Germany Looks to Stop the Far Right From Assuming Power
We should not forget that during this period the Social Democrats had considerable powers in the area of law and order, because in 1928 one of their number, Carl Severing, was appointed Minister of the Interior of the Reich. The SPD took advantage of this to institute an extremely efficient reorganisation of the police, with the principal aim of setting up a special corps to prevent Bolshevik disturbances and uprisings.
Unfortunately they were not equally efficient and motivated in preventing and repressing [Fascist] gangsterism. The situation inevitably aggravated the historic fracture between Social Democrats and Communists that had already existed since the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht — a fracture which experienced a particularly acute moment — a point of "no return" — in the events of Mayday 1929.
(Emphasis added. Source herein, and see here for more.)
That’s only because Cuban censors, like with the life expectancy (read: 20 years), are hiding the real violent crime rate, which is at least 537% higher than America’s.
Source: literally all survivors of communism agree with me.
Despite the [German–Soviet] pact, Communist resistance started very quickly in the Pas‐de‐Calais. The particular circumstances of the Forbidden Zone allowed for an independence of action that Auguste Lecœur and Julien Hapiot were able to take maximum advantage of. They decided, in August 1940, to begin organising illegal Communist activity against the occupying forces.7
[…]
Thus, the Communists of the Pas‐de‐Calais began their anti‐German propaganda very early on. Nevertheless, the Communists of the region did not think of themselves as disloyal to their party and their confidence in the Soviet Union was as strong as ever, it was simply that the daily reality of the Forbidden Zone pushed then more rapidly to a more anti‐German position than their comrades elsewhere.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
In a follow‐up story, Haaretz correspondent Dan Sagir interviewed a deputy company commander in the armored corps whose unit served in Jenin at the start of the intifada.
I inserted so many links into the Capitalism in Decay Megathread that it is at our software’s character limit and now I can’t insert anything else.
I am unsure what to do with it now other than maybe split it into two megathreads.
The portrayal of Saracens as quasi‐Jewish killers of Christ enables Christians not only to glorify those who defeat them in battle but also to inspire new military campaigns. The Muslim chronicler Izz al‐Din Ibn al‐Athir provides a vivid example of such rhetoric when recounting what happened after Muslim forces retook Jerusalem in 1187.
Ibn al‐Athir, perhaps drawing on firsthand knowledge, reports that the city’s patriarch aroused fellow Franks to avenge this loss by making a picture of Jesus that “portrayed Christ (peace be upon him) along with an Arab, depicted as beating him. They put blood on the portrait of Christ and said to the people, ‘This is Christ with Muhammad, the prophet of the Muslims, beating him. [Muhammad] has wounded and slain him.’”
Ibn al‐Athir inserts the customary Islamic honorific for Jesus, whom Muslims revere as a messenger of God, but provides no further editorial commentary: he trusts that his Muslim audience will recognize the preposterous nature of the allegation that Muhammad killed Christ. Preposterous though it is, this propaganda builds on longstanding Frankish rhetoric associating Muslims with Christ’s persecutors, and it provides powerful religious motivation for Christian warriors to avenge the maltreatment of their God.
Ibn al‐Athir credits this propaganda with raising “more men and money than there would be any way of counting” toward what academic historians call the Third Crusade; “even the women,” he emphasized, “answered the call in great numbers.” If Ibn al‐Athir is reliable, he provides valuable evidence regarding the broad impact of religious rhetoric designed to appeal to a specific subset of Christian society, namely fighting men.12
(Source.)
Umm… Europeans have been colonizing other Europeans long before 1492. The most notable example of this was Ireland:
Irishmen could not own land, sue in the king’s courts, hold office in central or local government, or be admitted to any ecclesiastical benefice in the territories under English control. In addition, the killing of an Irish man or woman was not a felony in English law; at most, the killer might owe compensation to the dead person’s lord.
This last provision did not, as is sometimes assumed, imply murderous intent. The point was that Irishmen, as aliens rather than subjects, were outside the protection of the law. But the implications of that principle, where settler and native shared the same territory, were far reaching.
(Source.)
Capitalist colonialism within Europe was phenomenal years before the Fascist era. A byspel of this was World War I:
In 1918 Germany annexed huge tracts of territory from the Russian Empire, taking direct control of almost all its coal mines, three‐quarters of its iron ore, half its industry, and a third of its rail system. An increasingly anti‐Slavic ideology added a racial dimension to this imperial expansion.
Generals Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff wanted not only to control the resources of Eastern Europe, but also to subdue the region’s Slavic nationalities, settle Germans there, and create a “frontier wall of ‘physically and mentally healthy human beings.’” First in Poland then later further east, the German army commandeered forced labor, deported thousands of Slavic workers, and monitored the local population through registration and identity cards.46
(Source and see Elusive Alliance: The German Occupation of Poland in World War I for more.)
