#Global Commons Alliance | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

language400 · 1 year

Text

The Neologism "Polymachia" in History

Welcome to our latest blog post where we delve into the concept of "polymachia" and its application in history. "Polymachia" refers to multiple one-on-one battles or many fights happening simultaneously in a larger conflict. It's a term that can be used to describe a wide range of situations, from real-world conflicts to hypothetical scenarios. In history, there are multiple events that involve multiple actors engaged in different fights or battles to achieve a common goal. By examining these events through the lens of "polymachia," we gain a better understanding of how multiple actors can work together in a conflict.

In this blog post, we will be discussing three historical examples that illustrate how "polymachia" can be used to describe different forms of conflicts. These examples are: The Second World War, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the outbreak of the First World War. Each of these examples will provide an in-depth look into how "polymachia" can be used to describe conflicts, whether it's multiple states allying with one another, non-state actors defending people, or entangling alliances spiraling into more widespread polymachia. By understanding these historical examples, we can gain a better understanding of how "polymachia" can be used to describe conflicts and how multiple actors can work together in a larger conflict.

Example 1: The Second World War

World War II: An Exploration of "Polymachia" in Global Conflicts

The Second World War, which lasted from 1939 to 1945, is one of the most significant conflicts in human history. It was a global war that involved multiple nations fighting in different theaters of war, with multiple battles happening simultaneously. The war was fought between the Axis powers (comprising of Germany, Italy, and Japan) and the Allies (comprising of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom). The Allies fought against the Axis powers in different parts of the world, including Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific.

This conflict can be seen as an example of "polymachia" where multiple states were engaged in different fights to achieve a common goal of defeating the Axis powers. The different theaters of war and battles that took place simultaneously can be seen as different one-on-one battles or many fights happening simultaneously in a larger conflict. The different alliances that the states formed can be seen as different actors searching for context-specific solutions to achieve a common goal.

The Second World War is one of the most significant historical examples of "polymachia" that showcases how multiple states can work together in a larger conflict to achieve a common goal. It also illustrates how the different theaters of war and battles that took place simultaneously can be seen as different one-on-one battles or many fights happening simultaneously in a larger conflict.

Example 2: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Self-Defense and Resistance: Resistance Fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a Jewish resistance that occurred in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. The Warsaw Ghetto was a neighborhood in Warsaw, Poland where the Nazis confined the Jewish population before their mass extermination. Jewish resistance fighters, who were not a part of any official military organization, fought against the German army in the Warsaw Ghetto. This fight lasted for nearly a month and was one of the first armed uprisings by Jews during World War II.

This event can be seen as an example of "polymachia" where non-state actors were engaged in different fights to achieve a common goal of self-defense. The Jewish resistance fighters were not part of any state, but they were searching for context-specific solutions to defend themselves and their community. They were a dispersed group of people who were fighting against a much stronger enemy, and their actions can be seen as different one-on-one battles or many fights happening simultaneously in a larger conflict.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising illustrates how non-state actors can also play a vital role in a conflict and how they can be engaged in different fights to achieve a common goal. It also illustrates how "polymachia" can be used to describe the actions of a dispersed group of people who are not part of any state but are fighting for self-defense.

Example 3: The Outbreak of the First World War

Entanglement and Escalation: The Consequences of Alliances in Wider Scale Wars

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was a global conflict that was caused by the complex web of alliances between different European countries. The war started with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and quickly escalated into a global conflict. The war involved multiple nations fighting in different theaters of war, with multiple battles happening simultaneously. The warring nations formed alliances and coalitions, each fighting for different reasons and in different places.

This can be seen as an example of "polymachia" where multiple states were engaged in different fights, but due to the entangling alliances, the conflict spread and escalated into a larger, more widespread war. The different battles and theaters of war can be seen as different one-on-one battles or many fights happening simultaneously in a larger conflict. The entangling alliances can be seen as different actors searching for context-specific solutions to achieve a common goal.

The outbreak of the First World War is an example of how the problem of entangling alliances can lead to a situation of "polymachia" where multiple nations are drawn into a conflict, leading to a wider scale of warfare. It also illustrates how "polymachia" can be used to describe a conflict where multiple nations were engaged in different fights but due to the entangling alliances, the conflict spread and escalated into a larger, more widespread war.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, "polymachia" is a term that can be used to describe multiple one-on-one battles or many fights happening simultaneously in a larger conflict. Through the examination of historical examples, we have seen how "polymachia" can be used to describe a wide range of situations, from real-world conflicts to hypothetical scenarios. By understanding how "polymachia" can be used to describe different forms of conflicts, we gain a better understanding of how multiple actors can work together in a larger conflict.

