Anarcho-Bolshevik

Hamas was obviously using them as human shields. Get with the programme.

Considering how unhappy apartheid officials were with Washington announcing a 17% tariff on their régime, I find that unlikely.

Trump has told Reuters in a phone interview that it was unclear if Iran still has a nuclear program following Israeli strikes on the country.

Trump said [that] the U.S. still has nuclear talks planned with Iran on Sunday, but that he is not sure if they will still take place. He said [that] it was not too late for Iran to make a deal.

“I tried to save Iran humiliation and death,” Trump said.

He said [that] he is not concerned about a regional war breaking out as a result of Israel’s strikes.

(Source.)

I’ve seen first-person clips of October 2023 atrocities attributed to Hamas.

Do you have any idea if those are real or not? Given how self-incriminating those would be, I find it odd that Hamas would upload those videos.

The IOF and the apartheid officials need to be forced to watch every hour recorded of Palestine’s suffering.

Fair’s fair.

Such is the nature of left antisemitism: you must always read between the lines.

For example, a user by the name of Anarcho-Bolshevik once commented ‘Every Jew is like a precious lamb to me. (Except for Netanyahu and anybody who supports him… those people are awful.)’

You shall see, gentlemen, that this is, without question, the single most antisemitic comment ever written, for a few simple reasons:

• Calling Jews ‘precious’, which puts a price on them, so she or he is actually saying that all Jews are commodities. Strike one.
• Comparing Jews to animals frequently intended for consumption, thereby implying that she or he wants to eat all Jews, as anybody could logically deduce from that. Strike two.
• Saying that anybody who supports Netanyahu is awful, but supporting the war on Gaza supports Netanyahu, and 99.99% of Jews are Zionists, which means that they support the war on Gaza, so she or he is really saying that all Jews are awful. Strike three.

Now you will understand the reasons which have led countries to persecute and isolate those leftists marked by the stigma of their antisemitism. The domination of such leftists within society is disturbing and dangerous for the destiny of the nation.

For anybody interested: Muhammad Shehada’s commentary on the Gazan protestors.

“Antisemitism is a disease carried by barbarians” in “all civilized societies,” said Netanyahu.

‘All civilized societies’ except for the ‘State of Israel’, I presume?

As much as I loathe antisemitism, the harsh truth is that it can manifest in formal ways as well as informal ones. Kevin B. MacDonald is a good example, and pro-Axis intellectuals like David Irving are almost notorious for frustrating Shoah survivors with difficult questions. Intellectual antisemitism is still bullshit of course, but it is a problem that has to be acknowledged; dealing with it is not as easy as it sounds.

I know that this is not the most obvious issue with this conference, but it is an omission that too many overlook when Herzlians pretend to care about antisemitism. Acknowledging the complexities of a problem is a good indication that you take it seriously, which settlers like Netanyahu certainly don’t.

Are you saying that this situation is similar to the Axis occupations of France, Greece, and Yugoslavia?

As the [Western Axis powers] entered the Ukraine in the summer of 1941 one of their propaganda themes was Jewish responsibility for the Ukrainian famine of 1932–33. As Stephen Wheatcroft has discovered, an illustration appears in the pages of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer showing the famous Jewish Bolshevik, Karl Radek, leering in the background while infants starve.

Ukrainian neofascists, among other anticommunists, want to partition the Russian Federation.

Somehow I can’t help but doubt that.

Are you saying that the reason that 88% of Ukrainians would not vote to reelect Zelensky is that they’re all traitors to their country?

Is this a joke?

Why did I misread the title as ‘Lebensraum and the crumbling of American power’?

Why are you always posting propaganda from all of these obviously Russian‐backed sources?

Cut an anticommunist and an anticommunist bleeds?

It was no doubt disgraceful that Soviet Russia should make any agreement with the leading Fascist state; but this reproach came ill from the statesmen who went to Munich. […] [The German–Soviet] pact contained none of the fulsome expressions of friendship which Chamberlain had put into the Anglo‐German declaration on the day after the Munich conference.

Indeed Stalin rejected any such expressions: “the Soviet Government could not suddenly present to the public German–Soviet assurances of friendship after they had been covered with buckets of filth by the [Fascist] Government for six years.” The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland. Munich had been a true alliance for partition: the British and French dictated partition to the Czechs.

