#that the aggressors view as 'political'

[13thpythagoras]

Hey, this is a genuine question. I’m not trying to troll you or anything, but what are your main political takes? 

I have the same kind of rude and you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but I just feel like I would like to know before I REALLY interact with your blog.

Again, you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, and I already feel that kind of an asshole for asking this even on anonymous but 

🤷🏿‍♀️

hmm haha fun question, not an asshole question at all, I realized there's a fun freedom in going on anon so I turned on the button after having it off for years;

I'm definitely someone who respects the nuance of politics, and how local and intimate these issues can be, as someone who's born and raised in the USA and lived here all my life it's my main area of focus for politics, but I'm still interested in world politics too anywhere people are in the struggle (I know the USA has the most powerful military in the world and they consider themselves the police of the world's oceans so I'm sure politics here is also on spotlight for people globally, indeed many people's liberation globally hinges on our ability to liberate and re-enfranchise ourselves locally);

my main policy values are justice, peace, and prosperity for all people in the world... this song Everythang by Boots and the Coup encapsulates my political views:

main political takes / hot takes are just that vote by mail needs to be available to every American / eligible voter in the world, no question, it's the most egregious form of disenfranchisement I see out here. The USA gets segregated into a de facto apartheid and then the areas with black people get their polling locations shut down, this is some 1970s South Africa shit going on in modern day in the USA...

Progressives outnumber conservatives by a lot, there's 5 progressives for every 4 conservatives, and the chasm is growing, I see it as the quickest most economical path to victory for progressives to simply expand voting access and eliminate the (technically illegal and blindingly unconstitutional) poll taxes that come in the form of making people wait in line hours to vote, time is money and it's even illegal to give people water in Georgia but they think it's a free country, this is a very real poll tax targeted at working class / people of color and it's been swinging some elections.

I also know that DC needs statehood and 2 senators (but guess what, DC is a majority black district and in segregated America, black peoples' right to vote is under attack and has been largely taken away), we need to combine the damn gerrymandered Dakotas, Puerto Rico needs statehood and 2 senators, the Pacific Islands like Guam and Samoa need statehood and 2 senators, many Indian tribes need 2 senators each in the senate with full voting power, we need to uncap the house again, we need to expand scotus with progressives to undo what gerrymandered-mitch-mcconnell denied to Obama (I believe Senate seniority should be based on how much of your district / state is on food stamps / welfare, or perhaps state GDP to dis-incentivize just purging people from welfare rolls, this would leave the leading Senator Mitch McConnell suddenly ranking lowest in the senate and suddenly the GOP would be forced to reconcile with how their populations are all the most impoverished and on welfare, but no, the USA is NOT a meritocracy because we don't want to do rules like this), we can and should change the balance of the senate, house, and scotus, to reflect what the electorate believes, progressive values are mainstream but corporate media pulls us to the right... of the living breathing Americans alive at the time, less than 1 in 5 voted for Donald Trump, on record. Keep in mind we have 1 in 5 people thinking they can go dictator mode on the rest of us and our bodies... and with the wild new immunity power the scotus just gave the president, scotus just basically made the president a king, and the last time we had that, if I recall correctly, was right after the USA won its first war, with the big help of France, and the population seemed fine at the time to just have George Washington become king, but he said no, we're not going there again. Biden needs to become that hero on the level of George Washington and restore balance. He can do it unilaterally at this point.

I'm also into the "Public Relations" strategy planning too, like defunding the police, it's something I believe in wholeheartedly, police evolved from slave-catchers, they just steal our money and call it "civil asset forfeiture," they are goddamn murderous thieving criminals and they should mostly be put behind bars with all the people they locked up on bogus charges, but I also know that's a bitter pill for Americans who loved NYPD Blue to swallow; framing it as "police vouchers" or "security vouchers" seems to me like it would have more legs with the bovine Americans who sympathize with criminal cops because they saw some expensively-produced primetime TV shows...

I absolutely know that terrorism and collective punishment are the same thing, and it breaks my heart to see people fighting terrorism and crime with just terrorism and more crime. I'm suspicious that George W. Bush, who had brunch with Bin Laden's brother 2 days before 9/11, and we know the Bushes and Bin Ladens were all family friends, we know this; I'm obviously very, extremely suspicious that George W. Bush and his cronies planned 9/11 and carried it out in collaboration with Al Qaeda to wag the dog, which we know was also created by their friends originally to fight the Soviets. This "shock doctrine" is now their single playbook play, and they do it again and again, with the Paris attacks, and October 6, I don't believe for a second the Israelis didn't know exactly what was going to happen, when, by who, and where. They needed it to happen so they could play that tired old record again, the shock doctrine and now they've invaded Gaza and slaughtered thousands of innocent people. Most Israelis are against this but it's just like in America's there's only democracy in name, not in reality. This is what I mean when I say we need justice, we need targetted punishment of the architects at the top for the specific crimes of terrorism, yet we have George W. Bush running around doing paint by numbers getting senile by the lake, unarrested, untried, unconvicted, who collectively punished and terrorized the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. The legacy of George W. Bush lives on in how Russia felt emboldened to invade Ukraine, and this Ukraine invasion is as much the fault of George W. Bush as it is Vladmir Putin, Putin had been warning Bush publicly since 2005 not to fuck with long range missiles or the missile shield advancement; Bush did it anyway and now there's a huge war between nuclear armed countries. The legacy of George W. Bush lives on in how Clinton signed peace treaties in the middle east and Bush burned them to ash, and left the legacy in the middle east we see today. Peace in the middle east starts with arresting George W. Bush and putting him on trial in the Hague, until that happens we clearly have no power to enforce justice whatsoever, and there will be a thousand Netanyahus coming around the corner to capitalize on Bush's dogcrap legacy. Bush must hang like a horse thief, he's an election thief, Gore v Bush was theft, if justice is to live and breathe. Bush has millions and millions of murders on his hands, find me bloodier hands on the face of this earth. Bush must be arrested and put on trial for these crimes and more.

