Stalinism ISN’T Communism BECAUSE OF Stalinism putting political enemies in concentration camps.
Antifascism IS Communism DESPITE Antifascism beating up political enemies using vigilantism.
???
If Stalin wasn’t a Communist, then it wasn’t a Communist who defeated Hitler…
Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal..
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/feb/14/letters-censorship
“No platforming” used to be a tactic used against self-proclaimed fascists and Holocaust-deniers. But today it is being used to prevent the expression of feminist arguments critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists. The feminists who hold these views have never advocated or engaged in violence against any group of people. Yet it is argued that the mere presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group’s safety.
Comment: Self-proclaimed? I beg to differ. But sometimes Hatfield v.s. McCoy is fun to watch. Take some crisps and beer…
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/allen-west-threatens-muslim-students-calls-them-jihadists/
len West isn’t very happy with the University of Maryland, College Park. It wasn’t only Muslim students who opposed a screening of “American Sniper” at the school, but West certainly did voice his displeasure with Muslim students, telling them to “go home,” and calling them “jihadists.”
West’s attack came in the form of an article on his website, where he attacked the Muslim Students Association, claiming them to be an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. West doesn’t seem to understand that Muslims aren’t necessarily foreigners, and that it doesn’t take someone to have aimed a weapon at Americans to be offended by the war propaganda film he so desperately loves.
In typical West fashion, apples were compared to pistachio nuts and slavery came to the forefront:
But who are these individuals to tell an American university what can be shown on its campus? I wonder if the movie “Twelve Years a Slave” was shown at the University of Maryland? And if these MSA students believe “American Sniper” is offensive to Muslims it means means [sic] they are supportive of Islamic terrorism and jihadism.
Sorry, Allen, but there’s a big difference between showing a movie that depicts a historical period accurately and one that glorifies violence and hatred towards an entire religion. “American Sniper” was nothing but a kill-fest that martyred a mass-murderer.
And no, it doesn’t “means means” that they are supportive of terrorism and jihad, it means they found the tone of the movie distasteful, much like most rational people find you.
West has a plan for these “jihadists.” The title of his article starts with “Incoming,” and the piece ends with gun nut uber motto “molon labe.” Clearly West thinks the only solution to deal with these horrible students opposed to the violence in a movie is to mount an attack on Universities and rid them of this ominously peaceful presence:
Your time is running out, as we will not tolerate the intolerant for much longer. You will be crushed and defeated, because in America we just don’t take crap for too long — regardless of the complicit bond you’ve found with progressive socialists — stretching from the White House to the College and University campuses — Islamic fascism will not prevail in these great United States of America.
Two words: Molon Labe!
Will the attacks on college students by psychopaths who think Chris Kyle is a hero begin before or after your Presidential campaign is squashed?
Lighten up, Allen. And please…go away. Don’t go away mad, just go away.
Comment: Antifa-chickens coming home to roost? Anyway, learn Arabic so you don’t have to rely on second-hand information. Hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/islam-fascist-echoes.html
Are there Echoes of Fascism
|
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
I am skeptical of efforts to produce a “definition” of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. To understand what fascism has encompassed as a movement and a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development–as a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The following paragraphs are intented as an initial, open-ended sketch.
Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a “spiritual revolution” against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge “alien” forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.
Fascism’s approach to politics is both populist–in that it seeks to activate “the people” as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies–and elitist–in that it treats the people’s will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers’ internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a “new order” clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.
 |
Matthew N. Lyons is an independent scholar and freelance writer who studies reactionary and supremacist movements. His articles have appeared in the Progressive and other periodicals. These paragraphs are adapted from Too Close for Comfort: Right Wing Populism, Scapegoating, and Fascist Potentials in US Politics (Boston: South End Press, 1996), which Lyons co-authored with Chip Berlet. © 1995, Matthew N. Lyons.
Comment: Yes, never define smear-words. If you define “fascism” you can’t use “fascist” against anyone you don’t like. Whomever I don’t like is Adolf Hitler. Only similarities count, never differences. When it comes to me and my friends, the opposite rule holds. Any similarity is irrelevant, any difference is relevant. Whatever. Hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/190139/is-zionism-racism?
I am a person of the left and have been ever since I was a girl and Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers or maybe it began when the Rosenbergs were executed and I knew a great lynching had occurred or maybe it was the photos of Auschwitz that I saw in Life magazine that made it clear I was one of those inside the fence not those waving at passing trains. That is why today the phrase “Zionism is Racism” sends shivers down my spine and sets my teeth to grinding.