The three historical examples discussed in this blog post are: The Second World War, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the outbreak of the First World War. Each of these examples illustrates how "polymachia" can be used to describe different forms of conflicts, whether it's multiple states allying with one another, non-state actors defending people, or entangling alliances spiraling into more widespread polymachia. The Second World War illustrates how multiple states can work together in a larger conflict to achieve a common goal, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising illustrates how non-state actors can be engaged in different fights to achieve a common goal of self-defense, and the outbreak of the First World War illustrates how the problem of entangling alliances can lead to a situation of "polymachia" where multiple nations are drawn into a conflict, leading to a wider scale of warfare.

By understanding these historical examples, we can gain a better understanding of how "polymachia" can be used to describe conflicts and how multiple actors can work together in a larger conflict. We hope that this blog post has helped you understand the concept of "polymachia" and its application in history.

2 notes · View notes

dcxdpdabbles · 3 months

Note

In Freelance Inventor, does anyone in JL know about Danny? Do they try to help the kids Parent Trap Danny and Bruce? Does Selina know about Danny?

Batman is acting strange.

It's often that Clark thinks this. He feels a bit guilty judging people like that, but no one in the league, or hell, the world, can deny that Batman is an abnormal human.

If he even is human.

Not much is known about one of the founding members of the Justice League, and while Clark and Diana are arguably the closest to him, they don't even know his real name. Not that it was a problem.

They would trust him with their lives and learn to turn to him for leadership in dire times. It always seemed like he was prepared for literally anything, and when something managed to suppress the Dark King, it didn't last long, for he had a backup plan formed seconds later.

That's how they work. How the three changed a necessary alliance into a globally recognized league of heroes.

While Clark was good at making feel people feel safe, and Diana could rally forces, Batman had a way of making the impossible happen. Together the three tackled the world's problems making one day better at a time.

That did nothing to make people feel slightly....uneased by Batman. Clark was man enough to admit that even he got spooked. One time, he offhanded mentioned that he could recognize heartbeats when talking to Oliver and Batman.

Batman had tilted his head, made direct eye contact with Clark and suddenly, his heart rate had slowed down, beating entirely different. Clark felt horrified when the Dark Knight kept that same heartbeat for the following week, only switching mid-meeting to a faster one than the previous two.

Clark is Kryptonian. He is an alien. Sure, he developed most during puberty, but he always had superstrength and super speed as a tot. That's why he doesn't make sense, but Batman?

He had no idea what was going on with Batman, and frankly, he didn't want to touch the subject with a ten-foot pole.

Yet he could not help but think of the strange little hermit as a friend. Batman, in his own way, cared deeply for people. He never mentioned it but he always support heroes in their daily lives and although he grumbled a bit, was always there when someone needed him.

Yes, he wasn't the most approachable of heroes and a bit too professional, but he was still one of the greatest heroes in history for a reason. Clark always felt better of their chances when Batman was involved.

Seeing even a hit of disbalance in the Dark Knight made him worry.

Batman never lingered after meetings, training or monitor duty. Once he finished he was heading straight back to Gotham sometimes without a by your leave.

Batman did not do that today. Instead, he was staring out the watch tower's common room into the stars and hadn't moved for over two hours. Plenty of other heroes had already fled the room, too unnerved by the silent brooding man.

The last time this happened was because Robin had first shown up, shocking the world with his bright, impish laughter from Batman's shadows. Batman had taken months trying to decided to let the boy join him, and only because Robin straight up did not give him a option did he allow it.

Clark had been with Diana, angry that he was dragging a child into such dangerous situations only to have the Bat tell them to "stop him yourself then"

He did, but no matter how many times he captured Robin the boy was back on the streets a few hours later. Clark felt his hair grey from ever second he spent with the angry child. Diana hand't had much luck.

In fact the boy had, somehow bended in a way that had scared her into thinking she broken his spin, to escape her lasso. Her moment of fright was the opening he needed to scurry away, shouting at the top of his lungs that he would never be stopped.

She respected him but still captured the boy a few hours later. She screamed when Batman called her again to let her know the boy was seen fighting a gang at the ports that same night.

