I think it's time for the goyim to understand this huge detail :) these two movements mask their inner antisemitism by claiming to be Jewish/for Jews/whatever lies they come up with daily to appear friendly to actual Jewish individuals. None of them represents actual Jews, in fact it makes most of us feel unsafe whenever these groups are brought up. Don't get fooled by any of them!

Hey, would you consider taking down this post: https://www.tumblr.com/accessible-art/733352422469156864

The phrase "from the river to the sea" is an antisemitic phrase. That phrase is about the forceful expulsion of Jews from every land and into the sea to die off. It is very unfortunate that it's being used unwittingly by well meaning people to rally support for Palestine and their suffering (which we should do! Please don't misunderstand). That phrase is too loaded.

hello there anon, i am going to word this as gently as i can. i myself am jewish, and i will not be taking down the post as i fundamentally disagree that "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic. the saying is not to do with expelling jews from anywhere, much less killing us all. it is referring to the fact that israel is a settler colonial state on land that palestinians (of all religions - including jews) have inhabited for thousands of years. from the river to the sea is a reaffirmation of this land-history and a call to action against the ethnic cleansing, genocide, and erasure that palestinians have faced under israeli apartheid/governance. saying that the restoration of palestinian land to the palestinian people would result in jewish genocide is a baseless projection. do not get me wrong, there are absolutely people using the pro-palestine movement as a mask for their antisemitism, but this phrase did not originate with them. the reason this phrase is so divisive is the same reason "landback" is so divisive. settler-colonialism is so pervasive in the west that the idea of indigenous people seeking sovereignty over their land without violently dispossessing all others who live on the land is unfathomable, no matter how many times indigenous people have made it clear that they have no desire to do so. to put it bluntly, that phrase is only "too loaded" if you do not recognize palestinians as indigenous to their land, at which point whatever support you're "rallying" would be rendered useless.

you are welcome to unfollow us if this explanation does not satisfy you, but we will not be taking down our pro-palestine content.

~ mod elya

Nationalism According to Donald Trump

By Emina Melonic| November 2nd, 2018

Freedom of speech is under attack both in the United States and in Europe. Naturally, language—the basis of speech—is bound to change organically over time, but today there are efforts to change it in artificial and forced ways. What we say (and ultimately what we think) has become an occasion for control and policing, reminiscent of Philip K. Dick’s short story, The Minority Report, in which people are arrested for “pre-crime” thoughts. It may seem strange to reference science fiction to illustrate a point about the current totalitarian experience but, given the Orwellian reality in which we now live, such references make complete sense.

Examples of this kind of tortured language are all around us. Most recently, the European Court for Human Rights ruled that defaming the prophet Muhammad is not protected speech or expression. The case was brought before the court by an Austrian national identified only as “Mrs. S,” who was fined for comments a court deemed disparaging of a religion (in this case, Islam). She suggested Muhammad was a pedophile because the Koran details his marriage to his third wife, Aisha, who went to live with him when she was 9-years-old.

Mrs. S took her case to the European human rights court, but the judges did not rule in her favor. Mrs. S’s “right to freedom of expression,” the court said, cannot be rendered more important than “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and [the decision] served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

I’m not interested in delving deeper into the history of Islam or the life of Muhammad, nor do I wish to discuss whether Mrs. S’s statement is valid, especially since we don’t really know the full context and facts of her case. What is important here is that the European court has put the “feelings” of a group of people over and above the rights of an individual’s expression of thoughts.

Forsaking Cherished Identities, Abandoning Freedom

How did Austria and many other western European countries get to this point? Simple: they have forsaken their own national identity in order to accommodate certain religious sects that, for the most part, operate in ways that are incompatible with Western values. This is a direct consequence of choosing globalism instead of their own sovereign and national identity as their guiding principles.

Thankfully, the United States has not fully entered this phase of political and cultural existence and seems to be resisting efforts to drag us there. Still, we do see assaults on free speech and the forceful shaping of language, the sole purpose of which is to serve as a handmaid to leftist ideology. Most recently, the horrific massacre in Pittsburgh has caused some to seek to politicize this mass murder, insisting that language they dislike was the direct cause of the atrocity. Some went as far as to blame Trump for the massacre labeling him an anti-Semite despite the fact that he is one of the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish presidents in recent American history.