Zionism is not about race. It is a nationalism. It makes a claim for the Jewish people that they are a folk like other folk and entitled to a land of their own just like the French have France and the English have England and the Bulgarians have Bulgaria. Nations have histories and the Jews have a history, long and eventful, rich in creative moments, overflowing with sorrowful memories, complete with documents, music, stories, language and also religion, and a religious memory of temples bygone and exiles endured and architecture described and columns buried in the soil and a millennium dream of return.
This dream of return, this next year in Jerusalem, existed long before the Holocaust. It existed before Herzl and the Zionists of the century before last had ever taken their first breath. It is a dream sunk deep into the Seder ritual, “Next Year in Jerusalem.” This vision of an end to exile kept the Jews together and brought them hope through the years spent in Babylon millennia ago when the texts that form our memory were edited and scrolls were connected and ordered into a lasting canon.
Sense was made of Jewish misfortune through a vivid if perhaps dubious belief in God’s punishment and eventual forgiveness. If the disasters that befell the Jews came about through Jewish defiance of God’s law then Jews could hope to make amends and keep their religion and their hope of redemption alive.
Even when Jews were defeated in battle we kept our God and held dear the promises he had made us of a land of our own: a land that he had granted to us in the time before time. Other defeated peoples gave up their gods who had performed badly in war and were now no more than broken stones strewn on the bloodied soil. In blaming ourselves for our misfortune Jews were able to hold on both to our God and to the hope of return to the land that had been promised. Our conception of the wages of communal sin saved our God from the dustbins of abandoned texts where specialists can still read today of Marduk and Sargon.
This hope of return to the land of Israel, which God had given to the Jewish people through Abraham, through David, for all time, this hope of return lasted through the exile of our people from England and France, the calamity of the Spanish exile and and of Portugal’s cruel dictates.
A wish for a land of one’s own for a nation of people with a story and a root, and a hope that carried on for more than a thousand years is unusual in human history. But if one thinks for a moment how the French would feel scattered to the four corners of the globe, Paris gone, the Seine named something else, the great cathedrals burned, the people now living along the Seine having descended from other folk who lived in other places, who did not know the French story, did not honor Charlemagne or Joan of Arc, or even speak French and instead spoke strange words in a language that Proust, or Flaubert, or Molière could not have deciphered, think how they might create a nationalism of their own that called for a return of Paris to the French and if that happened would they be racists or would they be nationalists, and why would they be entitled to a land of their own and the Jews denied?
And what if these French were denied citizen’s rights in some of the places they settled? What if they had been gassed or pushed into trenches where they died by the tens of thousands? What if the French had no army, no police of their own and were prey to the anti-French who roamed across all continents. What if the other countries denied the French access to law courts, to medical schools, to universities? What then? The French would start looking around for a land to call their own and they would call their promised land France and if others were living there they would still return if they could, because the French like any other national group deserves a land of their own, in a world of nation-states. And so do we Jews.
In today’s world to be called a racist is to be attacked with a nasty word that conveys immorality and inhumanity on the part of the racist. It hurts to be called a racist, especially if one is not. A Hungarian immigrant may enjoy a croissant but not feel a strong identity with French culture or history. What if such Hungarian immigrants were unexpectedly in the majority in what had been recognized as France? What if the French in Colombia or Nigeria wanted to return to France: Would anyone call them racists or would they be exiles, carrying with them Diderot, Molière, Madame Curie, Charcot, Camus, Stendahl, André Gide, Corneille, on their backs to lands where they had settled?
Despite United Nations resolutions to the contrary Jews are not racists to want a land of their own, a geography that contains their history, a place where their armies and their arms can protect them. They are human beings who claim the common endowment of what in this day and age passes for humanity.
Racists are despicable people who think they are superior to and more entitled than others of different groups, different nations, different skin color, different religious beliefs. America has a lot of racists living in its cities, small towns, its hills, its purple mountains majesty but slowly we are getting better at understanding that America is a place of many races and the mixture itself creates a nation that is beautiful in its variety and has for spacious skies that stretch from sea to sea.
Yes, Zionism can lead to excess of rage. It can inspire folks to deny others basic human dignity, the same way that anyone else’s nationalism can. It can turn ugly when the desire for “mine” becomes the desire to deny “yours.” But that is not the Zionism of the Jewish people. It was not Herzl’s Zionism. Our bid is just to be a nation like the other nations.
Well, not exactly like all the others. It was hoped that Israel would not enslave anyone. It was hoped that Israel would treat the strangers who lived among its people with justice and equality. It was expected Jews would not throw rocks at passing Arab cars and that we could make room for other dreams and other visions and other nations to settle near by or live in peace among us.
