Kill or expel? Is it anti-Semitic to post this?

Attachment 23194

This was scrawled on the home of a Palestinian family. Am I anti-Semitic for thinking that this is racist ethic cleansing?

Sorry if I'm rather ignorant. Where was the Palestinian family? Are we talking in Palestine or somewhere else in the world?

~:smoking:

I'd need a translation. Graffiti for sure. Hate speech likely given modern thoughts on certain symbols. But I cannot read it all.

By the way, I prefer my ethics to be dry-cleaned. :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Attachment 23194

This was scrawled on the home of a Palestinian family. Am I anti-Semitic for thinking that this is racist ethic cleansing?

---

"Kill or expel" sounds like a twisted game show.

Bad state of affairs, and this stuff is reflective of the non-apartheid reality for Palestinians IMO. the Israeli right doesn't want to economically subordinate Palestinians, and it doesn't want to coexist beside them as 2nd-class citizens - they want them out, they want them gone. They must be watching Aung San Suu Kyi closely right now. Am I wrong?

Nevertheless, the existence of anti-Semitism is not detracted from by the existence of other prejudices, hatreds, or rivalries. Don't make it a competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sorry if I'm rather ignorant. Where was the Palestinian family? Are we talking in Palestine or somewhere else in the world?

~:smoking:

---

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tw...97288211525633

It's in the West Bank, parts of which are under threat of annexation should Netanyahu/Likud squeeze through in the upcoming third Israeli election within the space of a year.

The source for the OP content doesn't look very solid, but upon investigation it could fit into a general pattern of West Bank settler violence and rhetoric, so I would take it at face value.


In unrelated news, I just learned:

Quote:

---

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...manuel-macron/

France is to recognise anti-Zionism, the denial of the state of Israel, as a form of anti-Semitism in response to a surge in acts against Jews not seen “since the Second World War”.

---

Without looking further into the exact specification applied, I can see how this move could be dangerous.

Quote:

---

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9248801.html

Boris Johnson will attempt to pass a law banning local councils from joining the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, the UK’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues has announced.

---

On one hand, BDS are some useless cocks. On the other, if Nazis can Nazi then BDS shouldn't be blocked. Unfortunately, here in the US BDS bans are fairly prevalent and bipartisan.

I agree with boris. Foreign policy is not a function of LA's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I agree with boris. Foreign policy is not a function of LA's.

---

Is all local activity colorable as foreign policy banned already then? Or will it be banned as well now? Are sister/twin cities banned?

Serious questions.

there is a meaningful difference between exchanging svhool trips and economic sanctions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

there is a meaningful difference between exchanging svhool trips and economic sanctions.

---

That's true. But localities decide all the time in their operation who they will or won't do business with. Sometimes the reasoning is along political lines (for example, South Africa boycotts, US states and municipalities boycotting other US states or municipalities). I would ask:

1. Why should all this activity be restricted (adjusted for UK)?
2. If it should not all be restricted, what is the line?
3. What's the big picture of legal restraints on localities in the UK right now? The context obviously matters as to this particular proposed restriction.

Also,

Quote:

---

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...manuel-macron/

France is to recognise anti-Zionism, the denial of the state of Israel, as a form of anti-Semitism in response to a surge in acts against Jews not seen “since the Second World War”.

---

I should have posted a more recent link on the legislative action, which passed the Assembly earlier this month (Senate unclear).

My first thought is, what has this to do with us? If this is in Israel/Palestine, as I assume it is, then what does Idaho expect us to do about it? If it's nothing except condemn it, then what good does condemning it do except make him feel better about himself and his righteous fury? If he expects us to do something material, does this mean he supports taking action in foreign affairs where he feels it is right? Did he support Iraq?

I want to know if I can be critical of this without being anti semitic.

I'll use this thread to post up other examples that concern me, so I can check if I am being anti semitic, or if it's ok to criticise.
https://imemc.org/article/israels-ha...-palestinians/

Is that article anti semitic? If so, I'll just ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I want to know if I can be critical of this without being anti semitic.

I'll use this thread to post up other examples that concern me, so I can check if I am being anti semitic, or if it's ok to criticise.
https://imemc.org/article/israels-ha...-palestinians/

Is that article anti semitic? If so, I'll just ignore it.

---

What do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? How will that help? Take concrete action against Israel? Do you support concrete action in other foreign affairs cases too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That's true. But localities decide all the time in their operation who they will or won't do business with. Sometimes the reasoning is along political lines (for example, South Africa boycotts, US states and municipalities boycotting other US states or municipalities). I would ask:

1. Why should all this activity be restricted (adjusted for UK)?
2. If it should not all be restricted, what is the line?
3. What's the big picture of legal restraints on localities in the UK right now? The context obviously matters as to this particular proposed restriction.

Also,

I should have posted a more recent link on the legislative action, which passed the Assembly earlier this month (Senate unclear).

---

And how much should the local people suffer because their elected officials have decided to purchase materials / services from more ethically "good" places where it costs more?

And of course is "good" buying local, human rights, emissions, preserving the habitat or a mix of all? Is it better to purchase trainers from Bangladesh (for example) made by children or should be boycott the goods so they go out of business or earn less since they have to resell to a middle man?

And if the West decides to stop working with those trying to improve, is the West in any way responsible that others provide the funding with even less interest in the things the West wishes to improve?

Of course I, along with most people, take the Tim Approach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLAJbvwNQU

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I want to know if I can be critical of this without being anti semitic.

I'll use this thread to post up other examples that concern me, so I can check if I am being anti semitic, or if it's ok to criticise.
https://imemc.org/article/israels-ha...-palestinians/

Is that article anti semitic? If so, I'll just ignore it.

---

I'll try to give you a serious answer. It's OK to criticise Isreal, it's not OK to link Israel to Nazi Germany or, really Apartheid South Africa (also antisemitic, just less-so) because that implies that "The Jews are just as bad" and hence somehow "deserved" what happened to them historically.

Browsing the Heart of Iron IV Forums today I saw someone asking why the Jewish conspiracy that dragged Italy and Germany into WWII wasn't modeled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? How will that help? Take concrete action against Israel? Do you support concrete action in other foreign affairs cases too?