Some political figures who I know speak for me include AOC, everyone in the Squad, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Bernie Sanders to name a few, and I fully endorse Harris for president, trump is a criminal turd and should be put behind bars for life at least for tax evasion, I think it's pretty obvious trump the man was up for auction (bankruptcy court) in the early 90s and the KGB bought his ass, and still owns him and pays him to this day, I think it would be a lie to say Trump isn't a KGB agent, he perfectly parrots their talking points to the extent that if he isn't a KGB agent they've made him an honorary one by now anyway

edit: I also feel like healthcare and politics intersects a lot, cancer is still the number 2 / number 1 killer of us, and the FDA refuses to test the cure that I and many others have found to work. "RSO" is what I mean, the FDA won't test it, many in mainstream medicine refuse to test this orally injestable capsulized cancer cure, because likely they're in the business of treating cancer, not curing it, and cures are bad for their business. They care more about money than lives, those at the top, pink ribbon town included, those at the top of susan g komen are just as guilty of flooding the awareness channels when we should be getting the word out that a cure is here and we need to save lives. Only the open minded will survive...

anyway tldr I'm always happy to offer what I've learned, on topics intersecting with the international-political-economy, and I'm always curious to learn more

[tamamita]

palestinians started it all, lol

“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.” — David Ben Gurion (la), founding father of the settler colonial state of Israel.

[matan4il]

Out of curiosity, what does the UN actually gain from keeping the terrorists in power? Obviously antisemitism but way do they materially gain?

Anon, don't be so quick to dismiss antisemitism. It's a really powerful motivator, for some people even more than money, because it is often to connected to a person's views of themselves, their society and the world. As such, antisemitism can be linked to issues of self-worth or hope for the future. And the place where someone's self-worth depends on demonizing Jews, or their future hopes depends on the notion that their society will be so much better, if only a Jewish collective (whether the Jewish religion, race or state) will be dismantled, they are emotionally invested in ways that can be far more crucial to them than money.

So I personally do think that antisemitism played a big role in how the UN has acted regarding Israel for decades.

For example, the UN sets up a special agency to help Koreans in Dec 1950 (UNKRA). By Jul 1958, less than 8 years later and 5 years after a ceasefire was achieved between the two Koreas, the agency was seen as having served its purpose, and was dismantled. Since then, if there are ever Korean refugees still in need of help, it goes through the general UNHCR (established 1951. It replaced the UN's temporary agency IRO, established Dec 1946, which itself took over from UNRRA, established Nov 1943), the UN refugee agency that takes care of ALL refugees in the world... except the Palestinian ones. Their agency (UNPRP) was established by UN resolution 212 in Nov 1948, and later became UNRWA in Dec 1949.

Now, take a second to consider how there was NEVER any UN agency dedicated specifically to help about 1.5 million Jewish Holocaust survivors at the end of WWII, which is May 1945 (with many of them still being murdered after the end of the war, in places like Poland in Jul 1946 or Libya in the Nov 1945 and Jun 1948 pogroms). No special agency for them, no intervention to protect people who had literally been through and somehow survived the worst genocide in human history, and were still being targeted and killed after it was done, even though the UN had a talent for establishing plenty of refugee agencies just fine during those years. But there was a special agency set up for the Arabs in the Land of Israel, even though they were the aggressors in the 1947-1949 Independence War, and it still operates to this day, unlike UNKRA, which was set up later than UNRWA. Why? What reason is there for treating Holocaust victims worse than the Arabs who declared a war of extermination against Jews in Israel? Or for treating Palestinians better than any other group of refugees in the world, even though other groups often need the help much more?

I can only see one thing in common when it comes to all of these illogical, counterintuitive decisions, and that is antisemitism. Dislike the Jews? Deprive them of getting their own agency, even while others get one. Hate the Jews? Dedicate special resources to the refugees who can be used as a political pawn against the Jewish state, while still counting them as refugees even after being resettled with citizenship elsewhere, unlike every other refugees group.

And never forget, the UN's voting "democracy" (where antisemitic abuse is not penalized in votes) IS inherently vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. There is only one Jewish state at the UN. There is a block of over 20 Arab countries, another of over 50 Muslim ones, and when they're told a lie such as the one invented by Amin al-Husseini in 1929, that the Jews are attacking the al-Aqsa mosque, then it's easy to recruit all of them against Israel without even much effort. Then add countries which have vested interests in keeping the Arab and Muslim countries on their side, or who have issues with the pro-west, pro-democracy countries (and Israel is not only one of them, it is closely allied with the US, which is the leader of that stance) and basically the one Jewish state has close to no chance.

But over the years, in addition to being invested in keeping the issue of the Palestinian refugees going as a tool against Israel, to present the Jewish state as uniquely oppressive, the UN has also become invested in the jobs that the conflict produces for its members. UNRWA alone employees over 30,000 people and is, by the UN's own admission, one of its biggest employers.

On top of that, the UN also has other workers who deal specifically with the conflict (and therefore are employed thanks to it), such as OCHA oPt. OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) is the "humanitarian arm" of the UN and oPt is its branch that takes care specifically of the Palestinians. WHY is there even a need for this, if the Palestinians already have (UNIQUELY!) an entire UN agency dedicate just to them? And then on top of that (yes! A redundancy on top of a redundancy!) they also have a Palestinian branch for the OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights).

Having so many employees dedicated to this specific conflict does make the UN financially invested in keeping it from being resolved. Also, it's probably easier to get donations for the UN when talking about this falsely over-hyped conflict (here's a recent example, a report shows there's no famine in Gaza, the UN has known this and kept it quiet), especially when the hype is fed by so many antisemites happy to spread libels about the Jewish state. Some of the antisemites are likely very rich and happy to donate to any organization targeting Israel (I can even name some very wealthy governments happy to continuously donate to the UN and UNRWA, when they're also known for their antisemism, like financially sponsoring known antisemitic professors at US universities).

I do think the antisemitism is what enabled the creation of the financial aspect to the UN's anti-Israel bias, and interest in preserving the conflict, but now I'll mention one more factor. It's also one that IMO was preceded by the antisemitism and financial interest, but now it adds its own fuel to the fire. Since 2007, when Hamas violently took over Gaza, in order to keep its programs running there, the UN has been collaborating with Hamas. Because that's what happens in an actual dictatorship, which has absolute power over its people, and doesn't allow for any civilian liberties. If you wanna run a UN agency in North Korea, you will HAVE to collaborate with Kim Jong Un's dictatorial regime. And if you want to run a UN agency in Gaza post Jun 2007, you will HAVE to collaborate with Hamas. So that's exactly what the UN has been doing in Gaza. In doing so, it has been collaborating with a genocidal, antisemitic, radical Islamist, terrorist organization. And as has allowed Israel to enter Gaza and gather evidence, we have more and more proof that the UN is complicit in Hamas' crimes. That is NOT something the UN wants the world to realize. So it's trying its best to stop Israel from fighting in Gaza, to prevent the gathering of further evidence, at the same time that the UN is doing its best to screw over Israel's credibility. If the UN can vilify the best witness against it, who will believe the evidence about its complicity anyway?

I hope that helps answer the question!

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[brazenautomaton]

Could you go into more detail on the "feminism made men's shelters not exist" thing? I have no idea how the causal chain there works. (Also just fyi there ARE men's shelters - at least in my country - but you're not capital-W Wrong, it's legit weird there aren't way more.)

I mean because feminists get extremely, extremely upset when anyone talks about male victims of domestic violence and then start screaming and threatening and harassing everyone in range?

the woman who opened the first women's shelter was Erin Pizzey, and it did not take her long to notice that a lot of the women there were just as violent as the men they escaped, and that it was obvious they needed a men's shelter just as much. feminists flipped their shit about this, protested her, lied about her, tried to get her fired and blacklisted, threatened her, and killed her dog. All of the people who did this were feminists and none of them were not feminists; feminists did not oppose the people who did this and no feminists attempted to help her.

Earl Silverman tried to open a men's shelter in Canada after being domestically abused by his wife and seeing the only resources for men were all predicated on men being the abusers. Feminists lost their shit. They protested him, lied about him, harassed him, went out of their way to strip funding from him, and eventually drove him to suicide. All of the people who did this were feminists and none of them were not feminists. Feminists did not oppose the people who did this and no feminist ever attempted to help him.

Feminists demanded that arrest be mandatory when police showed up to domestic abuse calls. Then all of a sudden, a whole bunch of women got arrested, because domestic abuse is not a gendered problem. Feminists could not accept this. They created a thing called the "Duluth model," which became the standard view of how to deal with domestic abuse, that literally states only men are abusive and any behavior from a woman that appears abusive is due to how a man abused her. The organizations who deal with domestic abuse run off a world-model that literally states men cannot be abused and women cannot be abusers. Feminists pushed for "primary aggressor policies," which meant that when the police showed up on a domestic abuse call, they should consider the "primary aggressor" to be the male, and arrest him. Men who call the police to report being abused are far, far, far more likely to be arrested than the women who abuse them. This is the explicit goal of a policy that was made by feminists, all of whom were feminists and none of whom were not feminists, who used the political and social power of feminism to make it happen, who had free access to that power in order to do so, who enjoyed complete support from feminists, and who did not face any opposition from feminists.

Feminism gets a pass because of the deep-rooted sexism it appeals to. Feminism claims to be synonymous with womanhood, and women are so precious that anything that claims to be aligned with them has to be good. And women have so little agency that this thing can't have possibly DONE anything in the world that is bad, it has to be a mistake, or a lie you told because you hate women so much! You can't remember all the ways that feminism is wrong and hurts people, because they're women, and women don't DO things! You forget it the moment it leaves your vision cone because it doesn't fit the biased narrative. And you just keep going "well, but real feminism is for real equality, and feminism is definitionally good!" no matter how many times you see it isn't. No matter how many times it's proven that yes, feminists do hate men, and yes, feminists are wrong, and yes, feminists are cruel, and yes, feminists care more about hurting men than helping women, and yes, if you mention these things to your "real feminist" friends who are for "real equality" they will expel you and harass you... it just can't stick. The narrative is too powerful. No matter how it's proven, we're going to hear "well I know real feminism is for real equality so we should all still be feminists and give power to feminists and support people who use the mantle of feminism without ever looking into what they believe" over and over and over.

[merwgue]

As a 100% Palestinian reader, I cannot help but draw unsettling parallels between A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) and the Israel-Palestine conflict. And before anyone jumps in to say, "It's just fantasy, stop politicizing it," let me point out that fiction, especially high fantasy, has always drawn from real-world politics, whether the author intends it or not. In the case of ACOTAR, Sarah J. Maas has created a world where the power dynamics between Velaris and the Hewn City uncannily reflect the realities of Israel and Palestine—and frankly, it’s disturbing.

Let’s dig into the specifics.

Velaris vs. Hewn City: The Clear Israel-Palestine Parallel

In ACOTAR, Velaris is depicted as a glorious utopia—an elite city hidden from the rest of the world, full of freedom, creativity, and unending peace. It’s where the privileged live in perfect harmony, far removed from the chaos and conflict in the outside world. Now, look at how Israel is often framed: a “beacon of democracy” in the Middle East, a place where "civilization" thrives, while the rest of the region is portrayed as chaotic and violent.

Then there’s Hewn City, the dark, dangerous underbelly that exists under Rhysand’s rule. It’s described as a place full of corruption, violence, and depravity, where the people are so unruly and savage that they must be kept at arm’s length, locked away to protect Velaris and its precious, innocent inhabitants. This mirrors the common portrayal of Palestine in Western media as a place full of violence, where the people are oppressed because, according to the dominant narrative, they bring it on themselves. The inhabitants of Hewn City are viewed as a threat, just as Palestinians are often seen as the aggressors, needing to be kept in check for Israel’s “safety.”

Rhysand’s control over Hewn City reflects the very real power imbalance in Israel’s occupation of Palestine. In the books, the people of Hewn City are confined to their dark, hidden underground realm, much like Palestinians are restricted to Gaza and the West Bank by Israeli checkpoints, walls, and permits. They cannot freely access the beauty and prosperity of Velaris, and the few times they are allowed into the city, they are treated as dangerous outsiders who must be closely monitored. It’s the same system of segregation and restriction that exists in Israel and Palestine today.

"Safety" and the Need for Control: The Dangerous Narrative

One of the main justifications Maas uses for keeping Hewn City locked away is the trauma of Mor, who was abused by her family in the Hewn City. Let me be clear—abuse is horrific, and no one should have to experience what Mor did. But to use her trauma as a reason to vilify an entire city and keep its people under strict control? It’s an incredibly troubling justification, one that mirrors the very rhetoric used by Israel to justify its occupation and restrictions on Palestinians.

Israel often cites the need for “security” and “safety” as a reason for its continued control over Palestinian territories. The narrative is that Palestinians are inherently violent, prone to terror, and therefore must be locked behind walls and checkpoints for Israel’s protection. In ACOTAR, the people of Hewn City are portrayed in a similar way: dangerous, aggressive, and in need of control. Velaris is the “good” city that must be protected at all costs, and Hewn City is the sacrifice made to ensure that peace. Sound familiar?

Mor’s trauma is used as an excuse to justify Rhysand’s iron grip over Hewn City, much like the trauma of Israelis is used to justify the occupation of Palestine. The people of Hewn City are collectively punished for the actions of a few, just as Palestinians are collectively punished for the actions of extremists. The fact that Velaris thrives in peace while Hewn City remains locked away in the dark reflects the very real power imbalance in Israel and Palestine, where one group’s safety and prosperity are maintained at the expense of another’s freedom.

Rhysand: The Benevolent Dictator with a Savior Complex

Let’s talk about Rhysand, the High Lord of the Night Court, who controls both Velaris and the Hewn City. Maas portrays him as this noble, benevolent ruler—someone who’s doing his best to maintain peace and safety for his people. He’s painted as the ultimate savior, the one who can juggle the pressures of keeping Velaris prosperous while keeping the “dangerous” people of Hewn City under control. But beneath this facade of benevolence lies a savior complex that echoes the very rhetoric used by Israel to justify its control over Palestinian land.

Rhysand’s rule over Velaris and the Hewn City isn’t just about keeping peace—it’s about maintaining power. Velaris thrives on the backs of the people of Hewn City, who are kept locked away for the benefit of the elite. Similarly, Israel’s success and security often come at the cost of Palestinian freedom. Rhysand’s grip on Hewn City reflects Israel’s grip on Palestine: it’s about control, power, and making sure that the oppressed stay oppressed while the privileged thrive.

And let’s not forget the fact that Maas tries to make us believe that Rhysand is the “good guy” in all of this. Much like how Western media often portrays Israel as the victim, Maas paints Rhysand as someone who’s just doing what needs to be done to keep his people safe. But the reality is that his rule is built on subjugation and control, just as Israel’s dominance over Palestine is built on occupation and oppression. Rhysand’s actions, like Israel’s, are justified in the name of “security,” but at what cost? The people of Hewn City are treated like criminals, locked away from the light, while Velaris basks in its utopian glow.

The Hewn City’s Lack of Freedom: A Reflection of Palestine’s Struggle

The people of Hewn City have no freedom. They are not allowed to live their lives in peace, to enjoy the beauty of Velaris, or to have the same opportunities as the citizens of the Night Court’s capital. They are kept in the shadows, oppressed, and forced to submit to Rhysand’s rule. This mirrors the very real struggles of Palestinians, who are confined to small, restricted areas, denied basic freedoms, and subjected to daily humiliation at checkpoints.

In ACOTAR, Maas paints Hewn City as a dangerous place that must be kept separate from Velaris for the safety of the people. But what she’s really doing is justifying oppression in the name of security—something that Palestinians have been dealing with for decades. The walls and barriers that exist between Velaris and Hewn City are no different from the walls and checkpoints that divide Israel and Palestine, keeping one group oppressed while the other thrives.

Conclusion: The Troubling Parallels in ACOTAR

As a Palestinian reader, it’s impossible to ignore the troubling parallels between ACOTAR and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whether Maas intended it or not, the dynamics between Velaris and the Hewn City reflect real-world systems of oppression where one group’s freedom is built on the subjugation of another. The people of Hewn City, like Palestinians, are treated as dangerous outsiders, locked away from the utopian world of Velaris in the name of “safety.”

Rhysand’s rule mirrors the real-world power imbalance between Israel and Palestine, where one group’s prosperity is built on the suffering of another. The justification of security and trauma is used to oppress an entire population, while the elite thrive in peace and prosperity. It’s a narrative that’s all too familiar, and seeing it play out in fantasy form is both exhausting and infuriating.

ACOTAR may be fantasy, but its themes and dynamics are very real—and as a Palestinian reader, it’s hard not to see the parallels between the people of Hewn City and my own people. At the end of the day, Maas’ portrayal of Velaris and Hewn City reflects the same troubling power dynamics we see in the real world, where one group’s peace is built on another’s oppression.

Also I have the right to talk about this since it's MY country being invaded and MY people getting killed and MY family Is also there so, don't you dare comment something stupid

[drdemonprince]

i just won an argument with my egotistical habitual gaslighter boss by being autistic and doggedly refusing to drop the subject, offering a hyper detailed carefully crafted email that he was completely unable to argue with or otherwise refute

(considering that my natural instinct for dealing with him for the past 18 months was to fawn and drop the subject im pretty damn proud of myself, confront your inadequacies or perish old man)

i'm glad it went well but plz remember the primary goal is usually to keep earning the money to feed oneself not to win an argument with the person who has the power to get pissy and take that ability away from you...office politics must be played delicately and it's usually best as a disabled person to manipulate things so as to not ever be viewed as the aggressor

[hadesoftheladies]

“that’s just war” is what i keep getting told. women get raped and butchered? that’s just war. children get bombed and buried? that’s just war. when i read stories of the hamas hostages and the frustration and pain of jewish families caught up in the war, what do online politics offer? “that’s just war.” that’s just the price of resistance. when i tell my dad while watching the news on palestine “thousands more children were bombed by israeli forces this week” all he can say is “that’s just war.” if a man pointed a gun at you wouldn’t you want to have a gun, too?

were the allied soldiers better than the nazis? depends on who you ask. they bombed, raped, sabotaged the planes of women in their own army. nazis were terrible. did that make allied soldiers saints? we weep for the mass graves in 20th century concentration camps across the world. then when we grow up we learn that those black and white photos were actually grey all along. the victims had also victimized others. male prisoners could rape as the soldiers did.

“ignore war men will be men” some women say. “they’ll find a way to keep killing each other. let them have at it.” is it feminist action to bask in our own self righteousness as women? do people sleeping while sirens go off in their city have any choice other than to wake up and run? can they ignore such a thing?

where should i stand? will the white women online help me if their president ordered a siege of my country? my country’s history is riddled with blood. the resistance gave me freedom. I can walk on my own land. go to school and own a car. I can dress myself without dressing a white mistress first. I can farm for myself and not for some smelly englishman. that’s good, isn’t it? but they also killed scores of setttlers, the resistance. they raped white women and girls. slaughtered white children and dumped their bodies in pits for their husbands and fathers to find. wasn’t that bad? but wasn’t it the black kikuyu children and women that bent their backs over white fields? wasn’t it the white people who put them in camps and exacted harsh curfews. didn’t white men shove broken glass up black detainee’s private parts? which white women came to free them? didn’t they laugh at the same racist jokes as their husbands did? didn’t she smile and pour tea for him as he told her about work? didn’t she love having such a wide sprawling estate? wasn’t that bad?

“so you stand with the evil black men that raped white women just because they could? you think their rape served a purpose?” no, but— “so you stand with white women who were okay ordering your people to be shipped, slaughtered and starved?” no! these questions are like asking me which bullet i’d prefer to be shot with. the answer is i don’t want to die. i am not comforted by the rape of women or by the enslavement of my people. why would either be something i want?

what this all is, ultimately, is a question the entitled never like to hear. in regard to the oppression of women by men, blacks by whites, the indigenous by the colonial, the one question at the heart of it all is this:

who has the right to self defense?

why is the woman that killed her rapist jailed? why is the slave that killed his master himself killed? by what means and to what extent do we rule an act of violence as self-defense or something monstrous?

the answer is even more uncomfortable: to the extent that we view the aggressor as human.

it’s not an answer that really solves anything. it doesn’t change what happens in war. it won’t stop any war.

but in these scenarios, my way has been to accept that there is rarely such a thing as moral purity in a human, and for this reason, our default attitude may need to be humility, the acceptance that we can be hypocrites. that we aren’t exempt from tragedy or more special than another life. that we’re as alike as we are different, even if we may not be equally guilty of certain acts. because if we are open to the humanity and dignity of the life of others (and I do extend this to animals as well, because they have the capacity to suffer and the will to live), we are bound to be less prone to repeat the cruelties we decry.

and maybe that’s more of a solution than a neat, easy answer or a casual dismissal like “that’s just war” might be.

[mariacallous]

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

[unsolicited-opinions]

I'd like to attempt to describe why I think we keep hearing such bizarre and biased commentary from US liberals/progressives on Israel. I'm going to go over some things that #jumblr already knows, but I want this to be accessible to anybody who is interested. I'm not trying to excuse anybody's views or comments - I'm tying to remind myself that while there's no shortage of antisemitism in these voices, there's more going on than just antisemitism.

First, I think it is important to note that these comments are coming mostly from younger folks. These folks want to be on the Right Side of History, and I love that impulse.

They want to believe that they would have protested the war in Vietnam. They want to believe that they would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr- and I love that impulse.

They have been sold a story that this is a similar instance where one side is unambiguously an aggressor and the other side is unambiguously a victim.

They believe this, I think, for a few reasons I can understand. One of these is Hamas' use of civilian shields.

Sinwar (Hamas leader), his predecessors, his allies, and his eventual successors all know they're fighting two wars simultaneously. One is the physical war against Israelis, the other is the PR war fought for the hearts and minds of decent human beings worldwide. By placing all military assets behind/underneath civilians, he ensures that every Hamas material/military loss is a PR victory. This continues to be incredibly effective, and it's not a mystery why. Even those of us who understand this tactic, even those of us who have seen it repeatedly are heartbroken to see the harm done to non-combatants. When people who don't understand this tactic see the same images and videos, they are understandably horrified and want it to stop. It looks to them like soldiers indiscriminately destroying civilian lives.

These optics are made starker by Israel's unquestionable material and military advantage. Young Americans see Israel as powerful, Hamas as weak, and want to root for the underdog, assuming that Underdog = Good Guy.

Racism in Netanyahu's government ensures that Israel loses this PR war

Israel, Israeli international media, and Israel's international allies are not effective at explaining this tactic and are not effective in expressing their shared horror. The efforts to make this case convincingly are rendered nearly impossible by the fact that Netanyahu's coalition government includes theocrats and racists with track records of dehumanizing Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. That's the government giving orders to the IDF. Can we really be surprised when folks in the west see a connection between anti-arab rhetoric and violence which harms Arabs?

Israel's failure to remove these people from government is a tragedy. There seems to be no shortage of Israelis who detest Netanyahu and who protested his attempts to subvert the judicary to erode minority rights and to make it harder to fight his corruption- but there are still too many Israelis voting for parties in his coalition. I say this relating to the pain that the Israelis I know feel about this. I'm similarly humiliated before the world as an American in that nearly half the US electorate is okay with Trump, a racist, a rapist, and a demented demagogue who takes great pleasure in smashing democratic norms and coarsening/corrupting political life. The Israelis I know feel similarly about Netanyahu.

If I feel like it, I may continue this later. I would like to talk about semantic drift and the misapprehensions around terms like colonialism, zionism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Again, my goal here is to remind myself that despite the abundant antisemitism in the comments of many young Americans saying profoundly stupid things about Israel, they are motivated by more than just antisemitism, and that antisemitism is not their primary drive.

Understanding the roots of their views may help identify ways to help remedy and mitigate rising antisemitism.

[writers-potion]

⚔️🗡️Fantasy Battle Scenes 101

Step 1: Understand The Purpose of War

The reason for war doesn't have to be political: morality, love, land, bad blood, resources, religion, theft, etc...

No one likes mindless violence for the sake of it. War has extremely high stakes for the characters (death), so they must have a damn good reason to risk it.

Think about people other than the main general/leader. Why would the men/common people support the war effort? Is the cause big enough for them, too?

Step 2: Establish the Norms and Rules

Know Your World

Research different kinds of tools and weapons used for your fantasy army. It can be tye typical sword/dagger/bow or more imaginative, like magical items.

If you're writing historical fiction, make sure that what you write lives up to the time period.

Rules of Engagement

Establish the level of military technology and any magical aspects. DO NOT have your characters spring up random abilities in the middle of battle that will make the worldbuilding confusing.

What counts as war crime?

Are there laws of war? Perhaps your army has different levels of engagement for varying levels of danger.

Open battle vs. Siege vs. Assualt:

Open battles are A LOT more costly. Often, the side that wins is the side that can afford to bare the losses of thousands of dead.injured men and resources spent on charging against the other continuosly.

The siege is more common. The outnumbered side will fall back to a stronghold, with the stronger army rolling up and preparing to besige the stronghold.

Assualts only happen with haste is needed (maybe winter is coming) or an exploitable weakness is found.

Step 3: Set the Scene

Think about terrain and weather. How does it impact the fighting?

Describe the two forces - size? Who is the aggressor? Establish teh scope and mood of the two armies.

Establish the noticeable landmarks that will allow your readers to place themselves better in the battlefield

Step 4: Build The Tension Beforehand

Show how your characters feel BEFORE the battle.

Nervous, fearful and wanting to run or boisterous, excultant, hungry for blood? Maybe they are fighting because they're desperate.

Instead of rushing into the maiming and beheading, spend some time describing the sound/smell/sight of the battle and how this affects your characters.

Make the readers feel the terror and oppressive weight of the struggle to come, gripping them with the ovewhelming horror, danger and anticipating.

Step 5: Clarity Among Chaos

Don't stay away from your main character for too long or too often. Readers must be able to understand the scope and direction of the battle.

Choose a few main locations/characters involved and stick to them. Brush too broadly (aka trying to describe EVERYTHING) will make the reader confused and disconnected from the plot.

Get CLOSE TO THE CHARACTERS. Show the cuts and bruises, hear cries of pain, the clanging of swords, roaring of the cannon and the smell of sweat and blood.

Show the emotions of individual characters. Show how they tire, suffer wounds, push themselves onto their feet and feel fear, excitement, disgust, pride and shame.

Provide concrete, tangible details (not a general bird's eye view of everything) to ground your reader.

Write Cohesively.

While your characters can feel confused and overwhelmed, you as a writer shouldn't be.

Set markers for yourself. Make a list of major battle points that needs to happen and keep this consistent between POVs, helping your readers follow important events as they unfold.

Step 6: A Meaningful End

As your battle progresses, keep raising the stakes.

Increase the personal danger to your hero as his side runs ourt of resources or his best commrads fall. Make them struggle more and more until that moment of breakthrough that leads to victory. Make that victory loook earned.

Provide the ending image - the consequences of battle. Show the destruction and carnage, the relief and sweet tang of victory on men's faces. Create a lasting image for the reader to carry forward.

+ Other Tips / Common Sense

Horsemen keep moving. They would rarely stand still and engage in melee unless cornered. A stationary horse and rider would be eary targets for missile infantry.

Fighting is either engaged by whole units or individually. Warrior oriented societies will value single fighting prowess and therefore battles devolve into a tangled brawl. Usually the more "civilized" societies will have a stricter unit cohesion where men group together.

Armor is heavy. Even weathered soldiers will be affected by the heat and rain, experiencing fatigue quickly in their heavy, not-well-ventilated armor.

Battle hardly last all day, let alone days. Think in minutes or 1-2 hours max. Up until gunpowder arose, medieval battles were short. Unless your battle is taking place over a mass expanse of land (and thus required quite a bit of travel along with actual clashes) or there are multiple armies, keep it short.

Momentum and morale are important factors of victory. When led by charismatic generals and men belive in their victory, the army has a higher chance of winning than ever.

Use multiple POV: If you need readers in multiple parts of the battlefield at once (especially if fighting takes place in many, disconnected locations), switch betwen characters'perspectives to create a complete picture.

Use sensory details

Use short sentences and paragraphs.

Use dialogue sparingly: try to focus on the action and description, since it will be hard to hear in the height of fighting.

