mea culpa from any leftist individual their encounter.

Fascists did it during WW2 and they will keep doing it as long as the media and public allow themselves to be manipulated by it.

[sayruq]

[headspace-hotel]

Radfems commonly ask "What did J.K. Rowling do wrong besides say that 'woman' is a real biological category?" as a 'gotcha' and, well...

(referencing Matt Walsh's documentary, 'What is a Woman')

this is matt walsh (skip to 1:30)

If you don't want to click the link, this is where he says that girls are "most fertile" at 17 and that getting pregnant at 16 was the norm throughout history and that "teen pregnancy" isn't a real problem, only unwed pregnancy.

This is Matt Walsh's blog post explaining exactly what he thinks of feminism.

This is another post explaining what Matt Walsh thinks of feminism.

This is what Matt Walsh's twitter says

(Yes, he self-identified as a fascist on Twitter back when the interaction with JKR took place.)

If J.K. Rowling agrees with Matt Walsh on 'what a woman is,' she is anti-feminist, misogynistic scum.

[infiniteglitterfall]

I guess this might be why the UK seemed to go so antisemitic so quickly

I'm researching the 1947 pogroms in the UK. (Actually, I'm researching all the pogroms and massacres of Jews in the past 200 years. Which today led me to discover that there were pogroms in the UK in 1947.)

From an article on "The Postwar Revival of British Fascism," all emphasis mine:

Given the rising antisemitism and widespread ignorance about Zionism [in the UK in 1947], fascists were easily able to conflate Zionist paramilitary attacks with Judaism in their speeches, meaning British Jews came to be seen as complicit in violence in Palestine.

Bertrand Duke Pile, a key member of Hamm’s League, informed a cheering crowd that “the Jews have no right to Palestine and the Jews have no right to the power which they hold in this country of ours.” Denouncing Zionism as a way to introduce a wider domestic antisemitic stance was common to many speakers at fascist events and rallies. Fascists hid their ideology and ideological antisemitism behind the rhetorical facade of preaching against paramilitary violence in Palestine.

One of the league’s speakers called for retribution against “the Jews” for the death of British soldiers in Palestine. This was, he told his audience, hardly an antisemitic expression. “Is it antisemitism to denounce the murderers of your own flesh and blood in Palestine?” he asked his audience. Many audience members, fascist or not, may well have felt the speaker had a point. ...[The photo of two British sergeants hanged by the Irgun in retaliation for the Brits hanging three of their members] promptly made numerous appearances at fascist meetings, often attached to the speaker’s platform. In at least one meeting, several British soldiers on leave from serving in Palestine attended Hamm’s speech, giving further legitimacy to his remarks. And with soldiers and policemen in Palestine showing increasing signs of overt antisemitism as a result of their experiences, the director of public prosecutions warned that the fascists might receive a steady stream of new recruits.

MI5, the U.K. domestic security service, noted with some alarm that “as a general rule, the crowd is now sympathetic and even spontaneously enthusiastic.” Opposition, it was noted in the same Home Office Bulletin of 1947, “is only met when there is an organized group of Jews or Communists in the audience.”

The major opposition came from the 43 Group, formed by the British-Jewish ex-paratrooper Gerry Flamberg and his friends in September 1946 to fight the fascists using the only language they felt fascists understood — violence. The group disrupted fascist meetings for two purposes: to get them shut down by the police for disorder, and to discourage attendance in the future by doling out beatings with fists and blunt instruments. By the summer of 1947, the group had around 500 active members who took part in such activities. Among these was a young hairdresser by the name of Vidal Sassoon, who would often turn up armed with his hairdressing scissors.