---

Since no one is pointing it out... No one supports all existing foreign policy. Everyone supports some existing foreign policy. Yes, you have to pick and choose.

As for what Idaho expects the UK to do about it, that's a valid question for him. I don't know the UK's exact relationship with Israel, but imagine that they would have to take some action collectively with other European countries. (Naturally under Johnson there is little prospect of that...)

The USA is the country with the closest relationship to Israel, so we have the greatest responsibility. We could do a lot if we wanted to. We could apply diplomatic pressure in the UN, encourage a coalition of countries to unify against Israel so long as their government pursues specific policies (e.g. settlement and annexation), pull the strings of our extensive military and state aid to Israel, our military and intelligence cooperation...

None of that involves sanctions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And how much should the local people suffer because their elected officials have decided to purchase materials / services from more ethically "good" places where it costs more?

And of course is "good" buying local, human rights, emissions, preserving the habitat or a mix of all? Is it better to purchase trainers from Bangladesh (for example) made by children or should be boycott the goods so they go out of business or earn less since they have to resell to a middle man?

And if the West decides to stop working with those trying to improve, is the West in any way responsible that others provide the funding with even less interest in the things the West wishes to improve?

---

The question of whether participating in a boycott, or in a certain way, is good on the merits is to my mind wholly dissociated with the question of whether the central government should outlaw any discretion.

Does the central government mandate localities always accept the cheapest contracts available?

In the UK today, would it be unlawful for a council to participate in a boycott of Chinese companies associated with the repression in Xinjiang? If it is not unlawful for a council to do that, will it become unlawful alongside Johnson's proposal to outlaw BDS-related activity?

The point I'm making is that there's facially nothing Parliament should be interfering with here, and that it is probably doing so in an unprincipled manner anyway.

Quote:

---

Of course I, along with most people, take the Tim Approach:

---

Philanthropy is morality-laundering, but there's no mistaking the commitment of muscular redistributive policy. Just ask the rich themselves which they'll tolerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Since no one is pointing it out... No one supports all existing foreign policy. Everyone supports some existing foreign policy. Yes, you have to pick and choose.

As for what Idaho expects the UK to do about it, that's a valid question for him. I don't know the UK's exact relationship with Israel, but imagine that they would have to take some action collectively with other European countries. (Naturally under Johnson there is little prospect of that...)

The USA is the country with the closest relationship to Israel, so we have the greatest responsibility. We could do a lot if we wanted to. We could apply diplomatic pressure in the UN, encourage a coalition of countries to unify against Israel so long as their government pursues specific policies (e.g. settlement and annexation), pull the strings of our extensive military and state aid to Israel, our military and intelligence cooperation...

None of that involves sanctions.

---

Multilateralism isn't the argument I hear from the Far Left though. The Far Left has historically taken the base point that the west, in particular western Europe and America, are evil imperialists, and all foreign actions taken by these countries are wrong and imperialist in nature. This is coupled with the corollary base point that oppositional powers like the USSR and latterly the post-colonial countries are anti-imperialist and to be supported. Orwell looks at this in his essays, although Israel didn't exist back then of course (although the logic from then is still pursued now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Multilateralism isn't the argument I hear from the Far Left though. The Far Left has historically taken the base point that the west, in particular western Europe and America, are evil imperialists, and all foreign actions taken by these countries are wrong and imperialist in nature. This is coupled with the corollary base point that oppositional powers like the USSR and latterly the post-colonial countries are anti-imperialist and to be supported. Orwell looks at this in his essays, although Israel didn't exist back then of course (although the logic from then is still pursued now).

---

This is true, and those arguments have even been applied to Northern Ireland, let's not even start on the disastrous results of decolonisation in Hong Kong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I'll try to give you a serious answer. It's OK to criticise Isreal, it's not OK to link Israel to Nazi Germany or, really Apartheid South Africa (also antisemitic, just less-so) because that implies that "The Jews are just as bad" and hence somehow "deserved" what happened to them historically.

---

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.

Quote:

---

Browsing the Heart of Iron IV Forums today I saw someone asking why the Jewish conspiracy that dragged Italy and Germany into WWII wasn't modeled.

---

The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

Quote:

---

The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

---

An assessment that becomes dubious when you compare the social acceptability of the side's antisemite extremes.

Karl "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money" Marx being inside the overton window while Adolf Hitler is not has a way of heightening the former's impact over the latter's.

Not to mention the communist favouring disparity in numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.


The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

---

But what do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? What good does that do but make you feel better about being morally superior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.

---

I don't know much about the lived experience of Israeli Arabs. To be clear, are you using the term "apartheid" with reference to their situation alone, to the exclusion of Palestinians? I could see that. Because all my knowledge indicates the Israeli right want Palestinian apartheid like the Burmese Buddhists want Rohingya apartheid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But what do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? What good does that do but make you feel better about being morally superior?

---

I looked up what Labour's agenda on Israel was. Reaffirm opposition to arms sales to Israel, boycott goods from Israeli settlements, support a Palestinian right of return, and reject trade agreements that fail to recognize the rights of Palestinians. While much of this is symbolic, I struggle to see why any of it should be exceedingly controversial other than maybe the right of return.

You talk too much in the frame of 'someone said something,' but without elucidating what that something is, why it is said, or the basis for it. Find a position you like and state it, or one you don't like and attack it. There's more to discuss than in rhetorically remarking on unspecified disagreements.

Like, for example:

Quote:

---

Multilateralism isn't the argument I hear from the Far Left though. The Far Left has historically taken the base point that the west, in particular western Europe and America, are evil imperialists, and all foreign actions taken by these countries are wrong and imperialist in nature. This is coupled with the corollary base point that oppositional powers like the USSR and latterly the post-colonial countries are anti-imperialist and to be supported.

---

What is there to take away from this? There is an anti-imperial Left (who and why) and some of them (who and why) excuse the imperialism of non-Western countries to the extent those countries are antagonistic toward the West, and Orwell said something about it. Left unsaid is who or what you think is right, why you think so, and what you would like to see in Israel policy (especially relative to current events, including changes in US policy under Trump).


