rrggy
According to the anti-imperialist Jewish-American academic Amy Kaplan, writing in the blog Mondoweiss, Jewish history "shows that anti-Semitism and pro-Zionism have never been mutually exclusive". Kaplan says that Zionist advocates "for a Jewish state enlisted stereotypes of Jews – wittingly or not – to further their cause." She lists Theodor Herzl as an early Zionist who appealed to antisemitic European leaders who believed that the "Jewish Question" would be solved by sending European Jews to Palestine.[1] Writing for International Socialist Review, Annie Levin argues that the writings of Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, and other European Zionists were "littered with descriptions of European Jews as parasites, social diseases, germs, aliens"...and she also argues that these antisemitic views "flowed quite logically from Zionism's basic assumptions about Jews. Zionists accepted the 19th century view that anti-Semitism–in fact all racial difference–was a permanent feature of human nature. For this reason it was pointless to struggle against it." Levin said that Jews have often been "hostile to Zionism" because the movement "called for a retreat from the struggle against anti-Semitism."[2] Writing for Jacobin, [[Sarah Levy {Jacobin writer)|]] says that early Zionists "partnered with a rabidly antisemitic British ruling class to secure funding for their colonial project in Palestine" while they also aided British attempts to "defeat left-wing 'International Jews' (such as Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Béla Kun, Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman, among others)" because "Churchill understood that revolutionary socialists, organizing against racist pogroms in their own countries, posed a threat to the ruling class's need to divide and rule its population, and so understood the benefit to supporting a 'Jewish movement' that could counter this logic of antiracism and internationalism."[3][failed verification]
marhuana wash srate
[edit]
organization which sought to target workers and to inspire socioeconomic transformation
himself gave conflicting accounts of his role in the party. In one of his letters, where he paraphrases the Stelist program, he notes: "Ours is a national movement for economic change, for civic education and for social combat. We are against capitalism, oppression and violence.
nce I shunned that criminal communism I briefly believed in, my definitive option was not to adhere to anything. What do I mean by that? I mean that I no longer believe in any idea, in any party, in any man. By logical consequence: there is nothing that would determine me to take on the role of a militant for any doctrine or program. I AM THE ETERNAL OPPONENT."[103]
Stelescu's indecision. In a draft letter completed shortly before Stelescu's murder, sociologist Anton Golopenția, who wrote for the political magazine Dreapta ("The Right"), assessed that Stelism, like Strasserism, represented a struggle of "permanent revolutionaries" against the more pragmatic "radical intellectuals [or] leaders in contact with the bankers".
Cruciada Românismului's appreciation for the socialist poetry of Liviu Bratoloveanu.
When he first publicized his pact with Stelescu, Istrati specified an "absolute requirement that the Crusade keep itself equally distant from fascism, communis
his first-ever editorial column, Stelescu derided all political uniforms, and implicitly all political extremes, stating: "one can believe in something without donning a colored shirt, just as one can wear a colored shirt without believing in anything." He demanded a "united front" of "fearless warriors", entirely cut off from all preexisting ideologies.[107] Nevertheless, Stelescu had personally selected green-colored shirts as the Iron Guard uniform, before his own movement settled on carmine.[108] The group was entirely against the parliamentary system, but harbored two distinct currents when it came to supplanting it. Stelescu himself wrote that "democracy sickens us", since it had resulted in inept governance "by a mass of nitwits".[109] The movement viewed liberalism and human rights with suspicion rather than hostility, since, as Barcaroiu noted, they left the door open for "capitalism and politicking".[110] Istrati had dissenting views. In its Christmas 1934 issue, Cruciada Românismului published his "Letter to... the Right", which called democracy "putrid" but described dictatorship as an unsound regime: "Dictatorship, of whatever kind, signals that the social organism has grown old. It is the system that will suppress in its adversary all his fighting means, to take them over for its own use, like an old man who ties up a robust youth and then proceeds to beat him up at his own convenience."[111] Cseresnyés also notes a discursive transition in Stelescu's politics: "[his April 1936] speech was an extended declaration of his faith in human rights. Stelescu, the extremist Iron-Guard Stelescu of two years ago, fiercely argued for human rights, and would sacrifice his own life for them."[20]
Beyond its anticapitalism, the Crusade had as its main characteristic a strong connection with Italian fascism, as opposed to Nazism. Historian Francisco Veiga describes this as being a necessary repositioning against "Codreanu's Germanophilia"—when Nazi Germany and Italy where still competing with each other in Southeastern Europe.[46] According to Cseresnyés, Stelescu, as the "Romanian Strasser", was "purely fascist" in his outlook: "The Crusade fights against communism, for the consolidation of the workforce on a fascist basis, for recruitment in the villages, and to a lesser extent against the clergy, but it must be admitted that it always uses 'European methods'."[21] Other historians likewise stress the Crusade's anti-Nazism. F. L. Ford also writes that Stelescu's "dramatic forecasts" are notable protests against the Guard's Nazification.[112] According to Armin Heinen, Codreanu's celebration of Nazism as an international phenomenon had turned Stelescu's attention toward the Benito Mussolini alternative.[113]