If by ‘empire coming home’ you mean ‘white capitalists superexploiting their fellow white citizens’, then that is likewise a prefascist phenomenon:
Of the witnesses that Commissioner White examined (1863), 270 were under 18, 50 under 10, 10 only 8, and 5 only 6 years old. A range of the working‐day from 12 to 14 or 15 hours, night‐labour, irregular meal‐times, meals for the most part taken in the very workrooms that are pestilent with phosphorus. Dante would have found the worst horrors of his Inferno surpassed in this manufacture.
(Source.)
All that aside, what really disappoints me is seeing another person overlook the Fascist colonies in Afrasia. It bums me out. I try to regularly inform other users on that subject, so when I see a statement like ‘Fascism is the empire turning inward’, it makes me feel like my topics haven’t been of much help and haven’t really made a difference.
Ukrainian sovereignty
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/618843
Notably, tankies are more inclined to use the term ‘Zionist’ as a blanket label for Israel and its citizens.
That is likely because A. ‘Israeli’ has never been anything more than a meme nationality, and B. some of us want to make it clear that the settlers’ heritage is of no concern to us. Our problem with the settlers has nothing to do with their heritage, but with their demonization of innocents and theft of said innocents’ land and other resources. The settlers could have been Polish, Romani, Serbian, or whatever, and it wouldn’t have mattered.
Our toxicity analysis also indicates that tankies are more likely than other far-left groups to post antisemitic content targeting Jews.
What would be an example of this? For all that I know, their software could interpret a statement like ‘Jews should kill Zionists’ as an ‘antisemitic’ remark based on the keywords alone. I’d be curious to have a conversation with them about this, but I really doubt that any of them is going to approach me to try.
Correct! But the Axis also liquidated Zionist Jews when they were no longer useful, and for Zionists that was the point where the Axis went too far. Even killing a single Zionist Jew would have been too much. If all 5–6 million—without exception—were confirmed anti‐Zionists, though? No big deal.
If the 5–6 million Jews that the Axis exterminated were all confirmed anti‐Zionists, then Zionists would immediately and unhesitatingly hail all the Axis powers and their collaborators as heroes.
You know it’s true.
The “essence” of the fish is its “being,” water — to go no further than this one proposition. The “essence” of the freshwater fish is the water of a river. But the latter ceases to be the “essence” of the fish and is no longer a suitable medium of existence as soon as the river is made to serve industry, as soon as it is polluted by dyes and other waste products and navigated by steamboats, or as soon as its water is diverted into canals where simple drainage can deprive the fish of its medium of existence.
(Source.)
Hamas killed 1,200 people and took about 240 hostages in the attacks, including at a music festival and kibbutzim. Israel then launched a military offensive in the Gaza Strip. At least 27,585 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli campaign, and thousands more are feared buried under rubble, the health ministry in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip has said.
Let’s see, there is uncritically reporting the neocolony’s narrative as if it were factual, and then there’s a qualification that U.N.‐supported data are from ‘the health ministry in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip’, as if that somehow delegitimizes them. Angelique Chrisafis and the dullards who approved her report must think that we’re all chumps.
Zionists are the ones who committed the massacre, not ‘Hamas’.
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.
There is no fediverse instance more queer-friendly and than Hexbear; what are you even talking about?
I am guessing that the reasoning is as follows:
- The short twentieth century’s people’s republics were frequently heterosexist in some way
- Many on Hexbear defend the people’s republics (within reason)
- Ergo, Hexbear is heterosexist
This reasoning does not apply when defending dictatorships of the bourgeoisie such as Imperial America and the British Empire, because
Social democracy?
I suspect that the rebranding of Zionism to be ‘philosemitic’ started in the mid or late 1940s, shortly after the Shoah ceased. Then telling Jews to fuck off to Palestine was no longer seen as an act of hostility but of compassion instead, since they would supposedly be ‘safer’ there. It is similar to how some Zionists are trying to rebrand the expulsion of Gazans as an act of compassion.
It’s a recent development. The fact of the matter is that Zionists have always been unafraid of associating with antisemites, a trend that continues today albeit more subtly. On the other hand, not only are there plenty of anti‐Zionist Jews, but thanks to the black sheep effect anti‐Zionist Jews may well be the harshest critics of Zionism, which is part of the reason why I made an effort to exclusively quote Jews when looking at people comparing the Zionist enterprise to the Third Reich.
https://imgur.artemislena.eu/vH6AvL8
https://imgur.artemislena.eu/XIvQWno