Edit: BTW, on why I say specifically boycotting settlement manufactures is both symbolic and should be uncontroversial:

Quote:

---

Goods produced in Israeli settlements are able to stay competitive on the global market, in part because of massive state subsidies they receive from the Israeli government. Farmers and producers are given state assistance, while companies that set up in the territories receive tax breaks and direct government subsidies. An Israeli government fund has also been established to help companies pay customs penalties.[178]
[...]
According to Israeli government estimates, $230 million worth of settler goods including fruit, vegetables, cosmetics, textiles and toys are exported to the EU each year, accounting for approximately 2% of all Israeli exports to Europe

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I don't know much about the lived experience of Israeli Arabs. To be clear, are you using the term "apartheid" with reference to their situation alone, to the exclusion of Palestinians? I could see that. Because all my knowledge indicates the Israeli right want Palestinian apartheid like the Burmese Buddhists want Rohingya apartheid.



I looked up what Labour's agenda on Israel was. Reaffirm opposition to arms sales to Israel, boycott goods from Israeli settlements, support a Palestinian right of return, and reject trade agreements that fail to recognize the rights of Palestinians. While much of this is symbolic, I struggle to see why any of it should be exceedingly controversial other than maybe the right of return.

You talk too much in the frame of 'someone said something,' but without elucidating what that something is, why it is said, or the basis for it. Find a position you like and state it, or one you don't like and attack it. There's more to discuss than in rhetorically remarking on unspecified disagreements.

Like, for example:



What is there to take away from this? There is an anti-imperial Left (who and why) and some of them (who and why) excuse the imperialism of non-Western countries to the extent those countries are antagonistic toward the West, and Orwell said something about it. Left unsaid is who or what you think is right, why you think so, and what you would like to see in Israel policy (especially relative to current events, including changes in US policy under Trump).


Edit: BTW, on why I say specifically boycotting settlement manufactures is both symbolic and should be uncontroversial:

---

The legacy of the Labour government has been destroyed by the Left, especially the Far Left, because of Iraq, on the grounds that it was an evil imperialist adventure. The same kind of argument that Orwell examined in his essay on Englishness. Because of this, we have Tory governments, and we have Brexit, because the Left wants the polar opposite of Blair. I do not accept the imperialist argument, but I've said before, that if intervening abroad is wrongly imposing ourselves on others, then maybe we shouldn't impose ourselves on others, and we should leave others to themselves. Foreign affairs isolationism, which would prevent further Iraqs. In this case, and in similar cases, it would mean not passing judgement on Israel, or other countries' affairs that do not affect us. After all, it was passing judgement on Iraq that produced our invasion, right?

So if Iraq was such a bad thing as the Left, particularly the faction that Idaho supports, says it is, why is Idaho so keen to pass judgement on Israel? I won't allege anti-semitism, as I think the roots of the argument aren't based on that. I think the roots are based on the anti-west tradition that I cited above. I'm not going to argue its uselessness as I think it's self-evident, but I will ask what Idaho expects us to do, and expect consistency. I don't claim to be morally right on everything, as I am not omniscient and more importantly I'm not omnipotent. But I strive for consistency, especially in practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

...particularly the faction that Idaho supports

---

Can you please stop doing this. It's immensely annoying. My views and beliefs are my own. I may sometimes agree with words said by Marx, Hitler, trump or Donald duck. That does not make me a part of their "faction".

Why am I so keen to pass judgement? That seems a very strange question.

I hate injustice. A great wrong has been done to millions of people and the world is bored of the topic. The Palestinians have been pushed around and abused for so long that most see it as a state of nature. Any attempt to show support is called anti semitic. Their society, economy and politics has been systematically destroyed. All the while most people would rather they just disappeared.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YM1GK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Why am I so keen to pass judgement? That seems a very strange question.

I hate injustice. A great wrong has been done to millions of people and the world is bored of the topic. The Palestinians have been pushed around and abused for so long that most see it as a state of nature. Any attempt to show support is called anti semitic. Their society, economy and politics has been systematically destroyed. All the while most people would rather they just disappeared.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YM1GK

---

What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds? Did you think something should have been done? If so, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds?

---

I was disgusted and horrified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did you think something should have been done? If so, what?

---

We should not have stopped after 100 hours. We should have concluded that regime then and there and established a Kurdistan. Would've pissed off quite a few people though. Of course, the USA does that anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I was disgusted and horrified. We should not have stopped after 100 hours. We should have concluded that regime then and there and established a Kurdistan. Would've pissed off quite a few people though. Of course, the USA does that anyway.

---

You're reasonably consistent though, so I don't have a problem with you. You feel that certain wrongs should be righted, that it's within your ability to right some wrongs, and also that you get it wrong some of the time, but you also accept responsibility for that and learn from it. I respect that, even where I disagree. It's the far left's insistence on blaming Blair for foreign actions on the grounds of evil imperialism, but who are insisting that we interfere with Israel, whose (the far left's) hypocrisy I dislike. I accept mistakes. I don't accept hypocrisy.

So I keep asking Idaho. If you dislike what Israel is doing on its own turf, what do you propose we do about it? If it's condemnation, what good does it do except make you feel good about your moral superiority? If it's something more material, does it mean you agree with concrete action when you feel you are righting wrongs? What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds? Did you support the Iraq invasion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The legacy of the Labour government has been destroyed by the Left, especially the Far Left, because of Iraq, on the grounds that it was an evil imperialist adventure. The same kind of argument that Orwell examined in his essay on Englishness. Because of this, we have Tory governments, and we have Brexit, because the Left wants the polar opposite of Blair. I do not accept the imperialist argument, but I've said before, that if intervening abroad is wrongly imposing ourselves on others, then maybe we shouldn't impose ourselves on others, and we should leave others to themselves. Foreign affairs isolationism, which would prevent further Iraqs. In this case, and in similar cases, it would mean not passing judgement on Israel, or other countries' affairs that do not affect us. After all, it was passing judgement on Iraq that produced our invasion, right?