Stelescu nuanced his take on Italian influence in March 1935, when he wrote: "Fascism has its pluses and minuses, we can note both, we will admire Mussolini as a great creator who has rescued his country from the claws of communism, but that and only that. We retain but one thing from Fascism, namely its experience." He rated Adolf Hitler as a "great German", but warned that German imperialism could prove itself usable against Romania, and that the "National-Socialist experience", being industry-focused, was untranslatable in Romania, the home of an "agricultural people".[16] Armin Heinen paraphrases his message: "he feared [Germany] would impose upon Romania the status of a colony."[114] Shortly before his death, Stelescu further explained that he regarded neither Mussolini, nor Hitler and Karl Marx, as theoreticians to follow, but that the Crusade would still not "integrate with the middle line of democracy."[12] Also then, he was ridiculed for his claim that Crusaders nu sunt nici pungași de dreapta, nici de stânga ("neither fraudsters on the right, nor on the left"—with the implication that they were a third kind of fraudsters).[115]
national revolutions
local publishing houses were disproportionately staffed by Romanian Jews, and took public funds to promote Jewish writers
disloyal rootless
disillusionment he felt toward Soviet communism did not manage to make Istrati into a fascist;
Istrati's articles in Cruciada Românismului are more adamantly philosemitic. One of them, "A Letter to Love", led to a series of articles on the subject, from Stelescu and other Crusade people.[18] In his own articles, Talex answered for the Stelist movement: "Panait Istrati, do you know what it is we need? A fist... The Crusade of Romanianism will attempt to become that fist... Our antisemitism? Just the same as yours: a humane one. But it is also combative, for as long as the Judaic element shall attempt to set up a state within our own state, sabotaging us with any opportunity it gets".[18][36] After Istrati's death, Stelescu explained to Raza that he did not militate for the Jews' segregation: "In my view, races exist on the worldwide scientific social level. On the national level, as a political and moral reality, there exist two human categories: good and bad people, as loosely defined by their competence and morality."[12] Among the Crusade men, Prince Karadja witnessed first-hand the application of antisemitic terror in 1930s Germany, and was already taking measures to protect Jewish Romanian expatriates.[128]
A satirical take on "the Romanian eagle" as "the guiding principle of Romanianism". 1929 cartoon by Nicolae Tonitza
The Crusade's agenda was debated among Jewish Romanian intellectuals. Fellow writer Mihail Sebastian described Istrati as politically "illiterate" and "addled".[129] In his words, "Mr. Istrati fights nowadays for the Crusade of Romanianism, searching for the formula of reasonable antisemitism (neither here nor there), for the way into a more gentle chauvinism, for a nice agreement between his anarchic vocation and a methodical process of bashing heads in."[130] Other Jewish literary figures, including Josué Jéhouda, issued statements in support of Istrati's stance.[131] The Crusade may have contextualized its antisemitic reflexes within a pro-Christian bias. The American Jewish Committee papers describe the Crusade as "a Fascist group which did not have anti-Jewish tendencies", quoting Stelescu's statement "that he was not a Jew-baiter and that, although his party was nationalist, it was inspired by genuine Christian principles."[132]
The movement resented the secularization of public affairs, and expressed admiration for Romanian Orthodoxy: "And if some church servants have indeed trespassed, faith itself is not to blame. The belief in God and The Cross is a banner and support for our combat, and the token of our coming victory."[133] However, according to at least one account, the ailing Istrati was in the process of becoming a militant Roman Catholic.[134] The Crusade believed that its mission included protecting Christian interests against the consequences of modernity. It was critical of feminism, noting that Christianity itself had liberated women, had given them status and purpose. However, it also asserted that woman was "the guardian angel, always in the shadow of man." Feminism, meanwhile, was "equality in vice."[135] The Stelists also accused the Soviet Union and its Romanian sympathizers (for instance the staff of Cuvântul Liber newspaper) of mounting an international campaign against Christianity.[133]
wage slavery , never owning house, car, never paying off school, never incone to support fam or have fam, fam sp,it apart, marriages torn apart, corrupted, stuff before teen emarassed phone, sick tech addiction, future bleak, no future unless do smthng now, god
corrupted
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/4109423/posts
b
https://www.conservapedia.com/Communism
idstpol FUCK OFF. FUCK OFF.
movements are kinda just about limiting immigration and economically privileging your own country in trade agreements. Not all that authoritarian when compared to past fascist governments that have heavily restricted speech, religion, and sexuality and had forced military service.
https://polcompball.miraheze.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism#10_principles
tankiejerk
paleo
Total state as insitutional source of evil through whole history.
