reactionaries: we are going to elect a far right leader to stick it to the unaccountable elites who control our lives via financial institutions
unaccountable elites who control our lives via financial institutions: please do
[ image description is screenshot of tweet by @omanreagan that says, “As jair bolsonaro rose in the polls, so too did brazillian stocks. investors saw the far-right candidate as a safer pair of hands…” ]Â
The fact that you can’t raise taxes on billionaires even slightly without them pouring money into fascist political movements is, of itself, evidence that billionaires as a class shouldn’t be allowed to exist in the first place.
You, ah, don’t think it’s unfair to judge people’s morals based on their finances?
I, ah, think that it’s perfectly fair to judge people’s morals based on the amount of money they pour into neo-nazi political movements, yeah actually.
I’m always a little baffled when liberals will see leftists doing something and object out of the fear that the right will “use it as justification” to do xyz oppressive shit.
because like… literally 100% of the time they already are doing that exact oppressive thing, and there’s centuries of evidence that they will just make up justification when they don’t find anything concrete to blame it on anyway
organizing to combat voter suppression isn’t the cause of voter suppression. organizing to prevent fascist groups from terrorizing communities isn’t the cause of fascism. advocating for the end of boarders isn’t the cause of the United States government deporting peopleÂ
I don’t understand how so many people have been convinced that any advocacy or organizing is the cause of oppression instead of the fight against it. How do you consistently mix up cause and effect this much?Â
So much of liberal rhetoric is focused not on stopping or combatting what is happening, but instead on trying to get the referee to notice that the other side isnt playing fair so they’ll step in and put things back *~*the way they should be*~* and so a lot of the time when they say that the right would “use _____ as justification” for something, what they really mean on some level is “_______ could be said to provoke that response, and as soon as we do anything to provoke, we no longer have the moral high ground”
and of course there is no referee — there’s nobody standing outside the system who is empowered to step in and throw a flag when somebody is “cheating.” But they just can’t get past the illusion that if they point out enough times that the right is breaking laws or acting badly, then somebody (with the appropriate authority) will step in and do something about it
This is also the very real impulse lurking behind all of those joking posts on fb from liberals going like “damn I wish the queen would just take the US back” because the idea that the British royal family, the last body that controlled America from the outside, could step in and stop everything bad is much more appealing than the thought that if they want change they’re going to have to do the hard work of making it themselves
This weekend I was schmoozing at an event when some guy asked me what kind of history I study. I said “I’m currently researching the role of gender in Jewish emigration out of the Third Reich,” and he replied “oh you just threw gender in there for fun, huh?” and shot me what he clearly thought to be a charming smile.
The reality is that most of our understandings of history revolve around what men were doing. But by paying attention to the other half of humanity our understanding of history can be radically altered.
For example, with Jewish emigration out of the Third Reich it is just kind of assumed that it was a decision made by a man, and the rest of his family just followed him out of danger. But that is completely inaccurate. Women, constrained to the private social sphere to varying extents, were the first to notice the rise in social anti-Semitism in the beginning of Hitler’s rule. They were the ones to notice their friends pulling away and their social networks coming apart. They were the first to sense the danger.
German Jewish men tended to work in industries which were historically heavily Jewish, thus keeping them from directly experiencing this “social death.” These women would warn their husbands and urge them to begin the emigration process, and often their husbands would overlook or undervalue their concerns (“you’re just being hysterical” etc). After the Nuremberg Laws were passed, and after even more so after Kristallnacht, it fell to women to free their husbands from concentration camps, to run businesses, and to wade through the emigration process.
The fact that the Nazis initially focused their efforts on Jewish men meant that it fell to Jewish women to take charge of the family and plan their escape. In one case, a woman had her husband freed from a camp (to do so, she had to present emigration papers which were not easy to procure), and casually informed him that she had arranged their transport to Shanghai. Her husband—so traumatized from the camp—made no argument. Just by looking at what women were doing, our understanding of this era of Jewish history is changed.
I have read an article arguing that the Renaissance only existed for men, and that women did not undergo this cultural change. The writings of female loyalists in the American Revolutionary period add much needed nuance to our understanding of this period. The character of Jewish liberalism in the first half of the twentieth century is a direct result of the education and socialization of Jewish women. I can give you more examples, but I think you get the point.
So, you wanna understand history? Then you gotta remember the ladies (and not just the privileged ones).
Holy fuck. I was raised Jewish— with female Rabbis, even!— and I did not hear about any of this. Gender studies are important.Â
“so you just threw gender in there for fun” ffs i hope you poured his drink down his pants
I actually studied this in one of my classes last semester. It was beyond fascinating.Â
There was one woman who begged her husband for months to leave Germany. When he refused to listen to her, she refused to get into bed with him at night, instead kneeling down in front of him and begging him to listen to her, or if he wouldn’t listen to her, to at least tell her who he would listen to. He gave her the name of a close, trusted male friend. She went and found that friend, convinced him of the need to get the hell out of Europe, and then brought him home. Thankfully, her husband finally saw sense and moved their family to Palestine.
Another woman had a bit more control over her own situation (she was a lawyer). She had read Mein Kampf when it was first published and saw the writing on the wall. She asked her husband to leave Europe, but he didn’t want to leave his (very good) job and told her that he had faith in his countrymen not to allow an evil man to have his way. She sent their children to a boarding school in England, but stayed in Germany by her husband’s side. Once it was clear that if they stayed in Germany they were going to die, he fled to France but was quickly captured and killed. His wife, however, joined the French Resistance and was active for over a year before being captured and sent to Auschwitz.