So if Iraq was such a bad thing as the Left, particularly the faction that Idaho supports, says it is, why is Idaho so keen to pass judgement on Israel? I won't allege anti-semitism, as I think the roots of the argument aren't based on that. I think the roots are based on the anti-west tradition that I cited above. I'm not going to argue its uselessness as I think it's self-evident, but I will ask what Idaho expects us to do, and expect consistency. I don't claim to be morally right on everything, as I am not omniscient and more importantly I'm not omnipotent. But I strive for consistency, especially in practice.

---

I don't understand - do you support the Iraq War? Is there not any foreign policy the government ever pursued that you didn't agree with? There are many reasons besides any historical stance against imperialism to deplore the Iraq War and the documented events (i.e. deadly lies) that led to Anglo-American instigation.

There is no dilemma between "the Iraq War was bad" and isolationism. It is even possible to support a hypothetical Iraq intervention that is not a destructive adventure built on lies, while opposing the real one that was. As for the disfavored anti-imperialism it is perfectly consistent to oppose both domestic and foreign imperialisms. It would be inconsistent to criticize one and remain silent on the other.

It's hard to wrap my head around. This is like telling someone that if they don't categorically reject the death penalty, then they must support the extermination of all humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds? Did you think something should have been done? If so, what?

---

Not selling chemical weapons in the first place would be a lynch pin in my strategy.

I have always been supportive of a regime change in Iraq. It's just that I wouldn't support an approach that killed over a million civilians and tried too control the outcome for American oil interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Not selling chemical weapons in the first place would be a lynch pin in my strategy.

I have always been supportive of a regime change in Iraq. It's just that I wouldn't support an approach that killed over a million civilians and tried too control the outcome for American oil interests.

---

I'll accept that this is a more nuanced answer than I get from most critics of Iraq who are also Corbyn fans, and not one that I expected. Probably reflective of the better informed forum that the Backroom is, or used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I don't understand - do you support the Iraq War? Is there not any foreign policy the government ever pursued that you didn't agree with? There are many reasons besides any historical stance against imperialism to deplore the Iraq War and the documented events (i.e. deadly lies) that led to Anglo-American instigation.

There is no dilemma between "the Iraq War was bad" and isolationism. It is even possible to support a hypothetical Iraq intervention that is not a destructive adventure built on lies, while opposing the real one that was. As for the disfavored anti-imperialism it is perfectly consistent to oppose both domestic and foreign imperialisms. It would be inconsistent to criticize one and remain silent on the other.

It's hard to wrap my head around. This is like telling someone that if they don't categorically reject the death penalty, then they must support the extermination of all humans.

---

There needn't be a dilemma of the kind I described, with the kind of nuanced answer Idaho gave just now. I respect that. Unfortunately, this isn't representative of the criticisms I encounter of Iraq from the left. Idaho says he supported regime change of some kind, but not one that cost so many casualties; this isn't something you'd catch most left wingers admitting. That he supported regime change of some kind would already put him in an unacceptably pro-imperialist position, to these loons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There needn't be a dilemma of the kind I described, with the kind of nuanced answer Idaho gave just now. I respect that. Unfortunately, this isn't representative of the criticisms I encounter of Iraq from the left. Idaho says he supported regime change of some kind, but not one that cost so many casualties; this isn't something you'd catch most left wingers admitting. That he supported regime change of some kind would already put him in an unacceptably pro-imperialist position, to these loons.

---

Can you better describe these criticisms and what's wrong with them? The general left criticism of Iraq that I am aware of is that it was a war of aggression under false pretenses for narrow-sighted political and economic priorities, and has had a dire outcome for almost everyone on Earth. Even a warmonger could detest the Iraq War for those reasons.

Back to the anti-imperialist left and Israel, they couldn't be hypocritical unless they were categorically rejecting all Western intervention BUT wanted to pursue aggressive regime change in Israel. I have never heard of such a position. They do have a general suspicion of Western intervention, but this suspicion seems justified on the grounds that interventions in practice are almost always a net negative for the people affected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.

---

As you may be aware Apartheid worked on the basis of physical traits, rather than racial decent. As a result, Jews were in a particularly vulnerable position because some could pass as White whilst others would be designated Coloured; this could even happen to members of the same family. At the same time, South Africans weren't above a bit of old-fashioned antisemitism, either, so if you were Jewish you might just be classed Coloured even if you passed all the physical tests.

Quote:

---

The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

---

Antisemitism exists on both fringes of the political spectrum - we tend to notice it more on our opposing fringe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Can you better describe these criticisms and what's wrong with them? The general left criticism of Iraq that I am aware of is that it was a war of aggression under false pretenses for narrow-sighted political and economic priorities, and has had a dire outcome for almost everyone on Earth. Even a warmonger could detest the Iraq War for those reasons.

Back to the anti-imperialist left and Israel, they couldn't be hypocritical unless they were categorically rejecting all Western intervention BUT wanted to pursue aggressive regime change in Israel. I have never heard of such a position. They do have a general suspicion of Western intervention, but this suspicion seems justified on the grounds that interventions in practice are almost always a net negative for the people affected.

---

Blair is a warmonger. All wars are bad, by definition. Britain's wars are all imperialistic in nature. Everything good that Blair did is invalidated by Iraq. Corbyn the pacifist is the polar opposite of Blair. His opposition to Iraq showed he was on the right side of history. Corbyn is a clean slate from the evils of Blair.

And after praising Corbyn as the angel of pacifism, they then join groups that are militantly opposed to Israel's very existence, which Corbyn also has a history with. They also criticise western interest in Venezuela as imperialist, whilst defending the Chavezian regime's violent crackdowns on its population.

As I said, I wouldn't call that anti-semitic in root, but definitely anti-west of the kind Orwell described that hated Britain and America but made all kinds of excuses for the USSR. They don't deal with a range of opinions such as Idaho's nuanced answer allows for, but set definite inflexible positions that they are supposedly pure in, but which they do not follow through on in other similar areas.

Idaho's statement that he supported regime change but not in the ballsed up way that the coalition did? You'd never catch Corbyn or most of his followers admitting to that. Their purity in opposing the very act of regime change is a keystone of their identity. How it could have been done would have been irrelevant to their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Blair is a warmonger. All wars are bad, by definition. Britain's wars are all imperialistic in nature. Everything good that Blair did is invalidated by Iraq. Corbyn the pacifist is the polar opposite of Blair. His opposition to Iraq showed he was on the right side of history. Corbyn is a clean slate from the evils of Blair.

