I'm a former reformer who was happily radicalized by my experiences with occupy. I'm an anti-TERF feminist, a queer friendly/collaborator and anti-imperialist/colonialist. I share perspectives with anarchists, communists and socialists. Privileges include white, cis and hetero -please feel free to call me on BS.
I do share triggering content sometimes and feel TW are are almost useless in Tumblr format; due to the fact that only the original poster can warn effectively, by placing it atop the blog. So this is a general warning, as inefficient as this may also be.
"By Tuesday afternoon, more than 780,000 comments had been submitted to the regulator over its proposed ‘open internet’ rules that have cable companies, politicians, consumers and activists at loggerheads over the future of the internet.
Thousands more submissions were expected before the planned deadline of midnight Tuesday, as activists and consumer groups rallied supporters to lobby the FCC to moved: protect ‘net neutrality’ - the concept that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally – and stop cable companies setting up high-speed ‘fast lanes’ for some customers.
The FCC, which has struggled to get Congress to fund an upgrade to its antiquated systems, has now extended the deadline to midnight Friday [July 18th]. A second round of comments on the original submissions will then begin, ending in September, with the FCC expected to make its ruling by the end of the year.”
Learn more and submit your comment to the FCC here:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is also an excellent resource, for any rights related to online activity actually and that’s lots of info on their website about Net Neutrality too. The latest news from the EFF is they just joined 35 other organizations that are petitioning Obama to veto the cybersecurity bill known as CISA, because as the coalition’s letter states:
CISA fails to offer a comprehensive solution to cybersecurity threats. Further, the bill contains inadequate protections for privacy and civil liberties. Accordingly, we request that you promptly pledge to veto CISA.
CISA presents many of the same problems the Administration previously identified with CISPA in its veto threat. Privacy experts have pointed out how CISA would damage the privacy and civil liberties of users.
The EFF adds:
As we’ve emphasized in the past, the bill fails to provide privacy protections for Internet users and allows information sharing in a wide variety of circumstances that could potentially harm journalists and whistleblowers. Like its previous iterations, it also contains overbroad immunity from lawsuits for corporations that share information. As the letter points out, it even contains “a broad new categorical exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, the first since the Act’s passage in 1966.”
So this is a bonus of my previously listed giveaway that is still going on until August 31st, BUT we got in this one huge makeup set at work, and I thought I’d do a special bonus giveaway. This giveaway ends on September 3rd. **This one is still only for trans women/dmab trans femmes, but you can still signal boost this if you’re not entering, and just caption it/tag it with “not entering” (if your theme shows tags)/send me a message that you aren’t entering.
This one is only open to followers (again, only trans women/dmab trans femmes), and to enter you gotta reblog this post, and also reblog this post about my custom patches.There will only be one (1) winner for this, and you can’t win the other one if you win this, but you can certainly enter both, and you’ll be in the running to win this, as well as one of the four (4) prizes in the first giveaway. For this one, you’ll win:
Not entering but signal boost!
Not entering, just a friendly signal boost :)
"Eat your pheasant, drink your wine, your days are numbered bourgeois swine!"
Me protesting at Auckland Action Against Poverty’s demonstration outside the Young National’s Ball
What they think they sound like:
“I’m so rational. The truth is somewhere in the middle, they’re both wrong. I’m so nuanced and enlightened with my views.”
What they actually sound like:
“History and context are things that do not exist to me. In whatever dimension I exist in, I believe that there is an equivalence between an advanced occupying army that is notorious for war crimes, and an occupied brutalized population.”
How much land was actually "given" to the Israelis by the UN, as Israelis claim?
I take it you mean the 1947 partition plan. Alright, this might be a tad bit long, but let’s talk about that, shall we?
The 1947 partition plan, was a framework proposed by the UN in an attempt to divide historical Palestine into 2 states for 2 peoples. This was to be implemented at the end of the British Mandate of Palestine. There would be as they named it one “Arab state”, and one “Jewish state”. Jerusalem would remain an international city open for all.
Unsurprisingly, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs, refused this. Why? Let’s go over the basics. And I mean the very bare basics, you could write a book on this, so I’m just sticking to the essentials.
A common argument I see from a lot of pro-Israelis, is that Palestinians had the chance to have peace, and have a state of their own if they had just accepted this plan. The state we could have gotten, would have been much larger and all of this fighting would have been unnecessary.
As you know, historical Palestine has always had a Jewish community. This was never contested, there never were issues with the indigenous Jewish Palestinians.
No, the root of the matter truly began with Zionism. Zionism was an ideology developed by Theodor Herzl (and others) that promoted the creation of a Jewish state. This ideology in practice is basically very heavy on the settler colonialism. If you read any of Herzl’s books you will find them chock full of “White man’s burden” mimicry, and other examples that would make any colonial proud.
There were many candidates for the location of this Jewish state, including Argentina, but in the end they chose Palestine, despite the fact that Palestine was already inhabited.
The first significant waves of European Zionist migration began at the end of the 19th century. So in the 1880s upward. The partition plan was proposed in 1947. So by the time this plan came along, the vast majority of the Zionist population in Palestine had barely been on the land for a few decades, at most.
Despite this massive immigration to Palestine, the Zionist population was still a minority. The most generous of estimates are that they made up only a third of the population, and owned land no more than 6-7% of historical Palestine.
So what exactly were the specifics of the partition plan?
The “Arab” state, despite the Arab Palestinians being the vast majority, would receive ~43% of the land of historical Palestine, relegating them to the mountainous regions, a third of the coast, and losing any access to the red sea.
The “Jewish” state, despite the Zionists being a minority with not a single district outside of Yaffa having a Jewish population majority (port city, most immigrants off the boat ended there), were given around ~56% of the land of historical Palestine. With the majority of the coastline and fertile agricultural lands.
Btw, just to show how small the Zionist population was, even the “Jewish” state would have only had a 55% Jewish population.
So, answer me this: Why should the indigenous population give up more than half of their historical homeland? What sense would that make? And not only that, they’d be giving it up for a minority of newcomers fresh off the boat. Who in their right mind would not resist this?
This is not a question of living together peacefully, the only way Zionists could have their self determination in this context was to deny Palestinians their self determination. The only way they could have a Jewish state with a vast Jewish majority (A Zionist goal), was if the Palestinians were removed from the picture. And we were.
Just so you understand what I mean by this, here is but one example of a quote from David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel in 1948:
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
So when people ask me why we didn’t accept the 1947 partition plan..the only thing I can think of is this line by Ghassan Kanafani:
“They rob you of your bread, but leave you a small chunk, they then command you to thank them for their generosity. Oh their audacity.”