To destroy Trump, the Left has twisted the language, in particular focusing on Trump’s outspoken attack on globalism and his embrace of nationalism. According to the Left, when Trump speaks against globalists, he is really speaking against Jews.

Another recent example of speech suppression involves an American scholar, Yoram Hazony, who complained he is no longer allowed to use words such as “globalist” and “nationalist” because they are just “dog whistles” for something evil and nefarious. Essentially, Hazony is being told what he can and cannot say. When someone imposes on our speech and gives us a directive about the “appropriate” way of speaking, they affirm only one thing—that we, ontologically speaking, don’t exist, or at the very least, that we don’t deserve to exist.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Any intelligent and clear thinking person can see the utter illogic in all of this. But such ludicrous statements should not be ignored. They warrant a discussion of what globalism and nationalism really are, especially in the context of Trump’s recent assertion that indeed, he is a nationalist.

American Identity Is Real—and It Isn’t Globalist

For the globalist Left, any mention of the word “nationalism” immediately is translated into National Socialism. According to the reductio ad Hitlerum argument, if you call yourself a nationalist, you are a white supremacist intent on destroying anyone who doesn’t fit that category. But it isn’t just that which differentiates globalists from intelligent people who embrace their national identity.

The globalist ideology relies on fluidity, primitive emotionalism, mediocrity, and a complete erasure of borders, both physical and metaphysical. It relies on control of the people, on eliminating differences between people and cherry picking as to who qualifies to maintain their difference and who must be erased from existence. It is a collectivist and totalitarian phenomenon that denies the wonder of life as well as the possibility of human flourishing. For this and many other reasons, true American identity is not globalist and never will be.

We struggle with the concept of nationalism, mainly because, historically, we associate it with the schemes of a megalomaniac bent conquering of the world. But the assertion of one’s identity that is connected to the ethos of a particular country (be it America or other nations) is completely the opposite of the left’s vision of Hitlerian nationalism. Indeed, only an authentic embrace of American nationalism can (and did) stand against such a twisted outlook.

What’s happening, in fact, is that real Americans are fed up with being told to decrease or feel ashamed of their existence and presumably disappear altogether. They are tired from constantly being put in a defensive posture against the inane and false statements which are constantly thrown at them. They are frustrated that they have been thwarted in their attempts to live fulfilling and successful lives by people who put the interests of non-citizens over and against their own.

Trump clearly has recognized this and because of this recognition, he has been labeled a nationalist in the blinkered meaning of the term propagated by the left. Is he a nationalist then? Trump explains: “I’m somebody that loves our country. When I say a nationalist, I don’t like it when Germany is paying 1 percent of GDP for NATO, and we’re paying 4.3 percent. I don’t like that.” Trump escapes any kind of already formed political definitions, and so we have to look at what constitutes nationalism according to Trump.

What Trump Means

There are three main elements of Trump’s conception of nationalism: sovereignty, excellence, and human potential. Without understanding each of these elements, it is impossible to understand Trump’s presidency.

Sovereignty, of course, has to do with independence, which is the most fundamental American principle. This concept goes against globalist principles of fluidity, sameness, and open borders. To the globalist, borders don’t matter because they want to erase the lines between countries and ensure the weakening of America in favor of the brotherhood of humankind. And yet, without clear borders, no country can be defined and thus no citizen can claim his or her own voice. As Hannah Arendt writes in The Origins of Totalitarianism, “To abolish the fences of laws between men—as tyranny does—means to take away man’s liberties and destroy freedom as a living political reality; for the space between men as it is hedged by the laws, is the living space of freedom.”