The 43 Group had considerable success with these actions, but public anger was spreading faster than they could counter the hate that accompanied it. The deaths of Martin and Paice had touched a nerve with the populace. On Aug. 1, 1947, the beginning of the bank holiday weekend and two days after the deaths of the sergeants, anti-Jewish rioting began in Liverpool. The violence lasted for five days. Across the country, the scene was repeated: London, Manchester, Hull, Brighton and Glasgow all saw widespread violence. Isolated instances were also recorded in Plymouth, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and Davenport. Elsewhere, antisemitic graffiti and threatening phone calls to Jewish places of worship stood in for physical violence. Jewish-owned shops had their windows smashed, Jewish homes were targeted, an attempt was made to burn down Liverpool Crown Street Synagogue while a wooden synagogue in Glasgow was set alight. In a handful of cases, individuals were personally intimidated or assaulted. A Jewish man was threatened with a pistol in Northampton and an empty mine was placed in a Jewish-owned tailor shop in Davenport.

And an important addendum:

I've read a whole bunch of articles about the pogroms in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Eccles, Glasgow, etc.

Not one of them has mentioned that the Irgun, though clearly a terrorist group, was formed in response to 18 years of openly antisemitic terrorism, including multiple incredibly violent massacres. Or that it consistently acted in response to the murders of Jewish civilians, not on the offensive. Or that at this point, militant Arab Nationalist groups with volunteers and arms from the Arab League countries had been attacking Jewish and mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhoods for months.

I just think the "Jewish militants had been attacking the British occupiers" angle is incredibly Anglocentric.

Yeah, they were attacking the British occupiers. But also, that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

Everyone involved hated the Brits at this point. If only al-Husseini and his ilk had hated the Brits more than they hated the Jews, Britain could at least have united them by giving them a common enemy.

[just-antithings]

On the porn thing, I know there's debate on the validity of "porn addiction", and how it very much gets misapplied and over-used by Christo-fash types and puritans.

As often as it is misapplied I don't feel comfortable saying it's "not a real thing" since technically literally anything could be an "addiction" if it disrupts your ability to function on a day-to-day basis and, important part people like to leave out, actually causes harm or distress TO the person with the addiction.

But these people act like if you see a boobie in a film and don't immediately fall over and start rolling around and sobbing and throwing up then you're a "porn addict".

Calling someone a "porn addict" cause they sometimes watch porn to get off is like calling someone an alcoholic cause they like to have a beer after work. (Although it wouldn't surprise me if they did that too.)

👆👆👆👆

[catboymoments]

THIS IS SO?? I’ve blocked them already but ohhhhh my god

“Why are you being so defensive? I only came at you with an incredibly accusatory and inflammatory statement!” PLEASE GO BACK TO TIKTOK JESUS CHRIST

[i-am-dulaman]

Okay I'm riled up about this rn so time for a history of economics lesson (rant) from me, a stranger on the internet

I'm a communist, I hate capitlism, so lemme just put that out there. But capitlism had its moments. Even marx had some praise for parts of capitlism.

And by far the most successful form of capitlism was Keynesian economics, as evident by the enormous increase in living standards in those countries which adopted it between the 1930s and 1970s.

What's Keynesian economics? The idea that capitlism can't survive on its own, and must be supported by government spending at the poorest ends of society and taxes at the richest ends of society (essentially the opposite of trickle down economics) as well as strong regulations on certain industries like banking.

It basically started in 1936 with President Roosevelt who was a personal friend of John Keynes (who the theory is named after).

Roosevelt implemented Keynesian economics to great effect; he raised the top tax rate to 94% (he actually wanted a 100% tax rate on the highest incomes, essentially creating a maximum wage, but the senate negotiated down to 94%) and similarly high corporate tax rates, he created the first ever minimum wage, created the first ever unemployment benefit, created social security in America, pension funds, and increased public spending on things like public utilities and infrastructure, national parks, etc. Which created about 15 million public sector jobs.

This ended the great depression and eventually lead to America winning world War 2, after which many countries followed suit in implementing similar policies, including UK, Australia, and NZ (apologies for the anglosphere-centric list here but they're the countries I'm personally most familiar with so bare with me)

Over the next 40 years these countries had unprecedented growth in living standards and incomes, and either decreasing or stable wealth inequality, and housing prices increasing in line with inflation. Virtually every household bought a car and a TV, rates of higher education increased dramatically, america put a man on the moon, and so on.