Civil liberties based on property rights as basic necessity for just society.
Egalitarian ethics as morally disgusting and devastating for private property and social authority
Social authority in family, church, local communities, is necessary for protection of the citizen from the state and necessary for maintaining free and valuable society.
Western culture as something utterly worthy protection.
Objective morals - mostly that in abrahamic religions are necessary to maintaining civilized social order.
Forcing an individual to serve another is no better than the sanctioning of slavery. mises anti 64 .
mises
Writing in The New Republic, John McWhorter, an insightful, iconoclastic black commentator, defends Paul's and Stossel's right to express their unorthodox views but also asserts that "the social rejection of racism was driven in large part by the head start, authority, finality, and even the drama of the legal banning of segregation."
property owners’ right of association, because of the property rights element, business owners' freedom of association
I think that there was an overriding problem in the South, so big that it did require federal intervention in the sixties federal intervention was necessary as a check on state abuse against government-mandated segregation. simply striking down the local and state laws that were the backbone of limited itself to dismantling the public foundations of segregation? Or was bigotry too pervasive, too deeply entrenched in minds and morals? The latter seems more likely
believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely
Goldwater also warned about the potential danger of granting the federal government such expansive regulatory and enforcement powers:
affirma action libertarian, abolish government, enforce morality, scl media tiktok ig childish they evil, gov cant be moral unti…
regulatory legislation of this sort. creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions.
against laws which go against constitution , against creation of a police state, unalterably opposed to any threats to our great system of government and loss of our God-given liberties
promote goals of that act actively, better written, upset bitterness exists. constitutional rights of citizens are violated for any reason, it is the responsibility of government, at bayonet point if necessary to enforce those rights.
not patronize businesses but its the not the governments duty to force businesses
https://reason.com/2021/06/23/inside-the-battle-over-the-soul-of-the-libertarian-party/
be fair, the problems Nick is bringing up are correct but he needs to articulate himself better; maybe focus on the top 3 or 5 major problems.
paleo con
queer neutea adro oess
jhgffff
far right non fascist (not alt right): Peter Brinelow,vdare, baked alaska, lauren southern, stefan molyneax
hard right : nick groypers,
right wing: conservapedia free republic ,main maga, rush limbaugh
right center chris christie, mitch mcconnell, lindsey graham, kevin mccarthy, ronna, askdjt supporters reddit, reddit conservatives reddit main
center right never trumpers rinos mitt romney, larry hogan, bullwark
https://www.conservapedia.com/Nick_Fuentes
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_right&oldid=712168536
Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal. According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed. Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated. Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs, which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology. There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals". The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.
Matriarchs, according to Peoples and Bailey, do exist; there are "individual matriarchs of families and kin groups."
Mosuo Tribe
The Mosuo culture, which is in China near Tibet, is frequently described as matriarchal. The Mosuo themselves often use this description and they believe it increases interest in their culture and thus attracts tourism. The term matrilineal is sometimes used, and, while more accurate, still doesn't reflect the full complexity of their social organization. In fact, it is not easy to categorize Mosuo culture within traditional Western definitions. They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike in a true matriarchy, political power tends to be in the hands of males.
Minangkabau
The Minangkabau are the largest matrilineal society in the world, with property, family name and land passing down from mother to daughter, while religious and political affairs are the responsibility of men, although some women also play important roles in these areas. This custom is called Lareh Bodi-Caniago and is known as Adat Perpatih in Malaysia. Today 4.2 million Minangs live in the homeland of West Sumatra, Indonesia.
Iroquois
The Iroquois peoples, which are in New York and Canada, are known to be matriarchal. In society, the descendants were traced by the mother, not the father. Although the tribal cheifs are men, the women, Clan Mothers, nominated them and made sure they fulfilled their responsibilities. The Clan Mothers were leaders of their clan and around 50 of them were controlling the "sachems" or cheifs in the Iroquois government. If the sachems were not good, the Clan Mothers had the right to remove them.
uhgggg
if ptrchy never existed
ppoiii
-
-The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don’t know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they’re benevolent beings.
unrel
Comments
Post a Comment