ojovivo
Love Begins
#extradirty
Product Placement
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Kaledo Art
shark vs the universe
One Nice Bug Per Day
trying on a metaphor
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Xuebing Du
KIROKAZE
taylor price
Janaina Medeiros
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
wallacepolsom
blake kathryn
No title available
NASA
⁂
seen from Brazil
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Brazil
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France
@spacom
Allow me to introduce myself...
Call me Socko. 20+, Diagnosed with autism/ADHD/depression/anxiety/OCD, greyromantic/greysexual, genderfluid, and looking to convert to Reform Judaism. Can't be arsed to change my profile pic, so don't bother me about it.
***Because they don’t have TIME to read
***Because they don’t know HOW to read
***Because they’re not ALLOWED to read
***Because they weren’t TAUGHT to read
***Because the generation BEFORE THEM were never taught HOW TO READ or how to TEACH READING
***Because we DON’T VALUE INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS
***Because our society prioritizes PRODUCTIVITY over QUALITY OF LIFE
Sick of the “yall are stupid because you’re lazy” narrative. Obviously people with no time no family no money no books no education no perspective no respect no options no support no mentors aren’t perpetually disseminating themes of Othello on the fly.
People aren’t stupid, reading isn’t the peak proof of intelligence, and society isn’t on a decline because poor people are poor.
You’re confusing a symptom for a cause
You have to treat the symptom, CURE the disease, and love the patient more than you love feeling right
Why are folks getting dumber?
Because you have a romanticized nostalgic view of an imagined past when "People were smarter" and/or because you like to think of other people as "dumb" so you can think of yourself as "smart."
Why aren't men as romantic & poetic as they used to be?
Because you have a romanticized nostalgic view of an imagined past when "men were romantic" and every man was a poet (also because of shifting toxic masculinity standards that have come to frame poetry and romantic gestures as "unmanly"... but mostly the other thing.
Why are people so vulnerable to propaganda?
Because you have a romanticized nostalgic view of an imagined past when propaganda was less prevalent (also because technology has literally invented mass propaganda machines, but mostly the other thing).
Also, because propaganda reinforces what people want to hear... like, if you want to hear that you're smarter and less propaganda-susceptible than other people because you read more, you'll want to hear propaganda about how everyone who isn't you is a big dumb stupid-head who doesn't read.
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.
Tankies simping for North Korea is so weird. Kimmy J kidnapped a director to make a knockoff Godzilla movie for him. That's a factual part of history, yo.
remember when Marx said the proletariat has a right to kickass kaiju films
I guess slavery is technically owning the means of production
I'm sorry it's just wild that the plot of Misery happened IRL except it was the leader of a nation regularly sucked off by internet contrarians
Oh yeah, I think that the director and his wife (who had been kidnapped separately if I remember correctly, with the director not knowing she was there too until he'd been in captivity for some three years, two and a half for her) and when they escaped when allowed to go to Europe for a film festival, Kim Jong-il seemed to think that someone else had kidnapped them and asked that they come back.
time to break this out again
Reblog if you want your Jewish friends to know that you love Jewish culture and resilience, they’re always welcome on your blog, and you cherish their friendship
When the rest of the world is hating them, our Jewish friends deserve a little love!
I love you my Jewish friends and mutuals 💙💙
I wish all the gentiles in the comments and notes on this post making sure everyone knows they are reblogging this only about The Good Jews a very Shut The Fuck Up!!!
OP here and I concur. If you’re specifying which “kind” of Jew you’re reblogging for, don’t reblog. You are part of the reason this post was fucking needed in the first place.
@passer-fringillidae YOU ARE WHO EVERY PART OF THIS POST IS ABOUT!!! LIKE YOU DIRECTLY!!!
Antisemitic gentiles who need everyone to know they still hate 90% of Jews reblogging this post.
“It wasn’t even their idea”
I never saw people so openly proclaim it! Which is great, since it gives one the opportunity to explain just how wrong that claim is.
You know what? Let's elaborate a little.
You see, this claim - that Zionism isn't a Jewish idea - stands behind claims like "most Zionists are Christians!" and "Zionism is a Christian movement!" and the like. It's not explicitly there, but it's implied. The poor Jews would never choose, on their own, to do such a horrific thing as... gags Zionism. They just want to argue and shake their lemon at G-d or whatever!
Yeah. So. History lesson. But first, I want to go a bit into what Zionism is. Now sure, every person wants to give their shnekel on this at this point, but frankly, the common jumblr definition of "self determination for Jews in their ancestral homeland" has confused me at first so I want to rephrase it: Zionism is the desire to return to Eretz Yisra‘el, the land where our ancestors lived, and establish there an independent country.
Now, you may hear many people claim that Zionism under this definition is ancient, way older than the 19th century's Zionist movement. Then again, you might hear that it was only born with said movement. The former is closer to the truth, with some slight caveats. For centuries, ever since the first Jewish exile, we've had the desire to return to Eretz Yisra’el. You can see that in how Jews were emigrating there throughout the centuries. From Rambam, to Rabbi Yechiel of Paris, to Ramban, and Rabbi Yehudah haLevi, and Rabbi Yehudah haChasid, and Rabbi Yosef Karow, all the way to Rabbi Yisra’el of Shklov and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, and many more throughout the centuries. It was written in songs. We pray towards it, and pray that we will get to see it. It's even written into our legal code that emigrating to EY is preferable to emigrating from it. So at least that part of what Zionism is definitely existed throughout the centuries.
The "self determination" part - the independence - is a bit different. Last time there was a serious, nearly successful attempt to establish a Jewish state in the land, the Romans crushed it and didn't allow us to bury our dead for at least a week. And since this time, Jews rarely ever had anything close to military power. So there may have been some attempts at revolts, but they tended to be unsuccessful. There were also, though, the false Messiahs.
To make a long story short, the point of the Mashiach in Judaism (as opposed to the Christian conception of Christ) is of a decidedly human king who will gather us from our various diasporas, return us from our exile to our land and lead us. False Messiahs tended to at least attempt to emulate that, to various degrees of failure. Evidently from their name, they didn't succeed. A big example for that is someone I wrote of just last week: Shabbtai Tzvi, who was said to be going to kill and overthrow the Sultan. So, this is some evidence that the hope for independence in our homeland was also existent and strong among Jews.
After that, I would like to note one thing that is almost completely unique to the Zionist movement: it took practical rather than mystical steps towards this latter goal, including diplomatic negotiations with the local rulers and other world nations. In this, BTW, I think David Reubeni was the closest guy to attempt anything similar by trying to negotiate for Portuguese canons. He still failed, of course, but that's a fascinating attempt.
So here we get into it: Herzl, father of the Zionist movement, was Jewish. The attendants of the Zionist congress were Jewish. The idea of coming back to Israel was Jewish.
The idea for doing that didn't come from weird Christians thinking Jews need to return to Israel for the Second Coming to occur. They may have grown to support it, but the Zionist movement was Jewish and for Jews. Not part of outside pressure.
Of course, some people might tell me I shouldn't be proud that my religion supports colonialism. The answer to that is simply that there are only two workable frameworks where this is colonialism: if Zionism was a non-Jewish movement - which I just detailed how it's rubbish - or if you believe a form of the Khazar theory and think it makes Jews European. This is also rubbish and has been proven wrong. So if you please, kindly consider the fact that your ignorance of Jewish history is a you problem and that you shouldn't attempt to tell Jews what their religion and culture is like, especially with this dismal a knowledge about it.
Quick, random poll:
Do you know who Israel Kasztner was?
yes (educated in Israel)
the name is vaguely familiar but not much beyond that (educate in Israel)
no (educated in Israel)
yes (diaspora Jew)
the name is vaguely familiar but not much beyond that (diaspora Jew)
no (diaspora Jew)
yes (non-Jewish)
the name is vaguely familiar but not much beyond that (non-Jewish)
no (non-Jewish)
For the sake of this poll, it's most relevant if you received education regarding the last 80 years of Jewish history in Israel, in Jewish institutes outside of Israel, or in Goyische institutes. For converts-in-progress, if your synagogue teaches the last 80 years of history extensively you count as diaspora Jews.
So, results! Two thirds of responders are Diaspora Jews, which would be 70 people. That's reasonable enough, all things considered. A fifth are Goyim, meaning 21 people, which means the remaining 14 are the Israeli or Israeli educated people, most likely all Jews. That is not surprising.
The majority of diaspora Jews and Goyim didn't know who Israel Rudolph Rezső Kasztner was, and if seeing his full name written actually does awaken some recognition then I'm sorry that I didn't consider writing it earlier. Who knew one person could have had this many names. Anyway, the majority of people in general said they don't even recognize the name, though in Israel there seems to be a slight majority for recognizing him vaguely. The exact number of people who didn't recognize the name at all is 60 people. Which is kind of a shame, the man has some significance in Holocaust history, but we'll get to that. Out of those, eleven are Goyim, 44 are diaspora Jews and five are Israelis. I don't know if these five got a different history education from mine or just forgot their highschool history (possibly one misclick, but I think it was for the vague recognition option), which is totally fair, honestly.
The people who voted for general recognition are forty. Making this an oddly even division. Out of those, twenty four are diaspora Jews, and eight each are Goyim and Israelis. That would make sense, I suppose - I don't know how common knowledge of Kasztner is among Goyim, but I could just have a sample of extremely knowledgeable Goyim considering the context.
The remaining five - two Goyim, two diaspora Jews and one (!!!) Israeli, think they fully know who this guy is. This surprises me, since I'm the one Israeli who voted above. So, umm, I don't know. However, since a majority of people seem to not know, I should probably elaborate on who Kasztner was. Which I will do in another reblog.
So. Kasztner was a Hungarian Zionist Jew. During the Holocaust, he managed to get an agreement with Adolf Eichmann, where he spared one train to send the people in it to Mandatory Palestine. The people there were mostly the ones who could afford to pay for it. However, a large number of Jews was saved this way
After the Holocaust, Kasztner came to Israel and became a member of Mapai, the ruling party. And then, one day in 1952, a Jewish Hungarian publicist in Israel named Malchiel Grünwald published a piece accusing Kasztner of helping the Nazis in the killing of Hungarian Jews. This immediately brought upon Grünwald a case of libel against a person who could be described as a savior, and so started his trial.
Now, officially the one standing to trial was Grünwald. He was the one publishing the supposed libel, after all. So officially, this trial is "the Grünwald trial". However, nobody calls it that. This trial is widely known as the Kasztner trial. The reason is simple. This is a libel case, so if Grünwald's lawyer managed to prove that what Grünwald wrote was accurate... well. in that case Grünwald goes out scots-free and Kasztner gets accused of having helped the Nazis. Not to be executed, as he wasn't a Nazi war criminal himself, but this would hurt him greatly. And that's exactly what happened.
You see, it turns out Kasztner kind of hid from the Jews of Hungary what was coming for them despite seeing much evidence to that. He has cut a deal with the Nazis while knowing they murdered Jews, and testified in favor of some of them at Nuremberg. There was some basis to the claim he cooperated with the Nazis - enough to persuade the judge, who ruled in favor of Grünwald and said that Ksztner has "sold his soul to the devil". I am not kidding.
Kasztner suffered no punishment for that, outside of needing to pay the trial's expanses. After all, he was the prosecuting party. However, it didn't do much to his good name and he was eventually assassinated in the streets of Tel Aviv. An unpleasant end to a complicated story I probably didn't tell properly.
garbonzo
Like I'm sorry but "I want to and I have ideas" is not a reason for me to vote for you to be one of a few hundred people who make the laws of the entire country (or state) I live in. I'm tired of "outsiders" I don't want a liberal Donald Trump I want actual experienced smart people who know what they're doing. I'm sorry if the people at podsa can't feel better about being insufficiently masculine for their own tastes. I actually take the world I live in seriously.
You know, I find it very funny/frustrating that in Australia you can say all of George Carlin's Seven Words (and on kids' TV, mind you) without being bleeped, but they ban and censor way more sexual/violent media than anyone else. You can describe something as obscenely as you like, but God forbid you actually depict obscenity.
I know right. While not actually true, the myth in Australia that small breasts are illegal in porn, persists because it feels like something the government would ban.
But true classics like "oh no step bro, I'm stuck in the dryer" absolutely are illegal in this country where you'll hear a politician say Cunt in a news interview and see the prime minister skull a pint of beer for a world record time.
^and he's still doing it as an old man, in fact we demand it of him
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.
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.
Bosses and Coworkers: you've got a great work ethic, going above and beyond
Me: I am literally just doing my job. Everyone else is slacking off.
Everyone Else: (magically knows somehow the secret amounts of work the boss is actually asking of them, which the boss cannot tell anyone for Reasons)
There always seems to be a gap in instructions (from bosses, parents, teachers, friends, whoever) between 'required' and 'expected', and this gap is:
invisible
never explained
always a different size
you have to guess the size
if you guess wrong you either get Praised or In Trouble
At least on 'the price is right' you know (because someone *actually told you*) that you are playing a guessing game and that there is an over/under mechanic and that the conquence of guessing wrong isn't a punishment or damaged relationship or getting fired
On an unrelated note my psychiatrist has given me a referal for a formal ASD evaluation
This post is about the neurodivergent frustration of having to deal with neurotypical authority figures who don't say what they mean but I love the pro-union labor-rights energy I'm seeing in the notes
Adding: sometimes you get Praised AND In Trouble because it turns out if you perform to a point where the teacher or the boss is actually happy with you, your neurotypical peers will likely decide you're a suck-up and the only reason you're Exceeding Requirements is to make them look bad.
--
that's really cool, personally I don't give strangers false information and then get mad at them for believing me
I think that if Rorschach was a leftist his personality would remain the same.
You, you understand the vision. This is the shit he would say. May I add that he 100% believes that woman are the bourgeoisie?
Every day tumblr users get closer and closer to saying you can only be trans in a god honouring way.
unauthorized fucking thing!!!!!!
(warning: loud chirping throughout)
source: hellgate osprey cam
More context:
the first osprey is the father, the one that comes later is the mother.
ospreys are not eagles, they're ospreys
ospreys only eat fish, that's why they don't register this starling as possible food
the starling got home safely
the starling was not trying to eat the eggs, it was mostly curious and you can see it trying to hop under the osprey every time the osprey tries to sit down again--this is because the starling is still a baby and has the instinct to get under an adult for warmth, even though it mostly has its feathers. this scares the osprey because that is a Foreign Creature near its eggs.
at the end of the video you can see the ospreys starting to turn the eggs. birds do this so the yolk and/or embryo don't stick to the shell of the egg, which is bad for the egg's health.
ospreys have eyes adapted to seeing beneath the surface of the water!
