#this mutilation is state sanctioned

[parttimetomfooler]

So tired of bitches with zero credentials trying to tell me if I'm trans or not. Like, my gender identity has been carefully observed and confirmed by multiple people with PHDs, and I'm not sure you passed middle school. Fuck off.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Jan 29, 2025

A society that harms its children cannot be said to be civilised. For all that we in the west pride ourselves on our liberal consensus, we have nonetheless enabled the rise of an ideology that has been responsible for the sterilisation and mutilation of children on the basis of a pseudoscientific and cultish faith in ‘gender identity’. Young people who desperately required therapeutic support were instead fast-tracked into medicalisation. Countless lives have been ruined, and all because the so-called ‘adults in the room’ allowed themselves to be cowed by the demands of the high priests of a dangerous new religion.

Donald Trump has now signed an executive order – ‘Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation’ – which seeks to halt this barbaric state-sanctioned practice. It bans federal agencies from promoting ‘gender-affirming healthcare’ for minors. This is long overdue, and it should be celebrated irrespective of one’s political affiliation. After years of word games and euphemism, the phrasing of this executive order is refreshingly frank.

‘Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions. This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end. Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization. Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.’

In a section entitled ‘Ending Reliance on Junk Science’ – again, the candour is wonderful to read – the government specifically blames the influence of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). It orders agencies to ‘rescind or amend all policies that rely on WPATH guidance, including WPATH’s “Standards of Care Version 8”’.

For those who don’t know – and this will be many who rely solely on the mainstream media – WPATH is a US-based activist body that has been regarded as the leading global authority on ‘gender medicine’, influencing policy decisions in various countries, including here in the UK via the NHS. Files leaked from WPATH in March 2024 revealed a shocking flouting of basic ethical standards. Internal memos and video recordings of leading WPATH members showed that they were fully aware that many patients were unable to give informed consent to these life-altering procedures, either because they were too young or suffering from psychological disorders.

For instance, when one nurse contacted WPATH to discuss her ethical qualms about allowing a schizophrenic patient to undergo treatment, one of the authors of WPATH’s Standards of Care replied: ‘I’m missing why you are perplexed. The mere presence of psychiatric illness should not block a person’s ability to start hormones if they have persistent gender dysphoria, capacity to consent, and the benefits of starting hormones outweigh the risks. So why the internal struggle as to the “right thing to do?”’ One therapist in California mentioned that he was able to secure treatment for patients who were homeless, suffering from PTSD or depression, and that in one case this had led to an orchiectomy (removal of the testicles). It seemed almost boastful.

The leaked details about children were even more disturbing. Young people who could not possibly comprehend the implications of an existence without fertility or even basic sexual function were allowed to be put on a pathway to lifelong treatment. One leading WPATH ‘expert’ acknowledged in one message:

‘It’s out of their developmental range to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them… They’ll say they understand, but then they’ll say something else that makes you think, oh, they didn’t really understand that they are going to have facial hair, right?’

And then there was the endocrinologist who admitted that ‘we’re often explaining these sorts of things to people who haven’t even had biology in high school yet’.

The leaking of these internal memos and recordings should have been the end of the ‘gender-affirming’ mania. Thanks to the work of journalists Michael Shellenberger and Mia Hughes, with support from Genspect and other campaigners, the ‘WPATH Files’ were widely disseminated. A comprehensive overview was written by Mia Hughes for the Environmental Progress think-tank. The title said it all – The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific Surgical and Hormonal Experiments on Children, Adolescents, and Vulnerable Adults.

Yet the scandal went largely unreported in the mainstream media. The BBC has, to date, not once mentioned the WPATH Files or their significance in exposing the greatest medical scandal of the century. I was able to produce a special edition of Free Speech Nation on the subject in March 2024, which can be watched in full here.

I had repeatedly contacted the BBC press office to ask why there had been no coverage, an extraordinary omission for the state broadcaster. Even after the release of the Cass Review and its explicit criticism of the influence of WPATH on the NHS, the BBC refused to respond to my enquiries. Finally, in April 2024, a reply was sent, which read: ‘News items are chosen by the news editors of the day based on a number of factors.’ While this did not even begin to answer the question, it did prove that the press office would rather take an evasive approach than face a challenge about the organisation’s ideological bias.

There has never been any justification for medicalising children who are experiencing psychological difficulties around the issue of gender. As Helen Joyce has pointed out in her book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, research shows around 80 per cent of children eventually become reconciled with their sex, either before or in the early stages of puberty, if they ‘are permitted to express themselves how they wish but not encouraged to believe that they are members of the opposite sex’. In other words, doctors were blocking the cure.

In almost all cases, puberty blockers lead to the prescription of cross-sex hormones, which are sometimes followed by surgical intervention. As psychiatrist Dr Az Hakeem has pointed out, puberty blockers amount to a form of chemical castration. ‘We watch a film about Alan Turing and feel sorry for him and say how can we possibly have done this,’ he says, ‘but we’re doing the same thing to our children’. Following the recommendations of the Cass Review, the UK government has now banned puberty blockers entirely. But the likes of Susie Green – the former head of trans youth charity Mermaids, who took her son to Thailand on his sixteenth birthday to have him castrated – are still seeking loopholes to inflict similar damage on other children.

Such people will not be stopped until the law steps in, which is precisely why the recent measures by Wes Streeting for the Labour government in the UK, and now the executive order by Donald Trump, are so seismic. We should never forget that the WPATH ‘Standards of Care’ include an entire chapter on ‘eunuchs’, and urge medical practitioners to remove the testes of patients if they feel that they have an innate ‘eunuch identity’. That such insanely medieval guidelines were, for a while at least, promoted by the NHS, tells us all we need to know about how far the medical establishment had descended. They may as well have been prescribing bloodletting and exorcisms.