What could possibly cause Batman to stress the same way as his son? The founding members weren't sure, but they were all staring at him from the doorway after noticing every other hero avoiding the place like the plague.

"Go talk to him" Hal hissed at Clark.

"Me?" Clark spluttered. "Why me?"

"He is less likely to kill you," Barry tells him with the gravest expression Clark has ever seen on his face. "You are also the most likely one to survive Batman's attempt on your life if he decides to kill you."

Superman gapes at him, twisting around to all his teammates but everyone is either nodding or avoiding his eyes. They all decided he was the sacrifice it seemed. Traitors.

But it's true he is worried about his friend. He is slightly afriad of his friend but Clark would not be able to sleep at night if he didn't at least reach out to Batman.

Taking a deep breath to steel his nerves, he twists on his heel and marches over to the dark figure. He tries to shake the feeling of walking to his executor as he finally carefully stops by Batman's side. He doesn't look at him, keeping his gaze on the stars.

Neither man said anything, peacefully observing the darkness and lights of space.

Clark waited about thirty seconds before the silence got too much for him. "Er, Batman? Is everything alright?"

Batman didn't even twitch, a tight frown- more turn down on the right corner to then the left which meant it was a nervous kind of upset instead of annoyed upset as ussal. A full minute goes by where Clark wonders if Batman even heard him about to start babbling to try to get some conversation going when the man speaks.

"Superman, have you ever been in love?"

Clark swears he never experienced whiplash this badly. He honestly thinks the loud crack that came from his neck when he turned it in shock to the other Leaguer meant that he broke it.

Batman held no hint that he said anyhting but Clark could still hear the question echoing in his head as he gaped. He got ahold of himsrlf when he noticed Batman's heart beat pick up- nervous, embarssed. even fighten?- and his shoulder hitched up slightly.

Crude he made his friend feel bad.

"No! No no! I was just surprised, is all," He cries, waving his hands. Lois's face flashes in his mind, causing him to smile slightly dropply. "I have. I am actually. There this girl- at my work. She's great. Um, why do you ask?"

"....how do you know you're in love?"

Boy, was Clark really having this conversation at his age? He felt like a fumbling teenager. Granted, he only had one girlfriend back in high school, and he was fairly sure she only dated him to piss off her dad.

Still this was great! He has never had a conversation this deep with Batman before!

"I'm not sure if it's the same for Kryptonians as it is humans- you are human right?"

"Yes."

Oh, so Batman was just like that. Good to know.

"Well, I knew from how she made me feel nervous but happy nervous? As if the world was brighter. Better. And when I'm not near her, all my thoughts somehow return to her." Clark thinks of how to best explain love, turning the world over in his head before snapping his fingers. "You know when you just adore a certain food? That no matter how often you eat it or how long it's been, it just makes you feel better? There isn't a real reason why you like it so much you just do. That's what she's like for me."

Batman nods slowly. He might not be able to see his eyes but Clark could image them softening just by the way his whole body relaxes. "I see. Then I am in love. Thank you."

He turns away before Clark can get his jaw off the floor. Batman stride right out the room, ingorre the scrambling heros who try to act like they weren't easedropping and vanishes in a flash of light back to Gotham.

He did all that as if nothing had happened.

Clark has half the mind to think he just haluciated the entire five minutes before Barry blurted. "Batman is in love?! That's amazing!"

They spent the rest of the night trying to guess who was the person that could have possibly romanced Batman.

Barry and Hal were convinced it was another vampire- they didn't believe the Dark Knight was telling the truth when he claimed he was human- while both Diana and Arthur both claimed the person had to be a deadly warrior.

J'onn was under the impression it had to be someone who was the polar opposite of Batman. On Mars, that was the common couple dynamic. Thus, the person Batman loved was likely a civilian. A dumb sociable one.

He didn't say Bruce Wayne exactly, but J'onn heavily implied Bruce Wayne. He even pointed out that Mr. Wayne financed everything the Leauge used from the very beginning, of course in secert but it was still his money.

Why would he do that if he wasn't somehow profoundly involved? Obviously, the billionaire wanted Batman safe, maybe even returned his feelings. The rest of the Leauge looks half convinced by the logic.

Personally? Clark was just happy that Batman found anyone at all. No matter who they were, he would do everyhting he could to help his friend woo his crush.

