Anarcho-Bolshevik

In my experience, anticommunists tend to be pretty terrible at managing time. There were many German anticommunists in the 1940s who thought that the G.P.U. still existed.

Tut‐tut, I see that Clinton’s electoral failure in spite of winning the popular vote hasn’t moved somebody’s faith in the pseudodemocracy. Let’s briefly review the circumstances, shall we?

Starting with the national elections of 2000:

• Democrats have received more popular votes in 4 out of the past 5 presidential elections, yet only gained office 2 times. Despite winning the popular vote only once in the past 5 elections, a Republican has taken office 3 times.
• Democrats have received 24 million more votes for Senate than Republicans, yet have held a majority in the Senate in only 3 out of the last 9 sessions, while Republicans have had a majority in 4 out of the past 9 sessions.
• Democrats have received over 500,000 more votes for seats in the House of Representatives, yet have held a majority in that body for only 3 out of the past 9 sessions, while Republicans have held a majority in 6 of those sessions.

(Source and more evidence here.)

Trust me, an overglorified public opinion poll isn’t going to stop neofascism should the ruling class deem its institutionalization necessary. The Fascists ascended to power in the Kingdom of Italy and the Weimar Republic in spite of their want of votes.

Finland.

Finland.

ONE HUNDRED
MILLION
STRAIGHT
WHITE
CAPITALIST
MEN!

The reason that MovingThrowaway said ‘Almost none of us were alive when Khrushchev rolled tanks into Hungary’ is that certain British socialists coined the pejorative ‘tanky’ to nickname communists who approved of the Warsaw Pact intervention in the Hungarian People’s Republic (and later, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic), but hardly anybody uses the pejorative this way anymore.

In practice, application now varies widely, from approving of the Bolsheviki to opposing the Ukrainian government to suggesting that maybe North Korean politicians think and behave like ordinary human beings. The contemporary criteria are so variable that many would argue that the term is too vague to be useful.

Maybe I am… or maybe we’re all tankies now. What’s the difference?

How is it?

https://lemmy.ml/post/16409446

https://lemmy.ml/post/836264

The Lion of the Desert.

I frequented /v/, /int/, and a few other boards about one dozen years ago. Now the only things that I touch are a few of the archival websites, and even then only rarely. Occasionally I’ll visit an archive to look for images or clips, and more unoften I’ll look up a phrase or word out of curiosity, but that is the extent of it. I haven’t posted anything on the official website in a very long time (and I’ve never posted anything on the archival websites at all).

Just out of curiosity, are you somebody who lurks /c/capitalismindecay?

Descriptions of crucifix violation by Jews are always depicted in the Hebrew chronicles as a reaction to the evil destruction of their Torah scrolls by the crusaders. During the First and Second Crusades, crusaders attacked the most holy object of the Jews, so the Jews in response are depicted as attacking the main symbol of Christianity and the crusading movement. In the First Crusade, the tearing of sacred Torah scrolls was part of almost every attack.⁹⁵ There are nine descriptions of Torah desecration in the four chronicles.⁹⁶

The Hebrew chroniclers first emphasized the holiness and beauty of the Torah, how it was honored by a particular Jewish community, and how terrible it was that the uncircumcised contaminated it. According to Eliezer bar Nathan, the crusaders trampled the Torah scrolls in the mud in Worms: “The enemies and oppressors set upon the Jews who were in their homes, pillaging, and murdering men, women, and children, young and old. They destroyed the houses and pulled down the stairways, looting and plundering; and they took the holy Torah, trampled it in the mud of the streets, and tore it and desecrated it amidst ridicule and laughter.”⁹⁷

The Mainz Anonymous depicts the grief of the Jewish women who saw the Torah as it was torn in the Mainz synagogue in 1098: “There was also a Torah scroll in the room; the errant ones came into the room, found it, and tore it to shreds. When the holy and pure women, daughters of kings, saw that the Torah had been torn, they called in a loud voice to their husbands: ‘Look, see, the Holy Torah—it is being torn by the enemy!’ And they all said, men and women together: ‘Alas, the Holy Torah, the perfection of beauty, the delight of our eyes, to which we used to bow in the synagogue, kissing and honoring it. How has it now fallen into the hands of the impure uncircumcised ones?’”⁹⁸