Trump will doubtless be accused of ‘fascism’ and ‘trans genocide’ for signing this executive order. But as the woke orthodoxy continues to evaporate, such histrionic language is already losing its power. This is a decisive blow against the state-approved abuse of children. Gender identity ideology still prevails in many schools and public institutions, so complacency would be a mistake. We are not quite out of the woods yet, but we are certainly beginning to see glimmers of daylight.

--

See:

--

I asked Grok how this Executive Order goes about achieving its aims.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/ZcD5TvrcvCRwoK5IEjgILoDX5

The executive order titled "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation" bans what it defines as "chemical and surgical mutilation" through several key measures:

1. Policy Declaration: The order declares it the policy of the United States not to fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the "transition" of a child from one sex to another. It commits to rigorously enforcing laws that prohibit or limit these procedures, which it deems "destructive and life-altering."

2. Defunding Practices:

• Federal Grants: It mandates that heads of executive departments or agencies providing research or education grants to medical institutions must ensure that these institutions cease practices defined as "chemical and surgical mutilation" of children under 19. This includes withholding federal funding from institutions that provide these treatments.

3. Regulatory Actions:

• HHS Review: The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is tasked with reviewing literature and best practices for promoting the health of children with gender dysphoria or related conditions within 90 days, aiming to increase data quality on these issues.

• Guidance Withdrawal: HHS is directed to withdraw previous guidance documents related to gender-affirming care and issue new guidance protecting whistleblowers who ensure compliance with this order.

4. Legal Actions:

• DOJ Involvement: The Department of Justice is directed to prioritize investigations and prosecutions related to these practices, including under laws against female genital mutilation. It also encourages the DOJ to work with Congress to draft legislation allowing children and their parents to sue medical professionals for damages from these procedures.

5. Healthcare Coverage:

• Insurance Exclusion: The order effectively affects federal health insurance programs like TRICARE, Medicaid, and others by excluding coverage for these procedures for individuals under 19.

• Parental Rights: It aims to protect parents who support the "healthy development" of their children by ordering investigations into practices by states that facilitate stripping custody from parents over disagreements on these medical interventions.

This executive order uses a combination of funding restrictions, regulatory changes, and legal enforcement to ban what it terms "chemical and surgical mutilation," primarily targeting transgender medical care for minors.

==

This isn't bulletproof. As Grok's summary explains, it doesn't ban it across the board, it removes all federal involvement in the mutilation of children. Private insurance, private funding can get around this, but the federal government will no longer facilitate this medical scandal.

Just watch the people who insist it isn't happening get upset that the thing that isn't happening won't be allowed to happen.

[melodytaylorauthor]

How to Help People

I had a job interview a while ago for office assistant at a chiropractor’s office. I gushed during the interview about how much I enjoyed helping people, how my previous jobs had involved helping others and how my current job didn’t include that aspect and how much it meant to me to be part of that again. I thought the interview was going along well until one of the doctors said, “You seem very enthusiastic about helping others. What are your ultimate plans?”

Instant deflate.

“I want to be a novelist.”

Oh, how does that help anyone? What good is being a novelist to anyone? I have never felt so ashamed about my passion before, and I instantly felt that I had betrayed myself by feeling that way. I know I didn’t do well the rest of the interview — I felt myself shrink down into a ball of misery as I tried to articulate why writing fiction is helpful.

I didn’t get the job.

But since then, I have thought long and hard about my passion for writing fiction and my passion for helping others and how those two things intersect. If anyone asked me today how I plan to help people, I could proudly answer that I intend to help by writing fiction.

When I was a kid, I was that most catastrophic of combinations: a smart girl. I was bullied, ignored, and both bookish and athletic. My mom raised us on county assistance, so we were poor, but we came from a middle-class background, which made us smarter and cleaner than the other kids I knew on assistance. (Sorry, truth; in my neighborhood anyway — the smart kids were all from middle-class families, the poor kids were dirty and stupid. Except for me and my sisters. I now know that hungry kids who are worried about life in general don't do great in school -- as a kid, I thought they were just stupid.) I was desperate for friends, but didn’t like just about any of the kids I went to school with, which made me needy and lonely and clingy but also sort of snobby. Not a good combination.

Books were my refuge. Books taught me that the world was bigger than my neighborhood, that there were bigger things out there, that I had a chance to find those things, that there were people out there like me, that there were places for me. I can’t even begin to tell you how much that helped me. I know now (having since grown up and met others like myself) that this isn’t uncommon among book-lovers.

Also, there is some pretty amazing research out there now that talks about two things:

One, how the invention of the novel created an ability in people to empathize with each other, to get inside someone else’s head and see how they view the world. There is a distinct correlation between the invention of the novel and the increase in literacy and the decrease in torture, murder, rape, criminalization of petty crimes and harsh penalties instituted by governments (like castration, mutilation, being burned alive, or hung, which was a long, slow death by asphixiation, not a quick drop-n-snap like it’s depicted in the movies. If a hanging victim died too quickly, the crowd of onlookers considered themselves cheated.).

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but this is interesting to me.

Two, reading novels makes people more empathetic, increases their vocabulary and their ability to comprehend complex ideas, and increases overall cognition.

Reading non-fiction doesn’t do either of those things, either in present-day minds nor in historical minds. The invention of the printing press and the increase of literacy doesn’t cause a blip on the historical charts of violence in society. When fiction novels start being written is when we start to see a steep decrease in state-sanctioned cruelty.