And after praising Corbyn as the angel of pacifism, they then join groups that are militantly opposed to Israel's very existence, which Corbyn also has a history with. They also criticise western interest in Venezuela as imperialist, whilst defending the Chavezian regime's violent crackdowns on its population.

As I said, I wouldn't call that anti-semitic in root, but definitely anti-west of the kind Orwell described that hated Britain and America but made all kinds of excuses for the USSR. They don't deal with a range of opinions such as Idaho's nuanced answer allows for, but set definite inflexible positions that they are supposedly pure in, but which they do not follow through on in other similar areas.

Idaho's statement that he supported regime change but not in the ballsed up way that the coalition did? You'd never catch Corbyn or most of his followers admitting to that. Their purity in opposing the very act of regime change is a keystone of their identity. How it could have been done would have been irrelevant to their position.

---

If you think this viewpoint should not excuse wrong-doing in non-Western countries, that's fine. But it's not an argument for regime change in itself. And I still never heard anyone on the far-left advocate regime change in Israel...

If someone rejects regime change categorically, that's also fine. Adjusting existing diplomatic policy is not quite the same ballpark as a ground invasion or a coup.

The reality is that the world is not so black-and-white. Some actions are clearly good or bad. Others may be justifiable under a certain set of conditions. Still others may be painfully necessary or of tolerable risk level as the least-bad response available.

You have to pick and choose every time based on the unique facts of the matter, that's the best you can do. Blair - not alone - made awful decisions that were known to be awful before they were made, and he should be condemned for those decisions. It's OK to condemn bad decisions, no matter what they are or who makes them. There's a Nobel Peace Prize recipient currently doing genocide, you dig? If you don't have the spirit to criticize Blair yourself, at least concentrate your ire on George W. Bush. Locking up George Bush has gotta be able to unite us all, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If you think this viewpoint should not excuse wrong-doing in non-Western countries, that's fine. But it's not an argument for regime change in itself. And I still never heard anyone on the far-left advocate regime change in Israel...

If someone rejects regime change categorically, that's also fine. Adjusting existing diplomatic policy is not quite the same ballpark as a ground invasion or a coup.

The reality is that the world is not so black-and-white. Some actions are clearly good or bad. Others may be justifiable under a certain set of conditions. Still others may be painfully necessary or of tolerable risk level as the least-bad response available.

You have to pick and choose every time based on the unique facts of the matter, that's the best you can do. Blair - not alone - made awful decisions that were known to be awful before they were made, and he should be condemned for those decisions. It's OK to condemn bad decisions, no matter what they are or who makes them. There's a Nobel Peace Prize recipient currently doing genocide, you dig? If you don't have the spirit to criticize Blair yourself, at least concentrate your ire on George W. Bush. Locking up George Bush has gotta be able to unite us all, right?

---

The far left (such as Corbyn) associates with people who advocate the deletion of Israel. And I know the world isn't black and white. The far left paints it that way though.

BTW, if you want to argue against regime change in Iraq, argue with Idaho. I opposed it completely. Idaho supported it but not in that manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'll accept that this is a more nuanced answer than I get from most critics of Iraq who are also Corbyn fans, and not one that I expected. Probably reflective of the better informed forum that the Backroom is, or used to be.

---

Critics of Iraq that are Corbyn fans. Hmm... This is an incoherent bundle of assumptions, collocations and short cuts.

What way are "Corbyn fans" criticising Iraq? Do you get momentum campaigners shaking their heads and tutting at maps of Baghdad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The far left (such as Corbyn) associates with people who advocate the deletion of Israel. And I know the world isn't black and white. The far left paints it that way though.

---

You must be one of the least self aware people on this board. Read that back to yourself. You paint everything as black and white and in terms of tribal absolutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The far left (such as Corbyn) associates with people who advocate the deletion of Israel. And I know the world isn't black and white. The far left paints it that way though.

BTW, if you want to argue against regime change in Iraq, argue with Idaho. I opposed it completely. Idaho supported it but not in that manner.

---

OK.

Marianne Williamson is a hack fraud (not the good kind), but she proposed one pretty nice formula (IIRC): The USA shouldn't be the world's cop, it should be the world's EMT. I wouldn't hold to that exact term but it's the right direction. She also correctly identified the Marshall Plan as one of the United States' few unalloyed-positive foreign policy accomplishments.

And you'll probably love Mangal Media then (though everyone here can benefit from reading the following article). They hate white imperialists AND white far-left "anti-imperialists":

Quote:

---

Is Genocide Denial Anti-Imperialist Now? How Tankies are Taking Over Leftbook and the London Student Scene

Picture a British second-year Sociology student holding a Socialist Worker’s Party placard and shouting “hands-off DPRK” outside your student halls (that image in your head, he’s male and wearing cargo shorts, right? He’s going to ask you out for a chai latte, take you to Bookmarks, explain the women’s lib. section to you, and then ghost you for six months). Now imagine a room full of them. This is my fresher’s week Socialist Society meet and greet.

It’s September 2013 and three people in front of me are reading RT on their macbook pros, “an unofficial survey showed the majority of Crimea would choose an economic partnership with Russia over the EU”. It’s not a good start.

A boy from Cambridge in a keffiyeh he bought from Camden Lock whips his head around when he hears what he thinks is a Russian name called on the register. He later tells me if he could marry into any nationality it would be Russian. I don’t smile at him, I tell him I don’t have Russian citizenship and he leaves me alone.

The London Marxist Society is here handing out flyers and their header is a picture of Mount Rushmore with stone faces of Lenin, Marx, Stalin, and Putin. If this isn’t baffling enough, these symbols are followed with the words “down with imperialism”.

Later we all go to The Lexington, there’s a pub quiz where the team with the funniest name wins a bag of Doritos. When the names are handed in, the man with the microphone is astounded that 6 out of 10 are called Crimea River. It’s weird and almost as disappointing as the Doritos being fucking Cool Original.

It’s 2017 and I’m standing outside SOAS with a friend, and Jonty Leff, the Worker’s Revolutionary Party candidate for Hackney South and Shoreditch, comes over to us. He begins badly, “Hey you gorgeous ladies”.