Zionism remembers the vulnerability of the Jews living without a state of their own and so it balances the needs of others to thrive in their own orchards and the needs of the Jewish community to become itself, at last, a nation without a foreign ruler, without a wicked king appointed by a distant empire, but a place where the Jewish story can be told by free men and women with confident voices in safe places where their Jewish children can learn and grow without fear. In other words a nation just like the French or the Spanish or the Poles who are not racist for waving the French, Spanish, or Polish flag or singing the anthem they learned at school.
If this return had happened in 1776 then the state of Israel could easily have acted in the way that America did—a way that came to be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as “normal.” It could have marched its Palestinians out beyond its borders and the crime of it, the pain of it, would have lost its immediacy, no cameras, no reporters on the ground. Native Americans were stripped of their land and their culture trampled and no one saw it on the news and by the time anyone could weep for them, the deed was done and could not be revoked. America had slaves for a hundred and fifty years and was indeed a racist country and remains so in some places. Think of the faces of the men and women who lined up to mock the entrance of a few Black children into a white school in Alabama. That is the face of racism.
If Israel was a normal country like Iraq or Syria the ultra-Orthodox would be at war with the citizens of Tel-Aviv who go to the movies on Shabbat. The followers of this rabbi or that would take to the hills with their guns. If Israel was a normal country like Mexico its citizens would be afraid of the police and the drug cartels would appoint the chief of police. If Israel were really normal the Ashkenazi Jews would arm themselves against the Sephardim and civil war would take the lives of Jews just as civil war decimated the population of young men in America as boys lay dead on battlefield after battlefield, leaving mothers to grieve and sweethearts to weep and children to grow up without fathers. That is our normal.
So, it might be not such a good idea to be a normal state. And while it might not be entirely fair to hold Israel to a higher standard, I do in fact expect that Jews will hold back the killing hand, the truly racist call, and that Zionism would be, could create a decent place, where a variety of religious approaches could co-exist and secular folk could walk about unmolested. It is a dream, but not an impossible one.
This vision of Israel (that is where as a child I thought my tree was growing) did not fully understand that Palestinian Arabs were or would become a people with a claim of their own to a national homeland. This conflict needs to be settled; both peoples need settled borders in which to build and flourish. But Zionism is not racist to speak for itself and the illogic, the unthinking hatred behind that slogan, makes me sick. It is a lie and a smear hiding behind a proclamation of seeming virtue. To be against racism is good but to see it where it is not, to use the word to attack Jews, is appalling.
Comment: A person of the left. Well, others have differing opinions. Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…
As long as Antifa can get away with face covering, they force their opponents to crack down on the Left in general. Note that the Polish Antifa doesn’t fly a red flag, only black ones. Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…
Also hard proof that Anonymous and Antifa are the same. Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…
There is a historical precedent of a Western government having fallen to Islamic invasion and occupation, then that Western government over a long period of time finally retaking their land back from the Muslims — the Reconquista finalized in 1492 — after which they initiated mass deportation of Muslims along with a process of ferreting out Muslims who had eluded the initial dragnet (this rational process demonized by our PC MC mainstream as the dastardly Inquisition), and as part of this overall process, an acceptance of those Muslims who apostasized and converted to Christianity.
Then, years later, guess what happened: innumerable numbers of those seeming ex-Muslim apostates fomented a violent rebellion so fierce and troublesome, it forced the king of Spain at the time to divert needed men and materiel from the most exigent problem of Muslim attacks in the Mediterranean, just to quell this rebellion. Given the astronomic “asymmetry” that modern technology makes possible, for individuals and cells to get their hands on WMDs of various types (chemical, biological, nuclear) and given the horrific destruction and casualties such WMDs can cause, it would be irrational not to at least keep all apostates under unusually close surveillance for an indefinite time (i.e., forever).
Comment: Not just applicable to Muslims. What does work is constantly warning your enemies of eternal damnation in order to chip away at their morale, as well as keeping the linguistic upper hand, so the information flow will be in your favor. You knowing more of them, than they know of you. Erlik sonsuz, Erlik sonsuz, Erlik sonsuz…
Many conlangers like to exoticize their language by adding non-European features. But this betrays the same Eurocentric bias as Esperanto does. Esperanto was meant to be a Human language, but ended up as an European language. Klingon was meant to be a non-Human language, but deliberately takes features from non-European languages. The same underlying assumption is that Human = European. The very notion of “exotic” is generally understood to be racist and Eurocentric.
On top of this, is the very fact of taking features of e.g. Dahalo not an act of cultural appropriation? Under the usual rules, yes. This makes about any attempt at constructing languages by people having white privilege thoroughly racist, if not White Supremacist. Think of it, geeks!
oogenhand 