The next two elements—excellence and human potential—go hand in hand and are at the center of Trump’s thought and how he approaches statesmanship. Trump doesn’t subscribe either to conservatism or to liberalism as traditionally understood in American politics, and this is one of the most confounding characteristics of the Trump presidency. Not only has Trump unmasked American and world politics to expose their ugliness and corruption, he has chosen to focus on American excellence and potential rather than be the lord of the swamp. This focus on flourishing and success have been at the core of Trump’s being since even before he decided to run for the presidency—almost all of his interviews, particularly from the 1980s, involve some talk about realizing individual and American potential.

Of course, he puts American interests first—as any American president should do. “I am the president of the United States,” Trump said recently in one of his rallies. “I am not the president of the globe.” What’s more, this America-first approach involves the American people as a whole and more importantly, as American individuals. Foremost on Trump’s agenda is to create an environment in which every American is invited to succeed. But that takes responsibility on the part of every American, something the globalist Left is afraid to acknowledge because they deny the potential of so many individuals and instead point to a politics of victimhood which, naturally, empowers them as caretakers.

By affirming the importance of and responsibility for individual excellence in all Americans, Trump is attacking mediocrity—a trait widely embraced by leftist ideology. The more mediocre the masses, the better they can be controlled and repeatedly made into victims who, ultimately, need to rely on the state for any kind of assistance, including tips on how to think. For the globalist Left, the strong are not supposed to be the model for the weak or to encourage them to get out of the doldrums and into the world of personal freedom and responsibility. On the contrary, for them, the unapproved strong are supposed to slip into weakness until they disappear into the mist of mediocrity.

Trump is a man of action and because of this, he is not interested in “politcking” and ideological posturing. He brings something different to the American presidency, something which is urgently needed today. What kind of precedent he is setting remains to be seen. His actions against the absurdity of our times are louder than any statesman’s words. Trump is a man whose actions are born of his Americanism or, if you prefer, out of thoroughly American instincts. He is not moved by the force of post-modern shifting of reality. He understands the potential and the right of all Americans to comprehend and act upon reality as it actually presents itself. And what is more American than this?

UnBARlievable, Rainey Street, and the Long Road Against Racism and Gentrification

Weeks from now, when the facebook comments fade and the tweets die down, how many people will brush off the drama around Unbarlievable? Was owner Brandon Cash’s empty apology enough for them to move on? Or will they just head to another bar on Rainey Street, and ignore the fact that all of Rainey Street is built in the shell of a displaced working-class Mexican-American barrio?

Unbarlieveable and every other establishment on Rainey is a business built on racism. They were all made possible by segregation against the Mexican-American community that used to occupy the homes now converted into bars and restaurants. That racism drew its power from the capitalist system which values certain people over others, stealing value from the less powerful to create profits for the few. A community was removed so Brandon Cash and his employees could act like fools and insult people of color, Jewish people, women, and more in their bubble of ignorance. Until the screenshots came out that is.

But apart from Unbarlievable, the investors, banks and business owners behind the transformation of Rainey Street have always operated from the playbook of white supremacist capitalism. It's only when these exploiters express it out loud, in the socially taboo forms shown by Brandon Cash, that people find the time to be outraged. When it’s in the form of daily capitalism, like the systemic displacement of the Rainey Street barrio, it is mostly ignored and no action is taken.

We see a marked difference in the response to online racism and symbolic acts of gentrification like mural whitewashings compared to the reaction to the daily displacements and systemic processes that are destroying our working-class communities. While the more outrageous stories generate facebook traffic, the stories about community members fighting to stay in their homes, apartments or mobile home parks are often met with rationalization and excuses why what’s happening to them is a natural process.

We don’t shy away from calling out the symbolic acts of gentrification, but our outrage at the ongoing attacks on our communities must translate into action and long-term goals. For Defend Our Hoodz, the injustice against Jumpolin became a motivation to follow through with holding businesses like F&F and Blue Cat Cafe accountable for their ongoing profit from the violent displacement of community members. While the story of Unbarlievable continues to generate outrage, the community as a whole takes long-term fights like our boycott of Blue Cat Cafe and landlords Jordan French and Darius Fisher for granted, even though the incident that occurred at their site was more violent than anything UnBARlievable’s Brandon Cash has said or done. Tearing down a Mexican immigrant business and calling them  ‘cockroaches’ wasn’t enough for some Austinites to stay away from landowners Jordan French and Darius Fisher, as Blue Cat Cafe showed when they crossed the picket line. And now, even literal Nazis, brought by Blue Cat to attack our lawful picket, are shrugged off by many, even when one of those Nazis is Paul Gray, the brother of former Blue Cat owner, Rebecca Gray.