That's what friends are for, after all.

#dcxdpdabbles #dc x dp crossover #dcxdp #spirit halloween #freelance inventor #Part 3 #Takes place a few months after Bruce meets Danny #The Justice League doesn't know much about Bruce at this point #Batman is a strange little human #Clark's pov #Dick Grayson's robin was a menace. I stand by that #Bruce doesn't know what to do with all these emotions

884 notes · View notes

the-garbanzo-annex-jr · 4 months

Text

by Troy O. Fritzhand

Canary Mission, an antisemitism watchdog group, has made headlines since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war for its work exposing groups and individuals that support the Palestinian terror group and express hatred for the Jewish state.

Critics have accused Canary Mission of what they call unfair “doxing,” or publicizing information about a person or organization without their consent. However, that has not stopped the watchdog from calling out a wide range of entities for allegedly antisemitic behavior and spreading hateful ideology throughout North America, especially on college campuses.

The organization, which operates anonymously, spoke to The Algemeiner about its work since Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. To stay anonymous and protect the safety of staff, the group did not attribute its remarks to a specific individual.

Since the outbreak of the war, Canary Mission has been working on what it calls four “significant” developments.

“First, there has been a sharp escalation in global antisemitism, both in frequency and severity,” a representative said. “We are no longer discussing simple breaches of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Discourse has alarmingly shifted to overt expressions of hate, including endorsements of Hamas’ violence against Jews, coupled with a stark indifference to the suffering of kidnapped, raped, and murdered Jews.”

Antisemitic incidents have skyrocketed globally since the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7. Most recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported a 360 percent surge in such incidents over the past three months, with about two-thirds directly related to the Israel-Hamas war.

“Second,” Canary Mission continued, “antisemites on the left and right seem even more willing to work with each other in their common cause against Jews and Israel.”

“Third, a bipartisan consensus has emerged with a clear recognition of the extreme antisemitism fostered within the anti-Israel movement,” the group added.

Lastly, Canary Mission addressed the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) refusing to say at a congressional hearing last month that calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools’ codes of conduct against bullying and harassment.

“Fourth, despite the dismal failure of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT leadership to condemn calls for the genocide against Jews, there have been some positive campus developments,” the watchdog said. “Several universities have finally understood that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is essentially an incubator for hatred and have taken action against them.”

Some schools have banned or suspended SJP chapters, which have orchestrated pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses across the US, for violating school rules.

Over the past three months, Canary Mission has, among other projects, linked US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) to fundraisers with Hamas ties, profiled dozens of signatories of a letter denouncing Israel just one day after the Oct. 7 massacre, and exposed the organizers of a recent rally in Philadelphia that targeted a local Jewish restaurant for having a history of backing Hamas and calling for the destruction of Israel.

“Our support has significantly grown since the war began,” Canary Mission said. “The traffic to our website has substantially increased, reflecting the heightened interest in our cause … Our new support comes from across the political spectrum from individuals and organizations who understand the danger and hatred Jews are facing. Naturally, we have also received plenty of threats and abuse from neo-Nazis and anti-Israel activists alike.”

Canary Mission described its work as necessary and “far from finished” in combating “unfounded hatred towards Jews and the Jewish state.”

“Since our inception in 2015, Canary Mission has stood as a vigilant watchdog against antisemitism, with a particular focus on the spread of antisemitism in academic institutions,” the group said. “From UPenn to Harvard, our findings reveal an unsettling reality that has been simmering in American academia for years … Our work is comprehensive. We highlight instances of antisemitism across the political landscape and refuse to ignore or excuse it regardless of its source. The profiles we create are not just records but tools that hold individuals accountable for their words and actions. In doing so, we create lasting consequences for those who propagate hate against Jews and Israel.”

Canary Mission dismissed criticism that it’s doxing, saying it does not release any personal information such as home addresses, emails, or phone numbers. The watchdog added it “presents an individual’s words and actions. This enables the public to form their own opinion and decide on their own response to the content presented.”

Concluding, the group said, “Critics will continue to dislike the Canary Mission platform, and supporters will continue to recognize the vital importance of shining a light on anti-Jewish hatred during this difficult time in our history.”

“And a note to our critics: We are not going away — we have only just begun.”