He hands us a leaflet for a symposium celebrating the 100th anniversary of the February Revolution (first outrage, attendance costs £48), and tells me they want more women involved in their movement because, after all, it was in 1917 Petrograd where sexism met its final demise. He turns to my friend (a Moroccan woman) and adds “you know, the 1917 revolution was also the first defeat of racism in the modern world!”

I want to add here that I read Jonty Leff’s manifesto, and I agreed with every policy. I am a socialist, I believe in the redistribution of wealth, free welfare, and dismantling hierarchies of power. I believe Jonty Leff has good ideas and I would be happy to see him elected one day. I don’t believe the USSR upheld the values of socialism or Marxism, and I don’t believe in defending and re-evaluating a regime which on thousands of well-documented occasions used mass rape as a tool of war, sent women and children to gulags, and carried out countless ethnic and religious genocides during its reign (ended sexism and racism, my fucking hat). What I don’t believe in is uncritically standing up for Sovietism to defend the ideologies of the Left. We have come a long way and we can do better than 1917. These views are like the intellectual manifestation of those inflatable things with flailing arms outside car dealerships. They’re ugly and they don’t make sense. We need to finally dispense with the unconditional celebration of Sovietism. 2017 is over. It’s now 102 years since the Bolshevik revolution, and 102nd anniversaries don’t mean shit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I know the Soviet aesthetic is edgy and quirky and kids like to have a hammer and sickle as their Twitter names or some vapourwave Stalin cover photo. Soviet tower blocks look fucking cool, I know. The USSR was important and fascinating. Gulag jokes and genocide denial look less cool. What looks like an innocent Weeaboo 2.0 aesthetic of Stalin’s face and glitch filters, with deeply misapplied Cyrillic letters, has become a cover-story for the denial and appropriation and revision of a history which has been set in the minds of the Eastern bloc for centuries.

The age of leftbook has brought explicit prohibitions on racist, transphobic, homophobic, colourist, biphobic, aphobic, anti-semitic behaviour, yet only a handful of groups ban “tankism”. Plenty of users see no problem with the tankies’ characteristic support for (or denial of) Soviet violence, repression, and imperialism. The debate is wide open and it seems like everyone has an opinion. Yet, people who grew up in Soviet and post-Soviet nations are being silenced by Soviet apologist Marxists who insist that “Stalin Did Nothing Wrong”. You know, those lads who have "PLEASE DON'T BRING UP AFGHANISTAN" written in their eyes. “Stalin can’t have murdered thousands of Muslims because there aren’t any Muslims in Russia”.

Checkmate, history.

Those boys from the home-counties who fetishise the Eastern Bloc, deeming any critique of Soviet-Communism as "US Imperialist Propaganda" while refusing to listen to anyone who experienced Soviet colonialism. The same ones who shout “religion only causes wars!!” from beneath their fedoras while defending the secular ideology which calculatedly burned Muslims out of the Caucasus, because their Socialism doesn't leave space for the religious. The ones who are rightly calling out imageries of slavery and the holocaust in veganism campaigns, while in the same breath firing out gulag jokes from every platform. The ones who think Stalin fought off the Nazis because he hated racism SO MUCH. The ☭ Twitter ☭ accounts constantly fantasising about lining up their ideological opposites against the wall or sending them to gulags while insisting that the Soviet state did not use any excessive violence. It’s the Worker’s Lib leaflets denouncing antisemitism yet unequivocally denying Stalin’s. It’s the new waves of the same old people calling for Corbyn to resign over his promise to renew Trident while defending the right of Russia and North Korea to buy and sell nuclear arms (...without wanting to add to the imbalanced negative coverage of Corbz in the press, his stance on Syria would make me shout “STFU tankie” at him in any undergrad common room.) It’s the dude in my undergrad anthropology module wearing a “Free Tibet” t-shirt while arguing that “communist” nation-states never play Imperialism.

Schrodinger’s Marxist insists that communism ought not to be reduced to the views and actions of totalitarian leaders while shutting down those who deign to criticise them. It is more damaging to try to defend the actions of extreme war criminals associated with left movements than to critique them, develop our views, and move on.

I kind of understand why some Lefties would feel defensive of the USSR. It is all too often used as the litmus test of all Left-leaning morality. Communists must be sick to death of trying to justify state communism given the terrible attempts we’ve seen so far. As much as I wish we had been given a great example of living Communism, we haven’t. Only when we accept that, can we work to make it actually happen. It does not undermine the ideologies of communism and socialism, and even Marxism-Leninism, to accept that Stalin Did a Bunch of Stuff Wrong.

A history which no longer matters, apparently

I’m not writing a mere list of the hypocrisies within a single London activist scene (honestly, I’d be typing for weeks), and I’m not (just) being snarky. There is a huge problem when teen hipsters who discovered Marxist theory at a freshers fair three months ago try to explain the USSR to people who have known about it since they were in the womb.

Since most of the people who should be saying this were forcibly starved to death, deported to slave camps, and/or lined up and shot, parts of me made it through the gene pool, into the delightful world of English-language online discourse, and I’m here to blog about it. Like most people with post-Soviet heritage, my family history is disjointed, depressing, and confusing. Having ancestors from what are now known as Armenia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Britain, and Pakistan, I grew up in a gloriously multicultural Northern town and I am lucky to have (almost) always been comfortable asserting a British identity. I am very white, I (unfortunately) have a strong regional English accent, and in the UK it’s only upon seeing my name that people start to realise there is something foreign going on.

Many of the generations born out of the Soviet era have a sense of disconnect with their cultural and ethnic roots due to the mass campaigns of cleansing and deportation perpetrated against them. The resulting trauma and erasure of their histories is a living remnant of Soviet rule.

Furthermore, much of contemporary Russian politics and public opinion is still swayed along similar lines to that of Sovietism. People from the Caucasus and Central Asia are routinely discriminated against in Russia and the nations are still bearing the harmful effects of the USSR’s and the Russian Federation’s colonial campaigns.