Then it all abruptly ended in the 80s and the answer is plain and obvious. 1979 thatcher became UK prime minister. 1981 reagan became US president. 1983 the wage accords were signed in aus. 1984 was the start of rogernomics in NZ (Someone link that Twitter thread of the guy who posts graphs of economic trends and points out where reagan became president)

(Also worth noting those last two in NZ and Aus were both implemented by 'left' leaning governments, but they are both heavily associated with right wing policies.)

This marked the beginning of trickle down economics: tax cuts, privatization of publicly owned assets, reduction in public spending, and deregulation of the finance sector. The top tax rates are down to the low 30s in most of these countries, down from the 80s/90s it was prior. Now THATS a tax cut.

And what happened next?

Wages stagnated. Housing prices skyrocketed. Bankers got away with gambling on the economy. Public infrastruce and utilies degraded. And wealth inequality now exceeds France in 1791.

I don't know how anyone can deny the evidence if they see it, but there's so much propaganda and false information that a lot of people just don't see the evidence.

Literally all the evidence supports going back to Keynesian economics but now that the rich have accumulated so much wealth it's virtually impossible to democratically dethrone them when they have most of the politicians on both the right and the left in their pocket.

Unfortunately it was the great depression and ww2 that gave politicians the political power to implement these policies the first time around. Some thought the 2008 crash would spur movement back towards Keynesianism (which it actually did in Iceland, congrats to them), I hoped covid would force governments to now, but nope.

All these recent crises' seem to have just pushed politics further and further right, with more austerity and tax cuts.

I don't really have a message or statement to end on other than shits fucked yo.

[beedreamscape]

I'm pretty much the worst person to even weigh in on this topic because I've been partial to Suvi since day one, but in my opinion there wasn't ever a need to explain or justify Suvi's choices/reactions.

Not because she's perfect, never wrong (though in my heart I know...) but because I'm very certain that the people that keep on hammering on her mistakes/shortcomings/tendencies are people that already dislike Suvi (or don't like Aabria very much, I wish this wasn't a topic of consideration but even 30+ eps in there's still people like that around) for whatever reason and gather excuses to justify their bias against her and no amount of explanation will turn their hearts in her favour.

It really feels like a parallel to the way Suvi herself tries to be understood by her friends and yet she fails time and time again.

And people insist on forgetting that Suvi is not the Citadel, she's just one young wizard of the Citadel.

And it's gut-wrenching how much I relate to that feeling of alienation before every corner she tries to fit in: amongst her citadel peers she's othered by her position and privilege, and now by her friendship to a witch and a spirit; between her friends she's the odd-one-out because of her Citadel connections and the nature of her power; and now amongst the witches she stands out by being the face of the "enemy".

I don't blame her for clinging to the little corner of the world that has not made her feel foreign despite the very nature of her presence: in Steel's family whom she's not related to by blood, yet completely by heart.

And it'll never be a fair game. The girls especially are very young and with new-found independence, they're given colossal decisions to make, and that before beings older than three generations of them combined and incomprehensively more powerful and less empathic.

As much as Mirara wants there to be a good witch and bad witch, there's no such thing as black and white, there are decisions and consequences, what one does with the power they're given. There is no right or wrong in a fight filled with so much heart, there was never a world where a fight between Ame and Suvi would be clean.

[akindplace]

The former president's supporters invaded our National Congress and causing chaos and depredation after the former extreme right president lost the elections and left Brazil to hide in the U.S. the act is clearly inspired in the capitol's invasion after Biden won. Many of them came to the capital of Brazil, Brasilia, in November, set fire to buses, cars, have been camping outside army headquarters asking for the army to take over power in a military coup.

Those supporters also planned to blow a bomb at the international airport, going so a far as to set it but the police intervened. They came over in caravans last night planning on attacking the city today, the national congress being public patrimony that is representative of the democratic power in Brazil, and those people are trying to incite o violent coup. The local government of Brasilia is already being accused of not taking enough measures to keep those violent anti democratic protesters out of the area. So far, it seems there is no police there yet, the cavalry seems to be on their way.