#canary mission #doxing #antisemitism

56 notes · View notes

fatehbaz · 10 months

Text

Travel back [...] a few hundred years to before the industrial revolution, and the wildlife of Britain and Ireland looks very different [...]. [B]etween 1529 and 1772 [...] [i]n the early modern period, wolves, beavers and probably some lynxes still survived in regions of Scotland and Ireland. [...] [T]he now globally extinct great auk could still be found on islands in the Outer Hebrides. [...] [A]nd pine martens and “Scottish” wildcats were also found in England and Wales. [...] [B]urbot and sturgeon in both rivers and at sea [...] [and] threatened molluscs like the freshwater pearl mussel and oyster were also far more widespread. [...] [S]everal species of wolf have gone extinct [...]. The capercaillie is [...] [t]oday [...] found only rarely in the north of Scotland, but 250-500 years ago it was recorded in the west of Ireland [...]. [B]y the end of the 18th century, sea eagles were essentially extinct across England and Wales. [...]

The Powte’s Complaint is a protest ballad probably written in 1619 to bewail the drainage of the Fens around Ely and Wisbech in Cambridgeshire.

Attributed in one manuscript to a “Peny” of Wisbech, it is written from the perspective of a burbot, a freshwater species of cod commonly found in the Fens at this time. (This fish is now nationally extinct, but may be soon be reintroduced.)

The ballad summons the “brethren of the water” – probably meaning local people as well as fish and other animals – to fight against the drainage scheme, which sought to create new pasture land:

Come, Brethren of the water, and let us all assemble,

To treat upon this matter, which makes us quake and tremble;

For we shall rue it if ’t be true that Fenns be undertaken,

And where we feed in Fen and Reed, they’ll feed both Beef and Bacon.

According to research by Todd Borlik and Clare Egan, the subject of complaint here was a plan to cut a canal through an area of common land south of Haddenham. This scheme would remove the ability of local people to catch fish, and also to transport their produce and fuel on the water. Protests against the scheme apparently culminated in a demonstration of some 2,000 people who lit bonfires, banged on drums and fired guns all night during a meeting of the Commission of Sewers in 1619.

Within the poem, the alliance of the “brethren of the water” seems to recognise the interdependence of humans and wildlife on each other, and on the environment of the Fens.

A comparable example [...] is the Welsh poem Coed Marchan (Marchan Wood), written around 1580 by Robin Clidro, a wandering poet from the Vale of Clwyd in Denbighshire, known for his humorous rhymes.

Clidro’s poem tells the story of a group of red squirrels who go to London to present a petition against the felling of Marchan Wood for charcoal. As with The Powte’s Complaint, the use of the squirrel as narrator is a conceit, and the poem is really a protest against deforestation on behalf of human interests. But again, the author re-imagines the world from the perspective of animals:

Odious and hard is the law, and painful to little squirrels. They go the whole way to London, with their cry and their matron before them. Then on her oath she said, “All Rhuthyn’s woods are ravaged; my house and barn were taken one dark night, and my store of nuts.” The squirrels all are calling for the trees; they fear the dog.

---

Image, caption, and text by: Lee Raye. “Wildlife wonders of Britain and Ireland before the industrial revolution – my research reveals all the biodiversity we’ve lost.” The Conversation. 17 July 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

56 notes · View notes

allthebrazilianpolitics · 10 months

Text

Amazon nations fail to agree on deforestation goal at summit

Eight Amazon nations agreed to a list of unified environmental policies and measures to bolster regional cooperation at a major rainforest summit in Brazil on Tuesday, but failed to agree on a common goal for ending deforestation.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who has staked his international reputation on improving Brazil's environmental standing, had been pushing for the region to unite behind a common policy of ending deforestation by 2030 - one he has already adopted.

Instead, the joint declaration issued on Tuesday in the Brazilian city of Belem created an alliance for combating forest destruction, with countries left to pursue their own individual deforestation goals.

The failure of the eight Amazon countries to agree on a pact to protect their own forests points to the larger, global difficulties of forging an agreement to combat climate change. Many scientists say policymakers are acting too slowly to head off catastrophic global warming.

"The planet is melting, we are breaking temperature records every day. It is not possible that, in a scenario like this, eight Amazonian countries are unable to put in a statement - in large letters - that deforestation needs to be zero," said Marcio Astrini of environmental lobby group Climate Observatory.