A large section of humanity’s existence hangs by a thread made up of recent multiple genocides, forced deportations, and famines directly executed by leaders of the Soviet Union. We have to muster some understanding and empathy for the histories of those who suffered under “Communist” rule. We have to listen and learn from this.

There were a huge number of deliberate and pre-meditated massacres perpetrated on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, class, and more. Pleas of “Western propaganda” cannot conveniently explain away the mass graves of those targeted by Soviet leaders. Nor can any ideological argument about the invalidity of religion, precisely which classes are counter-revolutionary, or who conspired with the Germans, be used to justify such a scale of suffering.

It’s a fucking outrage that I have to even give examples again, especially as these are the most well-documented, well-researched, and widely available instances. But here we go. Mass rape was planned and used by Soviet soldiers across Poland and East Germany to punish ex-POWs. Jewish communities were wiped out across countless nations. 2 million Afghans were killed in a Soviet genocide. 18 million people were sent to gulags. 10 million deaths resulted from the 1932-3 deliberate, man-made famine. Ethnic genocides of Poles, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachay, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks and so many more. 4 million people were forced to migrate within the Soviet Union, around half of whom died as a result. Need I fucking continue?

Denying genocides and war crimes simultaneously denies the voices of surviving populations and their right to accept and overcome trauma. It removes the possibility for tackling the roots and causes of these atrocities, and it prevents us from being able to move on and stop this shit happening again. It is also horrifying that I have to even try to summarise to someone why they maybe shouldn’t roll their eyes at victim testimonies and deny recognised massacres.

Can you imagine being the last living member of your family, bartering with your food allowance and not eating for three weeks, then using the cigarettes you earned to bribe a guard to give you one metal spoon, then sharpening the spoon gradually over two months, using it to cut your way through a fence and threaten the guard who tries to apprehend you, and walking for twenty eight days to the nearest liberated village (that was a true story btw) where you run into some kind of Vice contributor from Dorset who shouts “HoLOLdomor was fake go to gulag peasant hahaha!” You crumble, all hope is lost, you drop to your knees and shout to the sky “WHY DID I FALL VICTIM TO WESTERN PROPAGANDA”.

The Cold War instilled in both parties a binary view of geopolitics that we need to deconstruct. It also cemented the binary outlook on geopolitics, which largely essentialises ideologies into Capitalist and Communist. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Hating the US doesn’t mean you’ve gotta love and believe the Russian state. What sort of world must this be if we have to choose between the US/UK alliance, and Russia/DPRK/China? Acknowledging and remembering the millions killed by Soviet famine does not mean you can’t also acknowledge and remember that Britain forcibly starved three million to death in Bangladesh.

We don’t have to pick a side. We all have a duty to dismantle power imbalances around the world. To claim “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a very Western-centric way to view the Soviet Union and all it left behind. When you deliberately ground your viewpoint only in precisely that which “The West” despises, you are still basing your view on the Western worldview, and that is still not very cool nor subversive. Attempting to retroactively justify the deaths and suffering of millions of civilians is dangerous, baseless, and absurd. This categorically vague and ideological (and shockingly individualistic) notion of who does or does not deserve to live, within the strange utopia called “The Soviet Union” which lives only in the minds of 20-year-old-white-boys, is no more offensive than it is fucking meaningless.

The conjecture which fills the online duels between Tankies, Ultras, Ancoms, Brocialists, etc. is so empty of any worldly referents that it’s largely impossible to engage with. Sometimes I latch onto something I recognise and get involved. Usually it’s famine denial or any mention of Crimea, and usually, I get called a Nazi sympathiser by three 19 year-olds from Nottingham and sent a link to a Reddit thread describing how the documents must have been forged by bourgeois new-world economists because you can see the different pixels throughout the text.

But, how can you argue with somebody who’s attacking epistemology itself? Fighting against narratives can feel like you’re in a dark room trying to catch a mosquito that you’re not sure actually exists. Is Twitter the forum to discuss historicism? The Tankie’s idea of the Soviet Union, the picture in their mind, is of some rose-coloured, radical and glorious thing which never actually existed. What the Tankie says of the USSR says more about the Tankie than the USSR itself. God bless Edward Said. On the whole, I’m glad people are interested in the Soviet Union. But that interest should go further, we need more nuance, new voices, and better arguments.


A present that matters less:

The impact of “Tankies” has become damaging in contemporary discourse. Real, wonderful, radical socialist movements are out there fighting against the real living legacies of Russian imperialism. Unfortunately, Western politics students with 3000+ Twitter followers are taking up their space. They are wasting our energies on discourse about 100-year-old propaganda. The Russian state and its surrounding colonial legacy is still harmful and still worth debating.

For example, since the USSR enforced unwanted borders and governance, regions in the Caucasus have been fighting for their right to independence and self-determination. You can read more about these fights here. After Russia invaded, Crimean Tatar populations have faced violence and discrimination in their own lands, many being unlawfully detained, forced to leave their homes, and there are numerous missing persons still unaccounted for. You can read more and offer your support here. Meanwhile the usual suspects of the UK far left; Worker's Hammer, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star, each unequivocally supported the 2014 “referendum” which refused to give Tatars votes as justification for Russia’s invasion of the Crimea.

Vital and important histories of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Tatarstan, Crimea, Siberia, Ichkeria, and so many more, are being co-opted, appropriated, and re-written in Leftbook groups made up of middle-class students in Paris. People whose Google searches only bring up English-language articles and archives should not be telling Georgians and Uzbeks that they are just passive victims of Western propaganda. The creeping Russian occupation of Ukraine and the Caucasus is being bolstered and supported by Twitter warriors who have never been East of Berlin (okay, Chiang Mai doesn’t count).

People who open up a critical discourse about the Soviet Union are excluded from certain Western leftist spaces. Whether explicitly, like this...

The exclusion of post-Soviet voices goes further. We still have worrying misunderstandings of the post-Soviet nations, they are under-represented in the press, popular culture, and academia, and for many historical reasons, few people travel or migrate outside of their nations, particularly from Russia and Central Asia. Few people from Europe travel beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg. Post-Soviet voices are already marginalised in Western spaces. The left-leaning agenda simply has to fight against this.