I don’t think I have ever been more proud of my calling. Not only can a novelist increase a modern-day person’s well-being, historically, we have increased the well-being of everyone in society. If you go to jail, they won’t torture you for a confession to your crime, modern police brutality aside. Thank a novelist. Look up Medieval torture devices — I dare you. You are not in danger of being subjected to one of those devices for the crimes of blasphemy, wearing the wrong sort of fabric on Sunday, saying unpleasant things about the king, or just being a war captive from the losing side of a battle. Thank a novelist. Read a good book lately? You are measurably smarter than you were before you read it. Thank a novelist.

My ultimate goal is to help people. I’m a novelist.

[naxalbari1967]

I promised you a list so here it is comrades

The Irish Famine, Indian Famines, Indigenous Genocide, Slavery, Indonesian Genocide (backed by the USA), Pinochet Dictatorship + Pinochet Concentration Camps, Argentina Dictatorship, Brazilian Dictatorship, The Pakistan Incident (Bangladesh Genocide), The Gilded Age, The Great Depression, Operation Condor, The Banana Wars, Batista Dictatorship, Guantanamo Bay, Vietnam War, My Lai Massacre, Sinchon Massacre, Kent State Massacre, Patriot Act, Red Summer, Jim Crow, MK Ultra, 1985 MOVE bombing, the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, Malayan Emergency + “new village” concentration camps, repression of the Mau Mau Rebellion, covert war in Yemen, Stanley Meyer incident, genocide in Turkey, Congolese Genocide (over half the population killed and much of the remaining mutilated), Greek Civil War + Ai Stratis concentration camps, invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, Washita River Massacre, Minamata Disaster, Bhopal Disaster, Kentler Project, Thomas Midgely Jr knowingly poisoning people with leaded gasoline for profits, forced labour in private US prisons incentivizing false imprisonment, the. USA military gunning down civilians in Iraq on purpose (collateral murder) then going on a multi year man hunt for the man who leaked it (Julian Assange), the majority of USA drone strikes taking place in countries the US hasn't even declared war on, 90% of people killed in US drone strikes being innocents, the USA imprisoning the man who revealed the drone strikes civilian casualties, 1/3 of the world's population living under US sanctions, America supporting 70% of current dictatorships, USA and UN targeting civilians in the Korean War killing millions, and the Nazis being funded by capitalists who wanted them to silence the left. Hitler also tried to justify the Holocaust by saying every Jewish person was a communist and vice versa, he called it “Judeo-Bolshevism". The Nazis also had lucrative deals with Ford, GM, IBM and other American companies.

[eretzyisrael]

by Yonah Elias

Ivana Kottasová, congratulations.

You’ve officially graduated from “journalist” to full-blown mouthpiece for Hamas. Your recent CNN piece – a masterclass in moral bankruptcy titled “Can they force Israel to change its ways?” – is not just a hit job. It’s a slanderous, deceitful, and shockingly stupid regurgitation of talking points from the PR department of a genocidal terror group.

Let’s break it down, since facts seem in short supply in your ivory-tower echo chamber.

You open with the dramatic claim that Israel faces “unprecedented pressure from allies.” Wow. Pressure? From who? Canada? France? The UK?

These are nations that couldn’t defend their own borders, let alone understand ours. You cite “threats of sanctions,” trade disruptions, and EU whining—as if the Jewish state should bow to these moral cowards who traded their spines for oil and votes from pro-Hamas mobs in the streets.

But then comes the real kicker:

“Israel’s decision to expand the war… to ‘conquer’ Gaza… paired with plans to forcibly displace Gaza’s entire population…”

Ivana, did you hit your head before writing this?

There is plan to “conquer” Gaza and this is included in a plan to eliminate the monsters who filmed themselves burning Jewish babies alive. You conveniently omit October 7 like it’s some vague scheduling conflict. So here’s your reminder:

On that day, Hamas invaded a sovereign country, massacred over 1,200 civilians, mutilated women, raped teenagers, took hostages—including toddlers—and danced in their blood.

That’s not a footnote, Ivana. That’s the whole damn context.

But you don’t care. You cite Gaza’s “Health Ministry” as your authority on casualty figures. Let me translate:

You’re quoting Hamas.

[toldbytendo]

𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑖𝑑. 🇵🇸🇸🇩🇨🇩🇵🇰🇺🇦💔

14,000 babies. That’s what the UN says. Fourteen thousand. Starving, because they are unable to get the aid they need. And somehow, people still find it in themselves to defend this, to open their fucking mouths to utter the phrase “Israel has a right to defend itself after being attacked” like the occupation of Palestine hasn’t been state-sanctioned violence dressed up as geopolitics for literal decades. Like apartheid isn’t happening in plain sight. Like this isn’t a literal fucking genocide, ethnic cleansing unfolding right before our very eyes.

Meanwhile, in Sudan, entire communities are being ethnically cleansed. In Congo, children are being mutilated and enslaved for the West’s fucking lithium batteries. India and Pakistan are burning under religious fascism and border-obsessed nationalism while the world scrolls on. This isn’t a one-off. This isn’t a glitch in the system. This is the system. Built by colonialism. Fed by white supremacy. Held up by imperialism. Protected by the lie of democracy.

And the UK? Oh, the UK. A fucking third world country wearing a Gucci belt. One of the dirtiest players on the world stage. Selling arms. Funding wars. Licking the boots of empire while they distract the nation with manufactured culture wars. You want to know what fascism looks like? Look no further.

Our Supreme Court just ruled that trans women aren’t “biological women”, whatever that’s supposed to fucking mean — not based on science, not based on fact, but based on hatred. Blatant transphobia paraded around as “protecting women’s rights”, as if a man has ever needed to “pretend to be a woman” to commit violence against women. As if cis men don’t assault and kill women daily, in their own skin, no disguise needed.