Please don't support these people claiming the elections were fraudulent. We have one of the best electoral systems in the world to avoid fraud. The ex president was from the extreme right, defended torture during our past military dictatorship and was in favor of said dictatorship. He is already being accused of one of the biggest corruption scandals in the history of the country. He lost the elections fairly because of his extremism, corruption and incompetence as president.

Also remember the former president has left the country and all his supporters to hide in the US. As said, he is already being accused of several corruption crimes, including regarding the pocketing the money that should go towards buying of covid vaccines and letting 700k people die while the health system collapsed.

Translation of the cnn headlines: "just now: protesters invade the national congress".

For now I can't find sources in English because this just happened now at the beginning of the afternoon of this Sunday, January 8th, but as soon as there are, I'll post them.

[psychic-waffles]

Cw: child death, racism (particularly islamophobia)

The last couple of days have seen multiple full blown fascist riots in the UK and we're likely to see more over the weekend.

On Monday there was a horrific incident where a 17 year old attacked a dance school in Southport, killing three children and injuring many more. Because of the attacker's age his name has not been released, however the far right quickly started circulating a made up name and said the attacker was Muslim and an immigrant.

On Tuesday, when a vigil was being held in the town for the victims, fascists travelled to Southport and started a riot, centering around attacking a mosque. I really don't have words for how disgusting it is to use the death of children to further their violently racist agenda and take all of this out on a grieving town.

Following this there were multiple fascist riots on Wednesday, the largest of which being in London and Hartlepool. These involved further attacks on mosques, surrounding hotels where asylum seekers were being housed, and attacking brown and black people on the street and in their homes.

There are plans by the far right to hold multiple further rallies over the next few days, I've seen particular mention of Liverpool tomorrow (Friday) and Middlesbrough on Sunday, but I think it's likely we'll see violence across the UK.

There is also a huge demo for Palestine organised for Saturday which involves action across the country and with a march in London, and quite frankly I will be shocked if the fash don't try to disrupt that in any way, so just be prepared that there is a heightened risk of violence.

Overall in response to the riots there's been a lot of talk about the spread of misinformation and how that needs to be tackled, and while this is true it doesn't address the fact that the majority of these fascists really don't care. Even if the attacker had been Muslim or had been an immigrant, that doesn't give anyone the right to try and attack every Muslim and immigrant in the country. This couldn't have and hasn't been stopped by correcting a bit of misinformation, this is about decades of deeply racist islamophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric baked into the core of the UK and reinforced constantly by the media and politicians across the spectrum as ""legitimate concerns"".

Right now we need community support more than ever. Organise, protect your local Muslim communities, and of course stay safe.

Edit: while I was writing this post the name of the attacker was released as Axel Rudakubana. As I have already said the fash do not care, and islamaphobic and anti-immigrant violence will almost definitely continue, however there will now likely also be an increase in anti-black violence and we need to be prepared for that.

2nd edit: check my reblogs for more info on specific places they're planning to target

[dieletztepanzerhexe]

[not-terezi-pyrope]

It's posts like this that tell me that I'm never going to see eye to eye with certain people on the left, because this is a deeper cognitive problem that exists irrespective of any political axis, although it's just as directly damaging as being a reactionary or a protofascist.

I've noticed for a while now that some people seem incapable of perceiving the world through a non-aesthetic worldview. Their understanding of how society work is full conceptualized through narrative and symbolism, and they seem incapable of contemplating simple utilitarian cause and effect.

The context of this post was somebody saying that even if you accept that Trump would be identical (or worse) compared to Biden on foreign policy, but that a Biden presidency would tangibly improve the domestic situation, then you still shouldn't vote for Biden, because Biden is the one currently endorsing genocide and a vote for him is "saying that you're okay with that".

Do you see the disconnect there? The way that that argument fundamentally talks past what it is claiming to argue against? I'm not one to argue some bizarre conspiracy theory about incompatible styles of cognition, but it feels like sometimes these people genuinely don't understand how their argument fails to make sense.

It feels like some people understand that out of a limited range of possible actions, you should take the one that causes the least harm, because that utilitarian approach is how you produce desired outcomes.