For example, a few years ago, Chechnya started trending on every platform. At the same time, “Where is Chechnya” was searched in Google just over 178,000 times. International Business Times broke the first English-language article “Chechnya detains 100 gay men in first concentration camps since the Holocaust”

Безымянный_8127722019.jpg
Firstly, Chechnya isn't actually a country (not that it shouldn't be, but the fact that so many individuals and news outlets are writing it as a nation in itself shows how little they understand).

Secondly, Russia, which Chechnya resides within (for now - freedom and justice for the North Caucasus will come), has been systematically detaining, torturing, and by extension killing LGBT+ folks for a long time now. I have to add, this probably isn't the 'first concentration camp since the holocaust' - ethnic Chechens were not long ago put in what I would call concentration camps. This isn't one of those “how did you not know this has been happening for AGES???” arguments, but when the IBT reports that Chechnya is doing it, why does this trend instantly? A particular Russian (and European and American) Islamophobic agenda currently marks the, predominantly Muslim, Caucasus and Central Asia as a space of terrorism and general barbarity.

In a flash-back to denial of Stalin’s crimes against ethnicities, the Unconditional-Russophiles are aligning themselves with Islamophobic forms of racism once more. Thus the people and campaigns defending every facet of the Soviet Union keep backsliding into support for Putin and the modern state of the Russian Federation. For example, in early 2016, a historian exposed new accounts of Stalinist crimes via the unearthing of a mass grave containing 9000 bodies from the 1930s, (yeah, deny that Tankies) now a remembrance site known as Sandarmokh. He was swiftly sent to a psychiatric ward by Putin and was evaluated at the Serbski centre, an infamous interrogation centre around which several propaganda efforts are spin-doctored, and remains on trial.

Since his re-election campaign, Putin has strongly emphasised that what he calls an “excessive demonisation of Stalin” was being used to undermine Russia and its government. Along with the instrumentalisation of Victory Day, this has led to Stalin’s popularity rising to a “record high” among Russians today. He denounces all attempts to dredge up negative accounts of Sovietism precisely because it undermines the primacy of the Russian state and the rampant Russian nationalism it spreads.

Putin is arming and supporting violent states and armies around the world. He is brutally repressing LGBT+ and women's’ rights within his own nation and imprisoning protestors. He has solidified a system of oligarchy and corporatism, a form of state-regulated capitalism which centres the profits of the government and its aristocracy. He has restored the Russian Orthodox Church in the government, bolstered by repressions of other religions throughout the nation. His foreign policy has seen the occupations and/or invasions of Chechnya, Ingushetia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia Georgia, Ukraine, and Crimea. He is perpetrating daily massacres in Syria. Saying all of this doesn’t mean “Putin is worse than America or Britain!” It means “apply the same critical lens to Putin’s Russian Federation as you do to Western nation-states”.

Tankism often goes hand-in-hand with a particularly gruesome form of Assadism. These are the chemical weapon deniers (or even celebrators), the militarists, so-called “kebab removers” recapitulating the same excuses of “Western propaganda” and endlessly bootlicking Russian geopolitical interests through any possible man or medium.

Yet, many seem to feel that Russia is an oppressed underdog which needs its name and reputation protected. It’s somehow become impossible to consider that the Russian Federation in all its forms throughout modern history has been little more than a mirror of the US (and its lap-dog, the UK). Russia has colonised or attempted to colonise most of central Asia. It’s aligned itself with the cruellest forces in the world (now including the USA and the UK). Throughout each of its eras, it has systematically cleansed itself of religious and ethnic minorities. It’s fully terrible. It is imperative that all Tankies re-evaluate their priorities and direct their dubious critical thinking capacities elsewhere. Leave this mess behind.


Tankie Discourse is over for me. I’m not engaging in it anymore. It surrounds a set of ideological referents which respond to nothing in the living or dead world. It is a toxic network of arguments and counter-arguments based upon unfounded claims and empty accusations of propaganda. It’s a disaster of a fashion parade by people who have no idea about the still-living experiences of the Soviet world. Bin this arrogance, the dialectical nonsense, the cultural insensitivity and sheer ignorance of Tankism.

We don’t have a choice. Stalin Did Some Things Wrong. Stalin’s state was dramatically racist, sexist, and destructive and the effects of his failures are still ringing out through the Eastern Bloc. Ignoring, denying, or re-writing What Went Wrong only undermines socialist and communist movements today. If we can’t find a way for our movements to progress from this, then I’ll happily watch them die out. Tankies are regressive and, frankly, a fucking embarrassment to the Left.

---

As long as we're talking about Mid-East wars, there was recently some blockbuster reporting into the Pentagon's active fraud, waste, corruption, and deception of the civilian government and the public on the conduct of the Afghanistan War (that was promptly ignored). I guess the graphics are good for a skim...

Also, this is really sad
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...y-viral-is-now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You must be one of the least self aware people on this board. Read that back to yourself. You paint everything as black and white and in terms of tribal absolutes.

---

I was talking about outside the Backroom. And yeah, a large proportion of the Corbyn loyalists are indeed black and white tribal absolutes. They pride themselves on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

OK.

Marianne Williamson is a hack fraud (not the good kind), but she proposed one pretty nice formula (IIRC): The USA shouldn't be the world's cop, it should be the world's EMT. I wouldn't hold to that exact term but it's the right direction. She also correctly identified the Marshall Plan as one of the United States' few unalloyed-positive foreign policy accomplishments.

And you'll probably love Mangal Media then (though everyone here can benefit from reading the following article). They hate white imperialists AND white far-left "anti-imperialists":

As long as we're talking about Mid-East wars, there was recently some blockbuster reporting into the Pentagon's active fraud, waste, corruption, and deception of the civilian government and the public on the conduct of the Afghanistan War (that was promptly ignored). I guess the graphics are good for a skim...

Also, this is really sad
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...y-viral-is-now

---

I find Orwell to be probably closest to my political world view, with localised socialism being my preferred methodology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

I believe in the redistribution of wealth [...] and dismantling hierarchies of power.

---

In practice, a contradiction in terms. Redistribution requires power.

Quote:

---

I don’t believe in defending and re-evaluating a regime which [...] sent women [...] to gulags

---

:freak: