One Nice Bug Per Day
Andulka
styofa doing anything
if i look back, i am lost
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
NASA
@theartofmadeline
hello vonnie
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Kiana Khansmith
Xuebing Du
★
Kaledo Art
Discoholic 🪩
h
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
dirt enthusiast
No title available
Origami Around
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Portugal
seen from Poland
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@leunusualsuspect
"why do men watch porn instead of just having sex with their girlfriends?" is already silly for numerous reasons, but seeing it being used as like. a feminist talking point is so crazy to me because like of the implication that being in a relationship means being available for sex all the time, which you know. doesn't feel great for women i think.
if you’ve been “radicalized by empathy” to instantly turn your empathy off for a significant portion of the population maybe it isn’t about empathy after
This may be the best Pride merch I've seen from a major corporation.
Levi's said yes, actually. Assless chaps and a biker vest. Happy Pride.
And the assless chaps sold out on June 1.
They also specifically contacted members of the leather community, used them as models iirc, and donated $100k to Outright International. They talked the talk and walked the walk and put their money on it too. I don't really care that I can't afford and don't want this merch, I love to see my community getting the respect it deserves. Levi's said, "We make jeans which gays wear lots of jeans? Oh leather daddies? Let's call them."
I think Levi's donates to Outreach International every year too, as well as sponsoring pride events and other community support. They were offering Same Sex domestic partner benefits to employees in the 90s, and have been very public about their support for pro-lgbt legislation all through the 2000s.
So, you know, a giant corporation that walks the walk pretty consistently.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jun/10/two-killed-in-rare-street-demonstration-over-womens-rights-in-afghanistan
Actually yes I do think that countries that aren't liberal democracies, countries that oppress women and LGBTQ people and religious minorities, and countries that restrict freedom of speech are worse than Western liberal democracies, including the United States
"nooo colonization and imperialism and white supremacy—" stfu I'm not saying we should invade other countries, bomb them, or force them to liberalize, but I am saying that liberal democracies are better than they are
And they and their people and the world would be better off if they did sustainably liberalize
This post has barely a few dozen reblogs and it has already absolutely gone off the rails, been misread, and taken like one reblog chain before someone started crying "ZIONIST"
I knowingly swung at a hornet's nest and then dropped said nest into the middle of the Thunderdome but I didn't expect it to get there quite so quickly, wow
Isn't expressing provocative opinions great, I love having internet and free speech and not having to worry about being arrested or killed by my government for my expression
if you think that the bund advocated for assimilation you have reached molly crabapple levels of bund-induced delusion
jumblr for some reason
I think the reason for this is that people still see the bund as the opposite of zionism but don’t know anything about how the bund actually operated.
A lot of it is a reaction to Neo-Bundists that takes their revisionist lens at face value, some of it is the bund’s clashes with religious Jews, but I think the main confusion is that they did eventually align and merge into the Yevsektsiya, which undeniably facilitated assimilation before it was also dissolved.
One could argue this wasn’t “the Bund”, it was the Yevsektsiya, and that’s true, but in some cases they were the exact same people.
SO!
(not a bundist and tagging @penrosesun, an actual bundist, for this reason)
As I understand it, the Bund's central ideological argument related to Zionism was that it didn't make sense to fuck over the safety of a vast majority of Jews (as they believed Zionism did; at the very least, they thought it wasn't the best approach) for a small minority.
For instance, here:
To be clear, I think this is wrong. Israel provides an assurance of safety. You don't want to use the fire extinguisher often, but it's important to have when you need it.
But more importantly for this, that's not true anymore. almost half of all jews live in Medinat Yisrael. Any position on the wellbeing of overall world Jewry must take into account the wellbeing of Jews in Medinat Yisrael as a somewhat primary factor.
indeed, in 1958, the bund said this (#3 was essentially a call for peace and resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict)
Indeed, as David S Slucki writes in The International Jewish Labor Bund After 1945: Toward a Global History,
and in fact that
This did not, of course, mean that it was Zionist per se, however it does indicate a lessening antipathy towards Israel.
And there are fascinating questions to be asked, about how Bundism, with its concern for global Jewish well being, should operate today, given that almost half of Jews live in Israel, and how that should function. About the role of labor organizing, another key tenet of the Bund, now that many Jews are no longer working-class, and how that reflects things.
In fact, the Melbourne Bund -- the only uninterrupted Bundist organization in the world -- is much more nuanced than Crabapple et al would have you believe.
A minor note in that the first statement is more ambiguous about Israel's right to defend itself. It's certainly the most likely reading of a statement like "We call on Israel to make maximal efforts to avoid civilian casualties whilst acknowledging the absolute imperative of freeing the captives and defending from acts of terror." (emphasis mine), but "affirmed Israel's right to defend itself" is a lot stronger terms than the Bund used.
Again, this is going based off of documents. I'm not Bundist. I think it makes interesting and very valid points and raises fascinating challenges to mainstream Zionist positions, but, at the end of the day, I'm Zionist or territorialist ("if you're given a choice between a stable state in Tasmania and the present situation, I'm sorry, but go to Tasmania, the Kotel is not worth Jewish lives"; the distinction is much more theoretical today, of course).
This is a good summation, and I especially appreciate bringing up the Melbourne Bund – in my opinion, no conversation about either Bundism or so-called neo-Bundism is complete without an acknowledgment of what extant Bundist communities with actual continuity are actually saying about their views and positions.
The only thing I want to add is a bit of additional nuance to the concept that historical Zionism was “fucking over the safety of a vast majority of Jews for a small minority”, and that’s that this is a little bit conflating two distinct concerns, and coming out with a third concern, which was certainly present, but not at all the focus:
Concern #1 is that Israel could not be the ultimate solution to the problem of eg. Polish pogroms. This is entirely true and born out by history. People tend to point to Israel’s role in accepting refugees as evidence that Israel is a solution to global antisemitism, and indeed, specific incidents such as Operation Moses make a compelling case… But note that not everyone made it out of Ethiopia… or Yemen, or Egypt, or the USSR, for that matter… and it’s rank historical revisionism to claim that if Israel had existed before the Holocaust, everyone would have made it out of Germany or Poland or Lithuania. Even if Israel has a guaranteed open door for Jewish refugees, Jewish safety will always be to some degree reliant on the counties where Jews actually live, because in order to even be able to leave, you need either some rights (such as freedom of movement), or enough resources to get out anyway. A maximalist policeman-of-the-world Israel that was willing to militarily occupy any country that made noises towards disenfranchisement until every last Jew had been safely evacuated could maybe guarantee Jewish safety – but if, chas v’shalom, the United States were to turn aggressively fascist and start revoking Jewish passports and sending Jews to camps, would Israel really be able to hold off the US armed forces for long enough to Operation Moses the entire Jewish population of New York? Let’s imagine the most militarily mighty Israel possible – the Israel of the wet dreams of the hawkiest of hawks – is even that Israel really a solution to global antisemitism, or is it merely one of many harm reduction strategies? And for Zionists gearing up to say “well no one is saying that Israel can save everyone”, 1) many Zionists are, and 2) you’re moving the goalposts; if “Bundism can’t save us all” is a coherent argument against Bundism, then “Zionism can’t save us all” is an equally coherent argument against Zionism.
Concern #2 is that, setting physical safety aside for a moment, Zionism was (and I’d argue, still is) fucking over the cultural preservation of the vast majority of Jews for a minority. Ironically, this is specifically an anti-assimilationist point: the Ben-Yehuda vision of a modern Hebrew revival is a powerful one, and its success is a triumph of cultural preservation and restoration… and at the same time, it’s a vision that has no room at all for Sholem Aleichem and I. L. Peretz, and that’s a problem. The Ethiopian kahen line is being forcibly broken by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel as we speak – while it’s true that Israel has preserved Beta Israel lives, that culture will be just as lost in a generation as it would have been had Israel not existed to “save” it. You can’t make a Jewish unity omelet without breaking a few galut community eggs… but who gets to decide what that final omelet looks like? And which eggs are we comfortable breaking to make it happen? Should we really be trying to unify such diverse Jewish communities at all? Why not instead form a common front on political lines, and accept that the continued existence of individual Jewish communities with their own distinct cultural features is a good thing? Maybe self-determination means not just self-determination for “Jews”, but also self determination for Litvaks, and for Galitzianers, and for Italkim, and Gruzim, and Parsim, and Temanim.
These two concerns are often synthesized into the quite distinct Concern #3 which is “Zionist agitation is making things more politically dangerous for those of us with no desire to pick up our entire lives and make aliyah, stop rocking the boat.” And… I mean, to be clear, that’s also a thread of concern, and some Bundists raised it pre-WWII, and some are raising it now. But overall, this is not the primary thing that Bundists were on about. I think it’s worth remembering that the Bundist position was never “let’s sit on our ass in galut and hope the goyim come to accept us” – the Bundist position was “socialism should be achieved through an Austro-Marxist program of national-cultural autonomism”. The idea that we should work to dismantle the modern nation state completely and instead form nations which were “not in territorial bodies but in simple association of persons” is hardly a “don’t rock the boat” position! Some Bundists were concerned that early Zionists weren’t getting on very well with other groups in the region, sure – but the ultimate hardcore Zionist vision was one in which a modern State of Israel was Germany’s equal, and the ultimate hardcore Bundist vision was one in which Germany did not meaningfully exist.
Tl;dr: Handwringing about how Zionism has caused or exacerbated antisemitism is silly and disingenuous – antisemitism is caused by antisemites, full stop. And while I certainly can’t claim that Bundists have never partaken in that sort of vacuous argument, that was clearly never the main thrust of their criticism, either historically or now.
Thank you both for the perspectives. Personally, I would like to see strong Jewish strongholds in the diaspora as well as in Israel. Zionist, Bundist, or otherwise, the ideology is secondary to the result and Jewish cooperation in bolstering each other.
An issue that does stick out to me on concern #2 is that Bundism has historically had similar issues. Because it has tended to be staunchly, not necessarily fully “anti-religious”, but certainly strongly secularist, it has struggled to find place for religious Judaism that doesn’t require Judaism to be reshaped to fit into a Marxist worldview that tends to look down on religion as religious Jews (especially Orthodox) practice it. Just as examples off the top of my head, a few key points of conflict might be the perception that by spending their time in poverty studying yeshiva students weren’t showing solidarity to laborers, or the cultural and religious importance of the Jewish homeland to many Jews. So my first question would be, how would Bundism address that today? What shifts in ideology, practical steps, or change in structure have occurred or been implemented to make it more amenable to aspects of Jewish religiosity that don’t necessarily fit into a secularist Marxist way of life?
And I get the argument about not necessarily being “anti-Jewish autonomy in Israel”, just that there would be no nation-states anywhere in the world, and in theory, as an eventual goal for the world, I’m not necessarily against that. It’s just a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma, like gun control or nuclear disarmament; it’s objectively more dangerous for everyone to have guns & WMD so disarmament is an objectively good goal. But at the same time, it’s dependent entirely on everyone doing it at once & the assurance that it wouldn’t be taken advantage of: the other prisoner isn’t going to turn on you; you’re not going to be left with a knife in a gunfight; you’re not going to be left without nuclear deterrence when a nuclear-armed Russia invades.
In a world with ~200 officially recognized states, where the diplomatic mechanisms are built to interface with states, and trading in a national military for a series of autonomous militias seems significantly more precarious with how many people want to completely erase Jewish civilization from the Levant, the concern I see from Zionists and a lot of non-Zionists alike is less “Bundism can’t save everyone” and more “Bundism working is dependent on the Bund not being vulnerable to dissolution and leaving Jews dependent on the good will of an exterior state, regardless of ideals/intentions”. And given that the Bund folding into the Yevsektsiya and not just leaving Jews vulnerable but merging into a group that assisted anti-Jewish purges is the historical track record, you can understand why most Jews would be not just hesitant but actively resistant to putting any of our eggs in that basket.
My intent is not to imply that would necessarily be the outcome of any Bund, or that Bundism was responsible for exterior antisemites’ actions (antisemitism is the fault of the antisemites, not Jews), but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw the conclusion that the shape of historical Bundist ideology & praxis played a role in its dissolution. So my second would be, how does modern Bundism differ from the historical Bund there; what ideological shifts, change in praxis, or structural differences have developed or been implemented to address that historical vulnerability?
And third/second-and-halfth, how would the Bund actually navigate the current world order into one where a stateless Jewish people aren’t left vulnerable to dissolution in a State-filled world?
still caring about internet friends you lost touch with years ago is so embarrassing. yeah i had a deam we met up irl recently. the last time we spoke was maybe 7-8 years ago. i still wear the laces we randomly decided was a sign of our friendship. i dont know what any of your socials are or if youre even active on any. sometimes i see someones art resemble yours and i wonder for hours. do you still go by that name you chose? whenever i see it i wonder if its you. we couldve passed each other in this vastness a thousand times and not have a clue.
we were lonely kids having fun together. do you remember?
See here’s the thing:
I will die before I put away my Magen David in America.
That’s it. Send post.
yeah, of course marjane satrapi supported israel and condemned antisemitism you fucking idiots.
you plainly don’t know and don’t care about policy or relations in the middle east, cause if you did, you would know that iranians are skeptical if not outright critical of the palestinian national movement. cause it’s fucking bankrolled by their tyrannical government who rapes and murders teenage girls for showing their hair. go to hell
"Vote Blue No Matter Who" doesn't apply to abusive Nazi serial adulterers. Graham Platner needs to lose to save the soul of the Democratic Party, unless y'all want us to go down the path of MAGA. If Democrats win with a DSA chud, they'll run more DSA chuds.
This means harassing your Democratic Senators who come out in support of Platner. Light up their phones every day if you have to. Make them miserable. Show them there is a cost to sacrificing their morals for the sake of a win.
hey remember when the left still thought agreeing with nazis was a bad sign
Let’s say that I’m a From the River to the Sea person. Let’s say that I think the only way to free Palestine is to erase Israel and send its populace back where they “came from.” Let’s say we reject genetic research about where the Jews “came from” and assume that Jewish history magically started in 1000 CE and now everyone has to “go home.” What would this require? At its most basic level?
-mass buy in from the SE Asian subcontinent to the British Isles. I’m talking government, populace, infrastructure, the whole nine yards. Every government from Bangladesh to Morocco to Scotland will have to issue immigration papers, determine sources of income, and set up social safety nets. Etc etc etc.
That in turn will require:
-populations the world over to commit themselves to never creating an environment so hostile to Jews that Jews come to feel that a nation state in the Southern Levant is the only option.
Now let’s go full idealistic. Let’s say that the world decides to free Palestine and send the Jews “home.” Let’s say all the people and governments are committed to making that happen humanely and equitably. What would that look like?
-trillions of dollars in reparations for murder, property theft, bank accounts, businesses, etc compounded over minimum 80 years
-full buy in from all levels of society to educating themselves about anti-Semitism, and eradicating it. I’m talking from executive branch to the working poor.
If you want Palestine to be free from the river to the sea, you really need to sit down and actually think about where you will send those Israeli Jews and descendants who only ended up there in the first place after they were violently expelled from somewhere else. I’m not talking about the Yishuv. I’m talking about the world after 1945. Are they supposed to go back to Poland? Or Yemen? Or France? Or Syria? What would that look like? Genuinely, how do we administrate and create the infrastructure for that?
It’s a hard, shitty question which flies in the face of blind optimism and overly simple narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. But from where I’m sitting as a non-Zionist (I don’t do nationalism point blank; this is not a value judgement or a smug assertion of diasporic Jewish moral superiority) Holocaust scholar, it seems like those Jews are supposed to disappear or like, painlessly immigrate somewhere?
This is another iteration of The Jewish Problem, and if we’re going to seriously say that Israel should cease to exist and be replaced by a Palestinian nation state, we have to answer these questions.
Because in the current global climate? The “solution” to the “Jewish Problem” in the Southern Levant looks like mass murder. And that’s half the Jews in the world right there.
That bothers me. Does it bother you? Or is it the price you’re willing to pay? You don’t have to answer that. Deep in your heart you already know exactly what your answer is.
It’s ok if this post makes you angry, and triggers intense cognitive dissonance that make me you want to yell. But I will not be engaging with abusive and/or anti-Semitic responses, and whoever replies with that material will be blocked.
My lord, it’s like you plucked exactly what I was feeling from my heart and put it out there, @historicity-was-already-taken
Thank you.
pro palestiniks are so fundamentally stupid they’d hear about kibbutzniks draining israel's malaria swamps and call it ecological imperialism
Because they envision Palestinians as needing to fit the model of the Ecological Indigene™ whose close relationship with and stewardship of the land was in perfect harmony, and hence they envision the state of abject ecological degradation and collapse the land was in for centuries under imperial Greco-Roman and Islamic rule as a romanticized, natural state that had been carefully nurtured and undisturbed since time immemorial. When in fact the colony of Palestine was such a blight on the native ecosystems that dozens of keystone species went extinct, most of the land was unnaturally desertified and swampified, and during several historic periods experienced such long and intense famines and droughts that human population declined drastically because most of the country was uninhabitable. Invasive species like tzabar - originating in Mexico - were heavily adopted and spread by settler communities, many staple crops like our ancient grape cultivars and date palms were wiped out, and things like our terrace farms (madregot or ma‘alot) and other native landscaping practices that used to keep local ecosystems and water systems and soils were mostly destroyed. Almost all large carnivores like lions, bears, monitor lizards, and crocodiles were extirpated due to overhunting, habitat destruction, and extinction of a lot of their original prey species: oryxes, hartebeests, onagers, ostriches, etc. Ancient Israel was not filled with swamps and deserts. Romantic nationalists see images of "Palestine before Zionism" and interpret its decay and neglect as being the normative condition - or even a beautiful indigenous cultivation - when the truth is that before Zionism, the colony of Palestine's exploitation of, violence against, and apathy towards the land and its oldest inhabitants brought it to ruin.
Wait, you were actually born in the 1900's? Thats so cool
i am going to eat my own entire skin
Reblog if you were born in the 1900's.
"Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic"
That's funny, I don't see you criticizing Russia the same way. I don't see you criticizing China the same way. Afghanistan. Syria. Yemen. Iraq. Iran. Turkmenistan. North Korea. The list goes on
Wonder why that is. Could it be... antisemitism?
Did you miss when Russian immigrants were being harassed? Have you not seen all the racism against the Chinese online? Do you not remember how Islamophobic people were during the Afghan war?
Shut the fuck up and stop committing genocide.
"Have you missed russian immigrants being harassed?"
That's interesting as I'm russian myself, dumbass, tell me more about how we, russians, are firebombed at protests, blocked from student campuses, called baby killers, vermin, how russian neighborhoods are filled with people screaming for our blood, how random russians are blocked from cafes and stopped in the streets and harassed over Putin's war simply because they're russian.
Ну давай. Расскажи мне, русскому человеку, о притеснениях русских иммигрантов. Может ещё заведешь мне путинскую шарманку, про то, как русскоязычных везде притесняют и обижают, а? Ну так, если совсем мозгов нет. А судя по тебе мозгов реально нет и вряд ли когда-то были
Пиздуй в свою Пластелину и освобождай от выдуманного геноцида, а не сиди в тумбе и рассказывай русским, как их везде якобы ненавидят. Борец за свободу хренов
Indeed. Where are all the articles about the Russian Tearoom getting its windows smashed and patrons called genocidal pedophiles?
Where are all the articles about Orthodox Churches in financial crisis because they can't afford the security measures they need to not get killed for congregating?
Where are the stories about people being beaten in the streets for the crime of speaking Russian in public places?
How many Russian restaurants have had to close in the past three years due to constant harassment, vandalism, and threats? Because I can think of five kosher restaurants that closed off the top of my head, and if I did some research I bet I'd find way more. How many times has someone tried to blow up a Russian daycare? Has anyone ever shot up a Russian holiday party? Raped a teenage girl for being Russian? Tried to poison their employer's family for being Russian? Been caught on tape saying they'd let their Russian patients die? I could go on and on and on but I know the answer.
And here's the thing: when Russians or Chinese people, or Arabs do face racist bullshit because of their governments? Progressives almost universally condemn that shit. No one on the left is out here saying that beating up random Asians is a justified response to the bullshit (up to and including actual genocide) being pulled by the CCP.
"noooooo homochad the racist trash of the planet arent regurgitating 1300s Medieval antisemitic Jews As VampiresTM bedtime stories to scare the children in 2026 thats-"
"noooooo homochad the racist trash of the planet arent regurgitating 1300s Medieval antisemitic Jews As VampiresTM bedtime stories to scare the children in 2026 thats-"
