They cannot win on their own by creating their own party
Careful, don't want to give away the game by accidentally admitting third parties can't win despite promising what voters want
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
84 points (98.8% liked)
Slop.
870 readers
318 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Zionism is an inherently antisemitic ideology, and requires believing in antisemitic tropes to support
It is also a Jewish supremacist ideology obviously. These two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
My (Jewish) zionist friend, who is optimistic in most other aspects of his life, believes that Israel must exist because he thinks nowhere else will be safe for Jewish people. It's an incredibly pessimistic view to have, and one that's arguably untrue now, depending on your definition of "safe".
On top of the strange belief that the place where you’re at risk of being bombed is somehow safer than say, New York City, it requires believing that Jewish people are fundamentally unable to coexist peacefully with others, which is what the fucking Nazis believed.
People have always said to put all your eggs into one basket and then antagonize everyone you see.
idk my definition of safe usually doesn’t involve ballistic missiles and drones and bomb shelters and red alerts but i guess that’s the zionist mentality
I mentioned that to him. Idk. We haven't talked about Israel in a few years because it upset him a lot last time.
I have to hope his opinion has changed, but I fear it has not. I think he's a naive Bernie-style "Netanyahu is the problem" type.
believes that Israel must exist because he thinks nowhere else will be safe for Jewish people
This has always been weird to me; Israel keeps talking about being surrounded by nations that want to kill them; wouldn't committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in a European country like Germany have been the smarter choice? Then they'd be surrounded by all the people who love and support them.
it's their Emotional Support Apartheid, it must exist to make them feel good.
“They’re taking over the Democratic Party! They’re…they’re…”
checks notes
“Listening to the party’s base.”
Jews are PARASITES!
-The ADL, AIPAC, Chuck Schumer, The BBC etc!
they are going to latch onto the Democratic Party and feed off of it, woth the overall goal of taking it over or killing it
A vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy!
wow dehumanizing language from the dems looks like they are encouraging stochastic violence
If that happens, which i highly doubt it will, ill be happy
Hold on touches earpiece I'm also recieving word that "the parasitic islamo-bolshevik cries out in pain as he strikes you"?
How did we go from cool Jewish Bolsheviks to sniveling bootlicking anti-communist pissrael deepthroaters?
I'm a troglodyte. That being said is calling someone who is Jewish a parasite an antisemetic trope of some sort? I am genuinely curious. I've seen a lot of things that are but "parasite" is new to me.
Also, is the person who said it part of StopAntisemites, or are they just quoting her? Am I missing something? For someone out of the loop this really seems like pearl clutching, but I don't know shit.
That being said is calling someone who is Jewish a parasite an antisemetic trope of some sort?
This is plainly just cheap point-scoring on OP's part (the org is a heinous fascist institution, but this just isn't much of a refutation) but along with the parasite thing indeed being a historically significant trope, even if the "StopAntisemitism" people didn't write the quote, they are reprinting it to promote it, which has no meaningful difference.
typically I would be doing so as a way of presenting my own stance using someone else's words for rhetorical
Did Lenin say something about the economist being a propaganda rag? Your example doesn't hold up for me.
is that the case here? Is this 'typical'? After looking into it, it is quite the shitty thing to say about someone but directly attributing a quote doesn't seem to be a this- is-that situation.
Lenin called The Economist is “a journal that speaks for the British millionaires.”
If I made a Twitter post that said “‘The Economist is a journal that speaks for the British millionaires’ - Lenin” it would be pretty reasonable to assume I was agreeing with him, especially if the fact that I dislike The Economist is well known.
StopAntisemitism is a known right wing account, their opinions on these elected officials is known to be negative. When they post a quote of someone else negatively talking these elected officials, you can reasonably assume they’re sharing it because they agree. They don’t have to also say “We agree!”
Shouldn’t a democratic party be left?