Some recommendations for good battle scene examples:

- The Lord of the Rings by J R.R. Tolkien - Battle of Helm's Deep, Battle of the Pelennor Fields - A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin - Battle of the Blackwater, Battle of Winterfell - The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan - Battle fo Falme, the Last Battle - The Stormlight Archive by Brandon Sanderson - Battle of the Tower, Battle of Thaylen Field

Questions for Further Thought

Is there an ulternative to this war scene? If yes, why is a war scene better than other forms of conflict?

How should war change the characters?

Does war have a lasting effect on the rest of the story? How much would the plot be impacted by the outcome?

Is this battle necessary? Or is it just a "shock factor" so that you can write some gore?

If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸

References:

https://mythicscribes.com/writing-techniques/writing-warfare/

https://www.osswriting.com/post/writing-epic-battle-scenes

https://www.stevensmithauthor.com/blog/to-war-how-to-write-a-fantasy-battle-scene

[lawsofchaos1]

Malec Promptlet: Pole Dancing Alec

Though most Shadowhunters patrol only in teams until sixteen, Alec is still months from his thirteenth birthday when Maryse sends him out alone for the first time. It's a small area with no reports of demonic activity, but the order still raises eyebrows among even the seasoned hunters who recognize the political mess Maryse is clearly planning to dump in her son's lap as soon as he comes to his minor majority. Alec knows what Maryse is doing too, but he still takes the patrol as serious as though there had been reports of demonic activity. Which is why he's stalking across the rooftop of a mundane strip club when he sees a group of men harassing three women in the alley. Alec hesitates because not interfering in mundane affairs has been drilled into his head by Maryse almost since he could speak, but the moment one of the men moves to actually hit one of the women, Alec jumps down in fury. It's barely a minute's work to take down the aggressors. The three dancers don't let Alec run off and, over a cup of thank-you-coffee, Alec somehow ends up making the first friends he's ever had outside of his younger siblings. Over the next few years, Alec ends up being introduced to a whole host of other dancers both through his new friends and because Alec sometimes sees them being harassed on the streets and he obviously Does Not Allow That in his territory. 

(They obviously adopt the random scary-child who runs off anyone even hinting at being impolite to them.)

Alec gets to know them and finds out how insanely in shape they all are and asks them to teach him some of their routines (and he ends up trading them lessons in self-defense and stabbing rude assholes in turn). His siblings never find out that Alec becomes amazingly proficient in pole dancing and when Jace complains about his own routines not producing the same results as Alec's, Alec just smirks.

Alec has never really ... shown off, per se, his skills in front of anyone before because he really appreciates the artistry and the strength it requires, but also views it as kind of ... private - just something he shares with his mundane dancer friends.

Then he meets Magnus.

Yeah, let's just say that when Alec asks Magnus to conjure a pole in the living room of the loft one night, Magnus is thrilled, but he’s honestly expecting just a (very) fun evening of messing around and being silly with each other.

Right up until Alec casually lifts himself up with one hand on the pole until he's nearly perpendicular with the floor and Magnus sits himself down, abruptly, as Alec starts to dance for him.

[hero-israel]

Are these fake Ben Gurion quotes? I don't know anything about this stuff

"politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves…… The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside."

“If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but that was two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their faullt? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”

One might be fake. Neither of them is important.

The first was Ben-Gurion summarizing the Arab perspective of Zionists and Israel, and doing a good job of it. If the head of Planned Parenthood said "From the viewpoint of clinic bombers we are mass murdering babies," that is not a confession of mass murdering babies.

The second is sourced to Nahum Goldmann, a lifelong rival of Ben-Gurion who only published it 30 years after it was allegedly said and 5 years after Ben-Gurion died. Contemporary scholars have pointed out that it more matches what Goldmann himself said. Ben-Gurion would have absolutely known of the link between Nazis/Hitler and Arab leaders like Haj Amin Al-Husseini and Fawzi al-Qaukji. And of course, many Arab leaders have already accepted Israel regardless.

The most important quote in this conflict is from Azzam Pasha, all else is commentary.

(note: as usual, Wikipedia links are to pre-Oct.7 edits)

[tamamita]

" refutes the myth of ‘Aravim Hetikifu Ottanu’ – ‘the Arabs assaulted us’ narrative"" tuba noises https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by-muslims-against-jews-since-the-7th-century-0ff1a8eb0ad0

Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we (The Zionists) are the aggressors and they (the Arabs) defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.” — David Ben Gurion.

Cope Zionist scum

[mrooops]

ok guys, no jokes, but what the fuck?

i want to touch a really really serious topic in pink floyd fandom rn and i want you all to listen to me at least once. i would really appreciate it if you spread this information. thank you

if you're the type of person who writes "well, waters is still better than gilmour", then just please unfollow me forever the fuck out

but it's ok i'll explain you why

well, a little backstory

while many believe that roger's political views are now quite correct, i want to remind you that he supports an aggressive invasion of the country where i live (Ukraine). if you are still interested, then yes, the war in Ukraine is still going on even if in the west now no one wants to pay attention to it anymore. for your understanding, on average we have 100 air raids in the city per month, at least once a week i definitely hear explosions and, yeah, i don’t live in a hot spot. and this guy just goes out and does an interview where he openly says that he supports the aggressor country. yeah, that's right, he was also allowed to speak at the UN council, where he said that the conflict was provoked. very smart. the same guy who said a couple of days before the war that those who believe that it will start are “out of their minds”

ok ok, but how does this relate to gilmour?

very simple. his daughter-in-law is Ukrainian. and her mother lived in a city that was one of the first to be attacked by the russian army. if you have never seen footage from Kharkiv in the first days of the war, then believe me, it was a terrible sight, people tried to help each other as best they could

and it is still going on

i don’t think it's cool to talk shit about one person who supports israel but then turn a blind eye to how another openly says that Taiwan should belong to china and Ukraine to russia and say "well, he is based", "he's better than gilmour"

if you have any other information about gilmour, you can share it with me.