Trans women are more likely to be sexually assaulted. More likely to be murdered. And now police officers, are being given the right to search people on suspicion of being trans. What does that even mean? What does that even look like? Does anyone at all even realise what kind of dystopian violence that invites? How that hurts every single woman, trans or not?

This isn’t about safety. It never was. It’s about control. It’s about fragmentation. Divide and conquer. The oldest colonial play in the book. While the poor fight the poor, the powerful keep pillaging, keep killing, keep rewriting laws to strip us of rights, dignity, identity.

And the worst part? The unbelievable part? Is how easily people eat it up. How fast they fall in line. As if they’ve never picked up a book. As if history isn’t right there, repeating itself with a darker twist. As if all this pain, all this suffering, is just background noise.

Capitalism is cannibalising the world. Fascism is not just knocking on the door — it’s in the fucking living room. Genocide is being livestreamed. And the biggest crisis is that nobody seems to care.

I feel politically disillusioned in ways I can’t even articulate anymore. It’s not just anger—it’s disgust. It’s grief. If this is what humanity is, I want out. Count me out. Remove me from the equation. Because I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone reads “14,000 babies” and just… continues. Defend it. Justify it.

This species is so cruel, so stupid, so committed to repeating history, they won’t even read a fucking book. I have never felt so ashamed to be part of this species. So humiliated to be human. So completely done.

God, if there’s any mercy left in this cursed timeline—send the asteroid. End scene. Because I’m tired of pretending we deserve this planet.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

After Iranian-financed-and-trained Hamas terrorists – together with Palestinian Authority and civilian Gazan terrorists – murdered, gang-raped, gouged, mutilated, dis-limbed, beheaded, burned and tortured over 1,200 Jewish Israeli babies, children, men and women (including dozens of Americans), wounded over 5,000 more and took another 250 more hostage on October 7th, President Biden correctly declared that Hamas’ atrocities were “pure, unadulterated evil.”

Yet now, the Biden/Blinken/shadow-Obama administration is deliberately siding with and defending pure, unadulterated evil. This is sinister. During Biden’s April 4, 2024 phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden threatened Israel and demanded an immediate Israeli ceasefire, aligning the U.S. with Arab terrorist Hamas’ demands. (On the same day, Hamas launched a series of rockets into Israel’s civilian areas. So how on earth can Biden be demanding an Israeli ceasefire?) Biden threatened surely hostile-to-Israel policy changes if Israel doesn’t accede to U.S. demands.

If Israel succumbs to Biden’s immediate ceasefire demand, this would leave the remaining hostages subject to Hamas’ continuing rape and torture indefinitely; leave Israel with no negotiating leverage or military options for obtaining the hostages’ release; and would enable Hamas to emerge victorious, regroup, rebuild, and murder and torture Israelis again and again and again in the future, as Hamas leaders have promised. Biden’s demand thus calls for Israel to lose the war against Arab terrorist organization Hamas, a proxy of our arch enemy, the evil terrorist Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Moreover, on the same day, Secretary of State Antony Blinken falsely, sickeningly and outrageously suggested that Israel is at risk of becoming indistinguishable from Hamas if Israel loses its reverence for protecting every human life – but ignored Israel’s real, extraordinary efforts and record of protecting Gazan civilians. As Colonel Richard Kemp, former British Commander in Afghanistan explained, Israel has the world’s most moral army and takes risks to protect civilians that no other army in the world has ever taken – while Hamas’ official policy is committing war crimes. Similarly, the Chair of West Point’s Modern War Institute, Major (ret.) John Spencer, and human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky noted that “accusing Israel of intentionally targeting civilians . . . is a malicious distortion of truth,” and that in fact “The IDF has gone to unprecedented lengths, not seen in the history of modern warfare, to abide by the laws of war and avoid harm to civilians, even when doing so puts the IDF’s own soldiers at risk.” Israel has the lowest ratio of civilian-to-combatant terrorist deaths in history.

From this U.S. administration’s outset, it has pursued policies deliberately designed to weaken, harm and endanger Israel and empower Iran and Iranian proxies bent on destroying Israel. Upon taking office, Biden immediately stopped enforcing maximum sanctions – and enabled Iran to advance from near-bankruptcy of $4 billion in reserves to $100 billion in reserves, rescuing Iran’s ability to fund its proxies Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli civilians and armed forces. Biden also immediately resumed funding UNRWA (which is full of Hamas terrorists, hides Hamas weapons and control centers, and teaches children to murder Jews); and resumed funding Palestinian Authority government functions (enabling the PA to continue its $400 million per year of pay-to-slay payments to Arab terrorists to murder Jews).

And virtually every person Biden appointed to an important post is hostile to Israel or Jews, or both.

In May 2021, when Hamas launched 4,500 rockets at Israel in 10 days, Biden demanded that Israel agree to an early ceasefire that enabled Hamas to regroup, rebuild and prepare for October 7th.

In October 2022, the administration pressured Israel to surrender 330 square miles of natural-gas-rich maritime territory to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, thereby enriching Iranian terror-proxy Hezbollah with billions of dollars, and weakening Israel. Hezbollah’s attacks on northern Israel in recent months have displaced some 80,000 Israelis.

Biden imposed a boycott on Israeli scientific and academic cooperation over the artificial “green line.” And the Biden administration initiated a Negev Forum that transformed the Abraham Accords from a Sunni-Israeli alliance against Iran into a Sunni-U.S. alliance against Israel. The entire basis of the Abraham Accords was to end the Palestinian Arab veto over Middle East peace; but Biden and Blinken reversed this.