The Soviet government undertook no such action against the Poles. They merely promised to remain neutral, which is what the Poles had always asked them to do and which Western policy implied also. More than this, the agreement was in the last resort anti‐German: it limited the German advance eastwards in case of war, as Winston Churchill emphasized. […] [With the pact, the Soviets hoped to ward] off what they had most dreaded—a united capitalist attack on Soviet Russia. […] It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed.

— A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, pg. 262

When [the Fascists] attacked Poland, the Soviets moved into Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the Baltic territories that had been taken from them by Germany, Britain, and Poland in 1919. They overthrew the [anticommunist] dictatorships that the Western counterrevolutionaries had installed in the Baltic states and incorporated them as three republics into the USSR. The Soviets also took back Western Byelorussia, the Western Ukraine, and other areas seized from them and incorporated into the Polish [anticommunist] dictatorship in 1921 under the Treaty of Riga.

This has been portrayed as proof that they colluded with the [Fascists] to gobble up Poland, but the Soviets reoccupied only the area that had been taken from them twenty years before. History offers few if any examples of a nation refusing the opportunity to regain territory that had been seized from it. In any case, as Taylor notes, by reclaiming their old boundaries, the Soviets drew a line on the [Fascist] advance which was more than what Great Britain and France seemed willing to do.

— Michael Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, pgs. 144–145

@freagle@lemmygrad.ml and others are ‘simping’ for the USSR because that is the price that you have to pay for capitalism’s structural defects: it leaves us, the lower classes, in such destitute positions that we have nothing to lose by seeking alternatives.

It was no doubt disgraceful that Soviet Russia should make any agreement with the leading Fascist state; but this reproach came ill from the statesmen who went to Munich. […] [The German–Soviet] pact contained none of the fulsome expressions of friendship which Chamberlain had put into the Anglo‐German declaration on the day after the Munich conference.

Indeed Stalin rejected any such expressions: “the Soviet Government could not suddenly present to the public German–Soviet assurances of friendship after they had been covered with buckets of filth by the [Fascist] Government for six years.” The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland. Munich had been a true alliance for partition: the British and French dictated partition to the Czechs.

The Soviet government undertook no such action against the Poles. They merely promised to remain neutral, which is what the Poles had always asked them to do and which Western policy implied also. More than this, the agreement was in the last resort anti‐German: it limited the German advance eastwards in case of war, as Winston Churchill emphasized. […] [With the pact, the Soviets hoped to ward] off what they had most dreaded—a united capitalist attack on Soviet Russia. […] It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed.

— A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, pg. 262

When [the Fascists] attacked Poland, the Soviets moved into Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the Baltic territories that had been taken from them by Germany, Britain, and Poland in 1919. They overthrew the [anticommunist] dictatorships that the Western counterrevolutionaries had installed in the Baltic states and incorporated them as three republics into the USSR. The Soviets also took back Western Byelorussia, the Western Ukraine, and other areas seized from them and incorporated into the Polish [anticommunist] dictatorship in 1921 under the Treaty of Riga.

This has been portrayed as proof that they colluded with the [Fascists] to gobble up Poland, but the Soviets reoccupied only the area that had been taken from them twenty years before. History offers few if any examples of a nation refusing the opportunity to regain territory that had been seized from it. In any case, as Taylor notes, by reclaiming their old boundaries, the Soviets drew a line on the [Fascist] advance which was more than what Great Britain and France seemed willing to do.

— Michael Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, pgs. 144–145

@freagle@lemmygrad.ml and others are ‘simping’ for the USSR because that is the price that you have to pay for capitalism’s structural defects: it leaves us, the lower classes, in such destitute positions that we have nothing to lose by seeking alternatives.

It’s funny that you should mention that, because the main reason that I educated others on the subject was that I saw a Polish anticommunist trivializing the Fascist occupation just to make the Communists look worse.

https://lemmy.ml/post/14133689

I have never seen any outspoken anticommunists make an effort to properly educate others on the Fascist occupation. You just mention the ‘splitting of Poland’ over and over again like that’s good in its own right and we’ll automatically download all of the details from that fact alone. This isn’t how education works.

It’s funny that you should mention that, because the main reason that I educated others on the subject was that I saw a Polish anticommunist trivializing the Fascist occupation just to make the Communists look worse.

https://lemmy.ml/post/14133689

I have never seen any outspoken anticommunists make an effort to properly educate others on the Fascist occupation. You just mention the ‘splitting of Poland’ over and over again like that’s good in its own right and we’ll automatically download all of the details from that fact alone. This isn’t how education works.