i know you all really like young waters and i see a lot of positive things in him too, but i really can't stand the fact that now people only really look at how he feels about Palestine, even if i see a lot of articles and posts from adults, who say his support for Palestine is also twofold. don't wanna say anything bad about that because i haven’t studied this topic, but i think you can google them yourself, they always just come up

don't get me wrong, i'm not stopping you from sending pictures of him or drawing him, i'm just asking you not to write that he's better than someone else at something when he's not

oh yeah and one last thing...

if you are a supporter of communism, then get the fuck out too, because communism led to the fact that in the 60s in my country they killed almost all the poets who did not write something in support of the state. in history they were persecuted and killed because they wrote in their native language and mentioned Ukrainian culture. communism led to three great famines in our country, when people had so little to eat that they resorted to cannibalism. it's very scary, but it's true. this is what the government has led to when it wants to bring communism to life

communism is not a cool thing. it's cool in words, not on practice, read history

thank you for your attention

[brickdykehouse]

A few quotes from Israeli leaders that may interest some people:

“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”

— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

12 July 1937, Ben-Gurion entered in his diary: “The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple

– a Galilee free from Arab population."

These quotes clearly illustrate Ben Gurion's intentions to expulse palestinians from their land, and considered any resistant to their invasion as "terrorism". It also displays that the basis for the foundation of Israel was completely religious, and it doesn't take a genius to know that religion is no basis or justification for the Nakba. Additionally, kinda racist.

“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”

Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).

Ben Gurion here admits that he would sacrifice half of all jewish children in Nazi Germany in favour of founding an Israeli state. The founder and first president of Israel stated verbatim that he would favour the state of Israel over the lives of the Jewish children who would fall victim to the holocaust. That is, fundamentally, a fucked up position to hold, and is far from what any decent person would choose to do, Jewish or not

But what about modern Israel?

I encourage you to look through this database. The things contained would shock any reasonable person.

Genociders aren't reasonable. There is not religious justification of genocide. I have the utmost respect for the Jewish faith and I fully believe in the rights of the Jewish people, but I will not stand for Religion being used to justify a genocide, by anyone, for any reason.

Zionists portray the only solution to the plight of the jewish people being the formation of Israel and, in the process, the expulsion and extermination of Palestinians and I say to that, Bull-fucking-shit.

There have been many groups of people across history that have been opressed and undervalued. Not once has there ever been a push for a Transgender nation that would expel others from their rightful land. The Zionist solution ignores the idea of any kind of civil rights movement that would establish the Jewish people as a protected group like others. Genocide is not a civil rights movement.

[writinglittlemagics]

Another Will Wood analysis while I edit a load of personal pieces and try to find an internship! I have a few ideas for this account >:]

The Impact of Masculinism on “Willard!”

“Willard!” is a unique song on an already wildly diverse album. This song, the only one that draws inspiration from a separate piece of media, tells the story of Willard Stiles, a lonely man who befriends rats to cope. The song offers an introspective view of Stiles’s view of humanity and how distanced he views himself. Stiles is affected by the masculinist people around him, which causes him to regard his sensitivities as something that makes him “other.” In the movie, Willard’s boss, Martin, constantly cites his masculinity as his reason for tormenting Stiles. In the song, Willard uses traditional male expectations self-deprecatingly.

Stiles opens the song like an admission of guilt, “You know I couldn’t hurt a fly, my friend / I’m not the type to step on ants” (Line 1). Being insecure about being non-violent is a common trait among men who are in highly masculine environments. Typical gender norms insist that men are to be the aggressors or unafraid of bloodshed. This machismo bloodlust is the foundation of masculinist ideals. A “good” man should strive for dominance over everything: the workplace, the home, and public spaces. Willard is not a man who strives for anything. He knows he can not fit in with the aggressive men at his office, stating, “I've failed to fit in into those nests that scrape the sky / Is there room for me in your cage?” (Line 6) He is also embarrassed about his emotional displays, namely, “I've nearly cried for moths that die at porchlight lamps,” and “Just seem haunted by my stupid urge to protect” (Lines 3 and 22). His sympathetic nature is a target for most of the people in Stiles’s life: his mother, who insists he kills his rats; his coworkers, who mock him; and his boss, who disparages him.

Like most men who struggle to fit into the masculine mold, Stiles feels an undue amount of shame. Feminism is for Everybody explains this reaction. It states, “These men identified themselves as victims of sexism, working to liberate men. They identified rigid sex roles as the primary source of their victimization…” (Hooks). As the song continues, Stiles starts to reject his role as a masculine man before extracting himself from humanity altogether. He ostracizes himself, hiding in closets with his rats and becoming a recluse. He states, “They'll call me crazy, but their words all seem made up to me / Maybe they just need more friendship like yours” (Line 24) and then regresses further into, “You might seem behind bars, but friend, this cage is inside out” (Line 35). The song concludes with a nod to the source material, quoting the climactic scene in which Willard uses his rats to murder Martin. This final scene solidifies the impact masculinity has had on Willard. He devolves from a man too timid to step on an ant to a man capable of premeditated murder. Willard is unfulfilled by his revenge and driven to madness, as Hooks predicts, claiming, “Many men are anguished because they do not engage the liberating critiques that could enable them to face that these promises were rooted in injustice and domination and even when fulfilled have never led men to glory” (Hooks).

(537 words)

Works Cited

hooks, bell. “FEMINIST MASCULINITY.” Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics, South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000, pp. 67–71.

“Will Wood – Willard!” Genius, 29 July 2022, genius.com/Will-wood-willard-lyrics.

Willard. Directed by Daniel Mann, Performances by Bruce Davison, Elsa Lanchester, and Ernest Borgnine, Bing Crosby Productions, 1971

Wood, Will. “Willard!” “In Case I Make It”, Will Wood, 2022, track 15. Spotify, https://open.spotify.com/track/1eZQFmVxyAeE3SHppgMxce?si=517f42b8c2e04c80