During the past six months, the administration has intentionally ratcheted up harmful-to-Israel actions and anti-Israel propaganda. The administration released $26 billion to Iran – while Iran is financing Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s terror wars against Israel. The administration also repeatedly falsely accused Israel of not doing enough to protect Gazan civilians – despite Israel’s extraordinary record of protecting civilians while fighting vicious terrorists; demanded “pauses” and other forms of ceasefires; demanded that Israel cannot leave a buffer zone in Gaza to prevent future October 7ths; and tied legislation to aid Israel to unpopular unrelated legislation – which would prevent or hamper the aid to Israel from being enacted.

The administration also repeatedly betrayed Israel (and Israeli and American hostages) at the United Nations Security Council. On November 14, 2023 (the same day that 300,000 Jews demonstrated support for Israel in Washington, D.C.) the Biden administration enabled the passage of UNSC Resolution 2712 (2023) calling for days-long “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors throughout the Gaza Strip.” On December 22, 2023, the Biden administration enabled passage of UNSC Resolution 2720 (2023), which helped Hamas obtain supplies to continue its war crimes and called for urgent measures towards stopping the destruction of the Hamas terrorist evil. And on March 25, 2024, the administration enabled passage of UNSC Resolution 2728 (2024) calling for an immediate ceasefire – without making the ceasefire conditional on releasing the hostages.

The administration also used the occasion of Israel fighting for its life to repeatedly demand that Palestinian terrorists must be rewarded with a Palestinian Arab terror state; and to try to undermine Israel’s binding legal rights to Judea/Samaria and Jerusalem. In February 2024, the administration falsely declared that Jews building homes in Judea/Samaria is illegal (reversing the “Pompeo Doctrine” which confirmed that Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria are legal). And on February 1, 2024, Biden issued an antisemitic executive order, accompanied by a coordinated State Department announcement, imposing sanctions on Jews in Judea/Samaria, while ignoring rampant Arab terrorism in and stemming from Judea/Samaria, incited by the Palestinian Authority’s Nazi-like “pay-to-slay” rewards to terrorists to murder Jews.

Biden also falsely condemned Israel for “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza and an “over the top campaign.” Such false charges are hardly the statements of a true friend and ally. And Biden/Blinken’s latest condemnation of Israel unintentionally killing members of a food convoy, when Biden/Blinken knows that these tragic mistakes happen in any war – including in America’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan – again shows the U.S. attempting to weaken the U.S.-Israel alliance. 

In addition, Biden’s March 7, 2024 State of the Union address was the most hostile, anti-Israel SOTU address ever: Biden demanded a Palestinian state “solution” that imperils Israel’s very existence; overstated displaced Gazans and never mentioned the 200,000 Jews still displaced by Hezbollah’s bombardments in the north and Hamas’ destruction of southern Israeli communities; wrongly demanded that Israel must make protecting Gazan civilians Israel’s “first priority (not defeating Hamas and recovering the hostages); parroted Hamas’ unverified and surely false propaganda casualty numbers; falsely intimated that Israel is using humanitarian aid as a “bargaining chip” and isn’t “doing its part” – while completely ignoring that Hamas steals the massive humanitarian aid that Israel has facilitated into Gaza; spoke of working for an immediate ceasefire; and omitted Iran’s role in Gaza, Lebanon, and the October 7th massacre.

Unfortunately, the horrors listed above are only a partial list of the Biden/Blinken/Obama shadow administration’s deliberate acts to weaken Israel and strengthen the terrorists that are trying to destroy Israel. For instance, see more here, here and here.

It is deeply disturbing that our nation’s administration is intentionally siding with the forces of pure unadulterated evil against our human-rights-loving ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel.

It is painful for us to say this, but all of the evidence indicates that the Biden/Blinken/Obama policies are not mere attempts at misguided appeasement, or the results of stupidity or ignorance or false hope. But, in fact, these anti-Israel policies are made with full understanding of their dangerous import. All the evidence indicates that this is a conscious attempt to weaken Israel, or worse.  

[motziedapul]

#NeverForget

The child killing, genocidal apartheid state of Israel must be disarmed and sanctioned for their mass killing in a country that's 47% children (as of 2023). Whatever you think Israel has done; it has done worse.

There is extensive video evidence and evidence on the bodies of survivors; such as a young child recovering with the PCRF from being showered in White Phosphorus. Anyone who is still pro-Israel to this day is pro-child killing and child mutilation, pro bombs and pro war crimes.

They have killed tens of thousands of children, civilians, and hundreds of medical workers and aid workers, and journalists, just in one year. They've killed members of the UN, Doctors Without Borders, World Central Kitchen, Red Crescent.

A terrified little girl named Hind Rajab was stuck in a car with her murdered parents and the IOF waited for rescuers to come for her before shooting them all to death.

Bombs deployed by Israel have dismembered and decapitated infants and young children. A viral photo of little girl's body hanging from a wall with her legs exploded off was one of many photos seen after an Israeli airstrike. She was so small she couldn't have been older than 11. A viral video went around of a man holding his baby's body after an airstrike on their tents; the baby had no head.

And still the USA sends them bombs to continue their slaughter.

The worst terrorist of the modern world, bombing multiple sovereign nations and killing countless civilians every day.

(P.S. the numbers shown in the article are bare minimum numbers; these are the lowest possible estimates of slaughter. Whatever is listed above; Israel has killed more)

[otakuvampyre]

i do agree that indigenous americans and disabled people are two of the most heavily targeted groups in America, but saying that theyre the only oppressed groups is bizarre?