Furthermore, according to Solomon bar Simson, the Torah scrolls were trampled underfoot in Trier: “At that time the people of the community of Trier took their Torah scrolls and placed them in a sturdy building. When the enemy became aware of this, they went there while it was still day and broke the roof above; they took all the mantles and the silver adorning the rollers of the Torah, and threw the Torah Scrolls on the ground, and tore them and trod upon them with their feet.”⁹⁹

(Emphasis added. Source.)

https://lemmy.ml/post/909676

When referring to Jewish neocolonists, you mean. Surely nobody is going to get in trouble for referring to anticolonial Jews as ‘Kapos’ or whatnot, which I have seen much too often.

I really doubt that Moscow deported women and children out of either collective punishment or misidentification. It’s more reasonable that it was simply Soviet policy to keep families together as much as possible.

Of course, if Moscow did separate the relatives, then antisocialists would go from griping about ‘collective punishment’ to griping about ‘separating loved ones’ instead. In any case, antisocialists rarely attempt to understand their opponents’ motives, especially in detail. All that you need to know is that the Soviets committed atrocities against innocents and that’s it. They did it just ’cause.

Facists [sic] like to kill people that’s kind of their whole ideology.

That… wasn’t the point of Fascism. Frankly, I’d be surprised if you could name the countries or regions where the Italian Fascists committed their massacres.

The point of Fascism was to forcibly save capitalism from the concessions that the lower classes won. I recommend listening to this: https://lemmy.today/post/315713

And the other paraphrase sounds like a reply to Planck:

Planck began his intercession on behalf of Haber, even going so far as to say that without the latter’s chemical process for obtaining ammonia from the nitrogen of the air “the previous war would have been lost from the beginning.” To this remark Hitler retorted: “I have nothing at all against the Jews themselves. But the Jews are all Communists, and these are my enemies — it is against these that I am fighting.”

???

Jews have been likening Zionism’s neocolony to the Third Reich as early as 1948. I collected quotes from Orthodox Jews, Shoah survivors, and even a few ‘moderate’ Zionists making their own comparisons after my Sephardic friend encouraged me to write an article formally comparing the two entities.

A case in point is Golda Meir (Meyerson), who was in fact one of the more hawkish leaders of the Yishuv. On May 6, 1948, following a visit to Arab Haifa only a few days after its conquest and the flight and expulsion of the city’s Arab population, Meir reported to the Jewish Agency Executive that “there were houses where the coffee and pita bread were left on the table, and I could not avoid [thinking] that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns [i.e., in Europe during World War II].”⁴²

Within Mapam—a left‐[leaning] Zionist party that was part of the state’s first government headed by David Ben Gurion—the expulsion of Palestinians was the subject of intense debate. For example, Eliezer Pra’i (later Peri), editor of the Mapam daily al‐Hamishmar, wrote: “Among the best of our comrades the thought has crept in that perhaps it is possible politically to achieve our ingathering in the Land of Israel by Hitlerite‐Nazi means.”⁴³

Following the atrocities committed during Operation Hiram by the [neocolonial] army (IDF) who conquered the central‐upper Galilee pocket, the [neocolonial régime] established a three‐person investigation committee. At a cabinet meeting on November 17, 1948, convinced that the army and defense establishment were being evasive, Mapam representative Aharon Cisling stated: “I couldn’t sleep all night. […] This is something that determines the character of the nation. […] Jews too have committed Nazi acts.”⁴⁴

(Emphasis added.)

That is only small sample of the comparisons that I collected—not a single one of which came from a gentile.

Of course, there are limits to the analogy, and one could argue that such analogies are never necessary, but whatever the case I find it troubling to dismiss them as ‘antisemitic’ seeing as how many well adjusted, well educated Jewish adults have made and continue to make their own comparisons between the Reich and the Zionist occupation (which most certainly isn’t a ‘democracy’).

Fifty‐five downvotes over this comment? Judas Priest, this community needs to chill out.

But I am chuckling at the joker who said ‘nobody gives a shit, though’. Trust me, I know from experience what apathy looks like. This definitely isn’t an example.