Don’t spend your money at gentrifier businesses, donate it to those facing displacement: Save single mom and two kids from homelessness.

Engaging in long-term, anti-gentrification, anti-racist, and anti-capitalist struggle means making big sacrifices for what are still uncertain gains. But we are not deterred. We must dare to struggle and dare to win. We know that Blue Cat Cafe, UnBARlievable and all the gentrifier businesses in our city are not permanent, that someday we can build communities that actually serve the working-class. That doesn’t mean more capitalist businesses paying poverty wages, and more housing for the highest bidder, but a cooperative society that allows all cultures and people to flourish, and housing every person is a priority.

With all that said, it may seem contradictory for us to say that we can’t officially endorse the protest occurring today at Unbarlievable. While we stand behind the community's outrage at Brandon Cash - we believe that the message of the protest is not conducive to building long-lasting power against racism and gentrification. This is apparent when the organizer of Friday's action says that he is working with the police and is seeking the support of the other gentrifier bars on Rainey Street.

This shouldn't be news, but the police are full of racists, Trump supporters, and yes, actual Neo-Nazis. They kill black, brown and poor people in our cities with impunity. They are the primary enforcers of gentrification and protectors of the property of the rich. They infiltrate our movements and spy on us. Defend Our Hoodz will never work with the police or seek their permission to protest, especially not for an anti-racist action. We don’t need permission to demonstrate in our community on our own terms. We hope the organizer of this protest and others will reconsider their engagement with the police for future actions.

Rainey St. in the Past, Photos courtesy of Anita Quintanilla

Just as concerning is the fact that this organizer considers the other Rainey Street bars as allies. All these bars have profited from the total erasure of a Mexican-American community. It’s ironic that after a rally against racism, some people may grab a drink at one of the other bars that owe their entire existence to systemic racism that displaced primarily Mexican-American families.  If that’s not enough, some of the bars now on Rainey have also had reports of assaults against women and discrimination against disabled people. Unbarlievable isn’t the only trash pit on the street.

“I'm extremely saddened and outraged about what has happened to my peaceful Mexican neighborhood.” - Displaced Resident of Rainey St.

If you attend the rally on Friday, keep these facts in mind. No matter what happens, we still have a long way to go until Austin’s working-class brown, black and other oppressed communities reclaim what is theirs. Incidents like UnBARlievable’s outrageous behavior highlight the sad state of things, but more and more people are waking up to the hypocrisy of our capitalist system that rewards slimeballs like Brandon Cash while too many hardworking Austinites are kicked out of the city.

Cinco de Mayo at UnBARlievable

Rainey Street’s transformation into a bar and dining district was built on white supremacy and capitalism. These systems displaced the working-class brown families who used to ride bikes down the street when it was a landscape bursting with green, their homes shaded by towering trees fed by Town Lake (not Lady Bird). In those times, they were ignored by Austin’s white supremacist city government and denied resources. But, at least speculative investors and racist, yuppie bar-owners hadn’t yet descended on Rainey Street. Sadly, the intentional, systemic neglect of Austin’s elites sowed the seeds for their arrival.

This is how oppression and processes like gentrification are normalized and embedded in our ruling-class institutions and  history. It’s all just another day under capitalism, where people sit down and raise their glasses in a circus theme bar, run by a racist white dude who ridicules brown children, on a street where brown children used to happily play.

We fight for the day when the working people decide the fate of our communities and Brandon Cash and UnBARlievable will just be a bad memory. Our streets won’t belong to those who insult us and only seek profits, but will belong to the people and the generations to come.

Rainey St., 1964 - Courtesy of Anita Quintanilla