No one else is oppressed? Not Black americans, who are murdered and brutalized by the police? Not Jewish americans, whose synagogues face regular bomb threats? Not Muslim americans, whose mosques are shot up? Not transgender americans, whose healthcare is being actively banned? Not intersex americans, who undergo genital mutilation as infants as a standard procedure? Not american children, who don't have written civil rights like children in many countries do, and are thus more vulnerable to abuse and manipulation? None of them?

Yes, they are the only oppressed people in America.

Black people are not uniquely targeted. White people make up over 50% of police violence victims.

That's not oppression, the government isn't sanctioning those bomb threats. Being threatened by bigoted assholes is not oppression. However, the Jews of New York could very easily face oppression soon if the claims about mayoral candidate Mamdani's anti-jewish bias are true. And if the bill to defund Synagogue's if they're pro-israel actually does that and passes.

Muslim Americans having their mosques shot up is also not oppression. Much like with Jews, the government is not sanctioning these attacks, they are, in fact, illegal actions that the state prosecutes when the perpetrators are caught.

As a trans woman myself, I have say that no, we are not being oppressed because assholes want to restrict trans healthcare for trans teens. For adults, we're not having trans-specific stuff banned by the law, at least not specifically. It could easily get to the point of oppression if we're not careful, but we're not there yet.

I'd say that's not really oppression given it's not some state law that says it should happen, parents are making a choice to allow it. It's fucked up that intersex individuals have that happen, but it is not required by law anywhere in America for it to happen.

American children are the wards of their parents. Their parents decide what happens to them, and on top of that, child labor is illegal in America. It's certainly fucked up that a child can have a medical procedure done to them or withheld based on their parent's whims, but I don't think that quite counts as oppression.

Oppression isn't just "hate crimes exist" or "we face violence like everyone else does" it's being governed in a way that is unfair or discriminatory.

[tieflingkisser]

Repro funders must end the ‘wall of resistance’ on Palestine

As foundations defund organizations that speak out against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, already underfunded Black- and brown-led reproductive justice groups take the biggest hit for living their stated values

from the article:

I have organized for abortion liberation through sharing my abortion story for nearly 15 years. Thus, I am no stranger to those who want to silence my voice. I have spoken up about anti-Blackness and racism in the reproductive rights movement and challenged popular pro-choice politicians to do better. Despite different tactics, I’ve always known that my colleagues and I were headed in the same direction: toward liberation and reproductive justice for all oppressed people. 

Or so I thought. 

As the genocide of Palestinians has played out at the hands of the Israeli and U.S. governments, I have watched factions of a naturally outspoken movement become silent against the backdrop of nonstop videos of mutilated and starving children, parents searching rubble for babies, families hoping for the return of their loved ones, and children parenting each other because they have no more living relatives. Along with the pain of watching this unfold has been despair in realizing that those who push us to be silent are not our anti-abortion opposition, but our own supporters, funders, and peers. Our movement is fractured along lines that are clearly defined by the reproductive justice framework that we strive to achieve.

The vision of reproductive justice is simple: for all of us to have sexual and bodily autonomy, the right to decide whether or not to have a child, and the ability to parent our children in safe and sustainable communities, free from state-sanctioned violence.

[...]

Reproductive justice isn’t up for interpretation. I can’t believe I have to say this: Apartheid is wrong. Theocracy is wrong. Segregation is wrong. Genocide is wrong. They were wrong in South Africa and the United States, and they are wrong in Israel. They are wrong everywhere. Denying health care is wrong. Denying health care at any border based on citizenship, documentation, religion, nationality, ethnicity, ability, language, and skin color is wrong, and it brings no one safety. It’s antithetical to reproductive justice. Any leader, funder, or organizers who believes that our liberation will come through segregation, theocracy, apartheid, or genocide has no place within the reproductive freedom movements. Defunding us for taking such a stance only does the dirty work of our oppressors.

[russalki]

When we are told by mass media and surveillance technology to dismiss our grief by engaging in consumptive distractions, we are also being told to look away from the source of our grief. Most of us have experienced immense heartache, but there is certain heartache that some of us should not have had to feel; for example, when we lose our loved ones early due to state-sanctioned abuse that is racist, transphobic, ableist, colorist, and classist. Domestic violence is a direct result of patriarchal hierarchies and supremacy, which parallels the violence of war and genocide. All these forms of abuse require people to be violent to maintain positions of control. In The Will to Change, bell hooks wrote extensively about the dominator culture that demands “psychic self-mutilation” to sustain itself and kill off our emotions. When we are told to “not be sad,” we are also being ordered to look away from what is required for change.

— Mimi Zhu, Be Not Afraid of Love

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

The United States must uphold universal values of fairness and equality

50 so far! Help us get to 100 signers!

President Biden, Ladies and gentlemen of Congress,

I rise today deeply troubled by the ongoing atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers, which include acts of rape, theft, murder, mutilation, torture, starvation, kidnapping, occupation, and terrorism. These actions, while perpetrated under the guise of self-defense, cannot be ignored or excused.

For far too long, Israel has played the victim on the international stage while simultaneously rejecting international law and engaging in egregious human rights violations. This pattern of behavior has persisted for nearly a century, and it is time for us to acknowledge the truth and take a stand for justice.

As representatives of a nation that claims to uphold universal values of fairness and equality, we cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering of innocent civilians at the hands of Israeli forces. Our unwavering support for Israel must not come at the expense of ignoring the injustices inflicted upon the Palestinian people.

It is incumbent upon us to hold Israel accountable for its actions, to demand adherence to international law, and to advocate for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We cannot claim to champion justice while defending such grave injustices.

America must demand an immediate end to Israel's genocide of Palestinians and the ecocide of their land. We must enact laws that grant Palestinians freedom from occupation, starting with a permanent ceasefire, dismantling apartheid policies, divesting funds and arms, and implementing sanctions against Israel.