Then you have this entire other group of people who can't conceptualize that. Who can only understand moral choices as which flags to fly in support of which narrative. And the narrative of "Joe Biden being president" is seen as carrying out the narrative of fascism, and so voting for Joe Biden, regardless of your motivation for doing so, is seen as allying with fascism. As "endorsing" it with your vote, as the screenshotted post says, with a fully straight face.

People are so adamant about this, even after you explain, at length, the concept of choosing the path of least harm (because not voting for Joe Biden will, to be clear, cause more harm, as best as anyone can tell), they will dismiss what you are saying as obviously silly.

So I'm forced to conclude that they simply don't understand the argument being made, or else see it so obviously secondary to the moral aesthetics of voting that they can't bring themselves to even contemplate it.

The problem is that, from a utilitarian point of view, prioritizing the moral aesthetics of one's own actions - of keeping one's own hands clean - over actively working to reduce harm done to others through the choices you have available, is actually an incredibly selfish and damaging way to make decisions. It is very much "part of the problem".

But don't try to tell them that. They've already decided that you're a fascist, and if you argue with them that just proves it more.

[sayruq]

[bonefall]

Can I hear more about Villain Thornclaw? The way you described him is a really cool take on his character.

He exudes a sense of detached ruthlessness, something happened and he just never got over it, most of the time he is a model warrior, but sometimes he says something or gives a cold look, and that hints just how much he is willing to do for his beliefs

The first warrior that Firestar named becomes his most insidious enemy.

He was too young to clearly remember Clawface snatching him and his little sister, but he does remember the way it became an early fixation. His favorite games were always reenactments and play fights, and his father Lionheart and kidnapper Clawface would be characters in them. He often would go too far and play rough, actually biting or scratching his playmate.

We, in the real world, may recognize this as a way kids often process trauma. But they don't have cat therapy here.

And quickly these fixations became unsettling. Brightkit didn't like these games, and their older siblings were disturbed. Frostfur reacted strongly and tried to intervene, but it didn't help the way they wanted.

He got good at hiding it, and he got better at finding other ways to express his fixation. He never knew Lionheart, but he DID know Grandma Speckletail, and she would tell him all about the ways he could be like his dad. When you don't know a person, they can be anything you want them to be.

Turns out if you dress up "I'm obsessively xenophobic of foreign cats and want to rip them to shreds" as "I will ferociously avenge my father and uphold his legacy," suddenly you're golden! It's that simple!

(it's almost like clan culture didnt actually value peace or kindness and just encourages you to channel ur violence towards specific ends)

Thornkit went from Grandma Speckletail to Mentor Mousefur, and she continued to cultivate this. There's a time and a place for aggression. Be good to your clanmates. Use words in camp, not claws. She made a good soldier out of him.

When ThunderClan had a reckoning with Tigerclaw and his ideology in TPB, during his coup, the line of thought that went through Thornpaw and the cats like him was that Tigerclaw was the problem. Who could have known! A shock! Sickening!

...for a while they were "better," devastated by his betrayal, more openminded. But minds don't always trend towards progress.

Eventually, Thornclaw backslid. Let's not throw out the kitten with the tonguewash, here. Yes yes, Tigerclaw was a damn traitor and a hypocrite, but there's worse cats to look up to, you can't deny his nobility, that some of his ideas were great for ThunderClan, that there were lofty ideals he merely took from our grand and glorious history and we can return to those days...

What is so terrible about being a thistle? To lash back when you are attacked? To defend the meadow for you and yours?

We can have Tigerclaw's good aspects without the bad, surely?

And Firestar...

You must understand it's nothing personal. Firestar's a fine cat, for a kittypet. There is no hate for him. But we can't have a leader who stops ThunderClan from engaging in honorable combat. The Clan has become too mixed, and he punished him simply for expressing his concerns. What other choice is there? To do nothing as the clans are destroyed from the inside out?

Bluestar brought wildfire to the forest, to burn it to the ground. Firestar is Thornclaw's natural enemy-- and so is every cat like him.

[zoochi-comic-humor-returns]

fallout fans can range from some guy hanging out being chill to people literally woobifying fascists

[just-antithings]

this are actually green flags

oooh some fascist dog whistling in there at the end too!