(This is probably my favorite of these stories) The third story is about a young woman who saved her fiance and his father after Kristallnacht. She was at home when the soldiers came, but her fiance was working late in his shop. Worried for him, she snuck out (in the middle of all the chaos) to make sure he was alright. She found him cowering (quite understandably) in the back of his shop and then dragged him out, hoping to escape the violence. Unfortunately, they were stopped and he, along with hundreds of other men, was taken to a concentration camp. She was eventually told that she would have to go to the camp in person to free him, and so she did. Unfortunately, the only way she could get there was on a bus that was filled with SS men; she spent the entire trip smiling and flirting with them so that they would never suspect that she wasn’t supposed to be there. When she got to the camp, she convinced whoever was in charge to release her fiance. She then took him to another camp and managed to get her father-in-law to be released. Her father-in-law was a rabbi, so she grabbed a couple or witnesses and made him perform their marriage ceremony right then and there so that it would be easier for her to get her now-husband out of the country, which she did withing a few months. This woman was so bad ass that not only was her story passed around resistance circles, even the SS men told it to each other and honoured her courage.Â
The moral of these stories is that men tend to trust their governments to take care of them because they always have; women know that our governments will screw us over because they always have.Â
Another interesting tidbit is that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Kristallnacht is a term that historians came up with after the fact, and was not what the event was actually called at the time. It’s likely that the event was actually called was (I’m sorry that I can’t remember the German word for it but it translates to) night of the feathers, because that, instead of broken glass, is the image that stuck in people’s minds because the soldiers also went into people’s homes and destroyed their bedding, throwing the feathers from pillows and blankets into the air. What does it say that in our history we have taken away the focus of the event from the more domestic, traditionally feminine, realms, and placed it in the business, traditionally masculine, realms?
Badass women and interesting commentary. Though I would argue that “Night of Broken Glass" includes both the personal and the private spheres. It was called Kristallnacht by the Nazis, which led to Jewish survivors referring to it as the November Pogrom until the term “Kristallnacht" was reclaimed, as such.
None of this runs directly counter to your fascinating commentary, though.
Gee, I wonder what in the world happened just prior to 1945 that would have led to this conclusion.
this motherfucker explained why “so much for the tolerant left” was bullshit seventy years ago and people still won’t cut it out
“Intolerance of bigotry is not comparable to intolerance of humanity”
Tolerance Is Not a Moral Precept:Â
“Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.”
We need to stop thinking of tolerance as a matter of ethical values, and move it to the same category as privacy: if someone is buying bomb parts and setting off explosions in their back yard, the neighbors may try to find out if they’re a danger to the whole community.Â
Bigots are a danger to the whole community; they don’t get the polite treatment we offer to people who are just trying to live their lives in peace.
THIS THO
ALL OF THIS
I wrote an essay on the tolerance paradox for school! Very interesting.
[id: a Wikipedia article on the paradox of tolerance. It says, “The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”
Yall really be like “If hot women slept with incels they wont kill women!!1! “ and “If you stop punching nazis and dont turn down dates with them maybe they wont hate you so much!!” as if men having wives still dont kill and rape women and racist white men who have dated black women still dont go around abusing black people and calling cops on them when they breathe around them lol.
If having sex with one’s oppressor made the oppressor stop oppressing that group of people then slave owners in history would have freed their slaves ages ago and misogyny would not even exist lmao.
“Communism and Nazism are equally bad and also both somehow leftist, but also, if it comes down to it, I am absolutely supporting the Nazis.” – Conservatives irl
it’s so strange that there’s a macguyver episode of all things, where nazis are the bad guys and it feels like something that can’t be made today. a lot of macguyver is those Special Learning Moment episodes with messages like “Don’t do drugs”, “Keep your guns out of the reach of children” and like, i wish “Nazis were unforgivable cowards and their ideology should be stamped out before it can take a foothold in the US” was on that same level again, as something so obvious to your average child that it’s basically overdone. but no now it’s divisive. now it’s anti free speech to… write an episode critical about a racist ideology. now it’s unreasonably political. now it’s blatant virtue signalling. now it’s just this postmodern SJW bullshit, unlike Back In The Good Old Days where we just might not have been paying the slightest bit of attention
[Image description: Tweet by Brandon David Wilson @Geniusbastard
It positively chills you to the bone the degree to which white people will accept almost any atrocity if you convince them it’s only happening because THESE PEOPLE WILL NOT FOLLOW THE RULES]
“If you’re a fascist and anti-fascists come for you, you have a choice. You can give it up. You can go renounce what you said. You could just go on with the rest of your life and stop turning up at fascist rallies. Anti-fascists probably aren’t gonna buy you a pint and be your best friend, but they’ll move on. But if you’re a person of color, if you’re trans, or a person with a disability, or gay, or Jewish, and fascists come for you, there is nothing you can do that can make them happy, except stop existing. That’s the key difference between the far left and the far right. Anti-fascists organize themselves against those that are building fascism. If you’re doing that, that is something you can non-violently stop doing. If you’re a political enemy of antifa, you can become a friend. If you’re a political enemy of fascism, though, either they lose or you die.”