The weaponization of starvation by Israel cannot be tolerated. America must ensure that humanitarian aid flows freely into Gaza to alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians trapped in this conflict.

It is time for us to take meaningful action to address these grave injustices and work towards a just and peaceful resolution for all parties involved.

Your immediate attention to address my each concern is needed without delay. I look forward to your response.

▶ Created on April 5 by Fatima

📱 Text SIGN PXTMTA to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW FREEPALESTINE to 50409

[Sources]

[horizon-verizon]

I don’t care if a woman commit adultery, puritans should remember that it was once normal for men who murdered their wives to get away with it, or have reduced charges, because of “sudden discovery of a spouse’s adultery.” Infidelity stigma and adultery laws maintain social norms which justify violence, discrimination and oppression of women. To this day, there are many countries in the world where a husband, brother, or father is legally permitted to mutilate or commit an honor killing against a wife, sister, daughter, or girlfriend, if she “strays” or commits a sexual folly, and in the form of state sanctioned forms of violence such as stoning, flogging or hanging for adultery. In Europe, husbands and boyfriends still murder their adulterous wives/girlfriends. Philippines’ law still criminalizes adultery and concubinage, and both are deemed “crimes against chastity” and, unsurprisingly, the law differentiates based on the gender of the spouse. A wife can be charged with adultery, while a husband can only be charged with the related crime of concubinage, which is more loosely defined and harder to prove.

As you shouldn't. Anon may refer to this recent post I reblogged from another.

I'm still iffy about what "concubinage" versus adultery even means in the Philippines, you reminded me to research.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"... the discourse of criminalization fails to capture the complexity of the relationship between the First Nations and the criminal law, because it directs our gaze only to the criminalized and away from others. As with Peaychew, many forms of engagement with the criminal law are described in this book. I have found cases in which First Nations individuals laid Informations against white men as well as men from their own communities, alleging different types of offences, such as theft and assault; cases in which Aboriginal women and girls appeared as informants and witnesses and charged white and Métis men, as well as men from their own communities, with forms of sexual interference with, or “carnal knowledge” of, them or their daughters; cases in which only a handful of First Nations women and girls appeared as accused persons, charged with or implicated in the theft of small items, such as a tea kettle from an empty house, a silver spoon from an empty schoolhouse, the clothes that First Nations children were wearing when they ran away from the industrial school, or, in the case of Betsy Horsefall and Benjamin Gordon, in the theft of a horse that Betsy said was hers.

Perhaps the strongest argument of this book concerns the form and content of law and reflects my long-standing commitment to the importance of attending to the specificity of different legal forms and the relationship between them. The book represents a sustained call for a more precise definition and use of the concept of criminalization, one in which distinctions between criminal law as a legal form and other forms of law are recognized, and that seeks to apprehend the contexts, circumstances, and sites in which actions and practices of Aboriginal peoples were prosecuted – as crimes or as regulatory or other statutory offences.

Some of the historical literature reveals a certain imprecision with respect to the definition and scope of criminal law. Many scholars adopt a wide approach to criminal law, in which all legal forms that have an air of compulsion, coercion, or sanction are coloured with a criminal law brush. Recent work examining the efforts of the Canadian state to restrict and curtail traditional forms of Aboriginal expression and activity, including dances and ceremonies, hunting, and fishing, uses the language of criminalization to characterize them. For instance, a now iconic exemplar of criminalization is said to be found in amendments to Indian Act in 1884 that prohibited particular kinds of dances and celebrations (such as the potlatch in British Columbia). For the Plains First Nations, the most expansive and relevant Indian Act restrictions were introduced in an 1895 amendment to s. 114 that prohibited dances involving giveaways and wounding or mutilation. Although historical evidence implicates the police as well as Indian Department officials in efforts to enforce the prohibitions and prosecute these offences, the historical evidence also indicates that these prohibitions were resented, resisted, and ignored as well as only occasionally and unevenly enforced (indeed, they were almost unenforceable) on the ground. In any event, these provisions fell outside the ambit of criminal law.

Admittedly, caution is in order here. Interdisciplinary scholarship in socio-legal studies argues for a broader notion of crime – one that challenges the historical preoccupation with crimes of individual wrongdoers and the historical neglect of crimes of the powerful, including the state and corporate actors and institutions, as well as the historical neglect of the experience of the environment, culture, and entire communities as victims of forms of seldom criminalized violence. If one proceeds with criminal law narrowly construed (excluding some of the coercive provisions of the Indian Act, for instance), one may risk proceeding with too narrow an understanding of crime. The importance of critical engagement with a self-referential notion of true “criminal law” cannot be denied. The content of criminal law is neither universal nor transhistorical; and, importantly, criminalization is not self-evident.

The process of criminalization occurs when people are criminally prosecuted and convicted for forms of conduct that have become defined by the state as crimes. It may encompass the extension of criminal law over formerly non-criminal behaviour, or it may involve the systemic targeting, overpolicing, and criminal prosecution of particular groups and communities for particular kinds of offences. Inevitably, it is intended to express and enforce social denunciation for socially injurious conduct. In legal scholarship, it is important to be attentive to the analytic distinction between legal and extra-legal forms of compulsion and legal coercion, between prohibition and regulation, and between committal and conviction, in order to precisely identify the nature of the law under discussion.

To insist upon specificity in the scope and definition of criminal law need not lead one to an uncritical acceptance of the legitimacy of its norms. It is important, however, to be attentive to questions of form, content, and diversity of legal instruments deployed by the state, many of which contain offences but which do not involve the denunciation and sanction normally associated with criminal law.

An important and related line of inquiry concerns the way in which legal historians have or have not addressed the specificity of the two legal regimes of the Indian Act and the criminal law, and the sites of intersection between the Canadian government’s “Indian policy” and the criminal law component of its national policy. The Indian policy of the Canadian government intensified over the last two decades of the nineteenth century with the introduction of increasingly oppressive amendments to the Indian Act.

In recent work examining the efforts of the Canadian state to restrict and curtail traditional forms of Aboriginal expression and activity, the language of criminalization has been invoked. For some scholars, the prohibition of some forms of religious ceremonies and dances, together with special practices and policies, such as the pass system, offer evidence of the nature of the Canadian state’s treatment of Aboriginal peoples. For the most part, these initiatives occurred under the legislative auspices of the Indian Act or the administrative initiatives of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and his Indian Agents in the field. It has become commonplace in some of the literature to refer to the criminalization of Indians and Indian religious celebrations.

There are other voices in the historical literature that offer different emphases. It is significant, in my view, that one recent study expressly devoted to law, colonialism, and First Nations addresses the struggle over the right to fish and the regulatory framework, including offences, of the Fisheries Act. Nowhere in Douglas Harris’s careful study of the restriction and regulation of the Aboriginal fishers of British Columbia does he characterize the process as one of criminalization. Similarly, Katherine Pettipas’s equally rigorous study of the interference with and prosecution of First Nations ceremonies on the Prairies characterizes government policy as one of regulation.

We can also, however, find instances and forms of NWMP resistance to federal Indian policy. Pettipas’s carefully researched study of the regulation and repression of indigenous religious ceremonies on the Prairies provides irrefutable evidence of the legalized campaign of repression of forms of religious celebrations. Nevertheless, although her work demonstrates the lengths to which the government went to circumscribe and curtail these forms of religious expression, including the prosecution and imprisonment of a number of Aboriginal celebrants, she also notes that some members of the NWMP actually ignored orders to prevent dances and instead facilitated the events. Both Pettipas and John Jennings cite Stipendiary Magistrate Macleod’s refusal to convict Indians who had been arrested for performing a sun dance. Macleod, a former commissioner of the NWMP, is said to have delivered “a scathing rebuff” to the police who had made the arrests, likening their conduct to having made an arrest in a church.

In sum, Pettipas’s study of the regulation of Plains Indian religious ceremonies evinces a nuanced analysis, showing the uneven and contradictory tensions that accompanied this damaging legislative initiative. She reminds her readers that only some forms of dances and celebrations (those involving “giveaways”’ and “piercings”) were prohibited by the Indian Act; that because of its vagueness, the police often declined to enforce the infamous s. 114 of the Indian Act; and that even Indian officials were of the view that a prosecution should be undertaken only as a last resort. It is also clear that some First Nations people were prepared to “test” the strength and limits of the law.

In conclusion, the “self-evidence” of criminalization is a trap for the unwary. Criminal law becomes all law; criminalization becomes an umbrella that covers all manner of legal forms (from liquor violations, to hunting and fishing offences, to the Indian Act, and sometimes even criminal law). In critical legal historical work on criminal law, criminal law is depicted “in one dimensional terms” – criminal law “acts against” subordinate people (women, indigenous peoples, workers, and so on). This is the dominant account in the critical literature – inequalities of class, race, and gender are reinforced as the criminal law bears down on those brought before it. And yet some of the literature may also be read to offer a more relational notion of criminal law, even in a colonial context."

- Shelley A. M. Gavigan, Hunger, Horses, and Government Men: Criminal Law on the Aboriginal Plains, 1870-1905. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press for the Osgoode Society, 2012. p. 19-22

[readingsquotes]

"Increasingly I feel the emotional weight of these experiences bearing down on me. I don’t know that I have ever spoken with the family of a murder victim, and in one day in Sabastiya, I found myself in multiple living rooms with weeping mothers, fathers, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and cousins recounting the atrocities committed against their loved ones. I met with a young man who has not recovered from the shock of seeing his best friend’s mutilated body, still smoldering from forty bullets searing the inside of his head, neck, face, chest, and groin. I sat with a boy who was shot in the leg by a soldier one week earlier (his plans to finish high school now put on hold). I met a father of four (including newborn twins) who was shot in the stomach by a settler in October, much of his digestive tract currently taped to the outside of his body, just released from the hospital for a brief rest (and a chance to feel his children’s skin against his own) before he goes back for more surgeries—while we spoke, the settlers returned with IDF soldiers to continue tormenting the village, as they do almost daily. The way that bullets casually fly here and destroy bodies and lives—it’s just staggering. And this is all state-sanctioned. The knowledge that none of these murderous soldiers and settlers will ever be brought to justice casts a sickening pall over these meetings that has left me actually, literally, genuinely speechless on several occasions."

[brandwhorestarscream]

Correct me if this question has already been asked (cuz I don't remember), what are the autobots thoughts on rung more precisely about the fact that he is Primus and supports the original cause of the Decepticons and, even in current times, not the bots.

I... don't think they know Rung is Primus. I don't think even Rung knows that Rung is Primus 😂 its been a looong time since I read IDW and MTMTE, but iirc Rung is like. An unaware Avatar of Primus, like a little sliver of him but not the whole thing and he was unaware of that fact

But, in a hypothetical situation where everyone is aware... the autobots are probably shocked. Snubbed. The almighty god of life that created their entire race thinks they're wrong?! And is siding with the decepticons? Why?

It couldn't possibly be that millions of years of oppression, unethical slave labor, and state sanctioned lobotomies/mutilations are bad, no no, so clearly it must be something else 🙄

Rung is about to sit them down and lecture them about how tone deaf they are and to stop treating other people like sub-classes to yourselves smh