#politics #environmentalism #climate change #environmental justice #amazon rainforest #Brazil #Bolivia #Colombia #Ecuador #Guyana #Peru #Suriname #Venezuela #brazilian politics #international politics #amazon summit #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt

36 notes · View notes

hero-israel · 1 year

Note

Jews are obviously indigenous to the Levant. But if we consider the foundation of Israel and Zionism as a whole as a Land Back Movement, or an indigenous sovereignty movement or what have you... yes it would be the most successful example of that in history. But it was also be such a success due to large scale violence organized by a modern Western style nation state that is heavily militarized, industrialized, and practice capitalism.

I can see how the average Land Back advocate, who is statistically speaking some kind of leftist who is usually against violence or who rejects this Western style model of nationstatehood, would balk at Israel. A somewhat common approach seems to be to disavow Jewish indigeneity because surely no real indigenous group would "sell out" for lack of a better term.

I do think that especially in the West, or at least America and Canada... indigeneity is strongly associated with preconceived notions about the First Nations here. Indigenous groups from outside the New World tend not to be thought about, which isn't too surprising. So to them and their supporters, who might not have thought of Jews as an indigenous group, seeing a capitalist nation state with an army and industry and an active role in modern global politics and trading and alliances, it might not "feel" like the natural outcome for Land Back/Sovereignty. They wouldn't recognize Israel as a legitimate indigenous nation with its own sovereignty.

I would counterargue that this might just be the price for sovereignty. I've seen a lot of Hawai'ian sovereignty activists (a lot also tend to be strong antizionists). I'm sorry to say but Hawai'i will never be independent again. The American hegemony sees no use or advantage for it, and the Hawai'ian people are not numerous or powerful enough to wage war on America and win their sovereignty. Because that's the only way that could realistically happen. So they're stuck.

I recognize the tragedy that an indigenous group, characterized by a unique People with their own culture and legal system etc. that survived contact with various Empires, had to incorporate Empire into some of their Nation, in order to beat the Empires. It's also ironic that a lot of Land Back activists and their allies scoff at Israel but have no reflection on how their own strategy of negotiating with the Empire is still legitimizing the Empire. The idea of Sovereignty meaning you disavow a State and are at the mercy of a larger imperial state who graciously decides to grant you autonomy in your ancestral homeland... that seems like the actual selling out to me.

Anyway I've met a lot of indigenous people who love Jews and recognize Jewish indigeneity and who are respectful critics of Israel's government while not being antizionist. I've met lots of of indigenous people who are also Jewish! It's clear we're all natural allies with each other so I don't mean to talk bad about anyone. I just think Jewish indigeneity is complex and has some interesting implications for the sovereignty movements of other nations.

This is a great ask and covers a lot of very important ground!

Definitely true that Israel is a victim of its own success. As a real country with a real army and real body count, it stacks up poorly next to theoretical Land-Back outcomes and even more poorly against a mythological / potential country of Palestine. Castles in the air don't have dirty floors. It is precisely because the Jews are indigenous - because there is no empire of origin to decamp back to - that they have had to stay and fight so tenaciously.

"Leftists who reject the entire model of nationstatehood".... they don't, not really. Their politics include engaging with nation-states all the time and they envision other nation-states in the future. Certainly a nation-state of Palestine. When they talk about Israel, they immediately leap to destroying it, then only reluctantly backpedal into being "against all countries," when, again, by their own words and deeds they plainly are not. If someone said voting is bullshit, all elections are scams, both parties are the same, nothing ever really changes, it's all just an oppressive oligomilitarist patriarchal war machine yadda yadda yadda and that's why black people shouldn't vote, I should hope the rhetorical bait-and-switch would be just as obvious.

If Native Americans or Hawaiian islanders ever actually did have the chance to do an Israel-style retaking and fortification of sovereignty, they absolutely should. Even if it were achieved at my expense, even if upon seeing my own looming personal displacement I were to start to want them to lose out of pure base selfishness, I'd like to think I wouldn't have this affronted, shocked sense of HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE THOSE PEOPLE which is not even the undercurrent but just plain the current of discussions of Zionism.

"Selling out and legitimizing Empire" - this I see as an inherent contradiction within the people who are against the concept of Jewish indigeneity and sovereignty. If we're not indigenous to the Levant, if the butcher's bill isn't worth it, and we're supposed to be happy as diasporists living on the good graces of America and France and however long our luck holds out... we're really just continuing to benefit from someone's empire and military violence, from someone's air force, from someone's corporate power structure. But now we get to hide behind an excuse that no one like us is actually doing it, we merely benefit from it. Impotently saying impotent slogans like "Not in my name!" while it absolutely is being done in our name is to modern leftists what buying indulgences was for Catholics 500 years ago. By having Jews responsible for their own government, their own state, we can have the greatest chance of minimizing any damage it causes. I honestly think that is one of the reasons why the I/P bodycount is so very low - because the Jews in the Jewish state can't blame someone else for what it did.

A very relevant point here is the stifling of the Kurdish national project, and how some Kurdish regions in otherwise hostile countries have shown warm ties to Israel at least as a concept. It's sadly ironic that Israel has to prioritize its ties with Turkey over the Kurds who live there, and used to prioritize ties with pre-revolution Iran the same way; likewise how it is more important that it be on good terms with Azerbaijan than that it take a principled moral stance about Armenia. This again is what happens when politics go from dream to reality. And that's what actual criticism of Israel looks like.

#israel #palestine #judaism #zionism #indigenous peoples #decolonization #jumblr

62 notes · View notes

yugotrash · 1 year

Note

Why do you think homophobia is systematically unsolvable?

this would take a lot more space but i'll try to be brief. i'll begin by acknowledging that here i primarily have my own country in the capitalist (semi-)periphery and male homosexuals in mind, since i don't believe in a sex-neutral homophobia (lesbophobia is enmeshed with misogyny much more than anti-homosexual sentiment).

"Solving" homophobia, that is the elimination of negative societal attitudes towards homosexuals, would require constant and consistent political action in changing the attitude of the vast majority of people in a given society. Such action would require homosexuals as some kind of collective political subject. However, homosexuals are structurally incapable of organising in a way that is required by such a bottom up campaign. This is due to several reasons:

Homosexuals are dispersed randomly across space, race, class, age and sex, to the degree that their common sexual orientation cannot bridge. Solidarity along some of these other lines will invariably carry more weight.

Homosexuals are a tiny minority of the population. This minority has no capability to disrupt society (cannot withhold labour or reproductive function, for example), and society would continue to exist smoothly if they were all to vanish. They also cannot engage in separatism both because of aforementioned dispersal and inability to reproduce their own community.

Homosexuals' half-hidden existence, in which they must explicitly "come out" to people around them to be recognised as such and experience direct pushback means that, for reasons of safety and convenience, an even tinier part of an already tiny minority can "afford" to be openly homosexual at all times - this is deadly to any attempt to recruit for a grassroots cause.

Homosexuals are severely limited in their ability to develop the kind of consciousness that has shaped mass liberation movements. They are deeply invested in woman-hating modes of thought and behaviour, queer or otherwise, and enough frank analysis would lead to them realising that they are not the protagonists of their own liberation, as homophobia is a byproduct of the rigid system of sex roles, which women are the only ones capable of abolishing.

The problem of consciousness continues if you factor in rampant mental illness, social alienation and an ever-present conviction, whether articulated positively or not, that the homosexual is so far removed in his experience from anyone else in the world that basically no real alliances with other social groups are possible, and such a small minority without such an alliance is permanently impotent.

The nigh-total domination of genderism and queer politics among the homosexuals has ensured that large numbers of that miniscule number that can "afford" political action is deeply invested in essentially homophobic politics. In Western societies, this kind of new homophobia is fast becoming not only the gay orthodoxy, but the orthodoxy of general political discourse as well.

Due to political developments since the 1960s and the domination of Western institutions globally since the 1990s, homosexuals are largely incapable or unwilling to articulate their own positions outside the dominant liberal orthodoxy - western governments and NGOs fund and maintain loyal proxies in the rest of the world who largely hold monopolies on homosexual-related topics in public discourse in their respective countries. By virtue of their resources and protections, these proxies effectively position themselves as representatives of (among others) sexual minorities both to the government/public and to their country's homosexuals as well, regardless of how little they actually represent their interests. There is virtually no prospect of breaking this stranglehold by committed groups of dissenting homosexuals due to factors listed above.

Although I consider homophobia to be mostly derivative of sex roles and failure to adhere to them, I'm increasingly convinced there is also an irrational, organic or non-learned element, a kind of visceral revulsion the heterosexuals feel towards homosexuals that may be impossible to ever get rid of.

All in all, my conclusion is that you have to look truth in the face and realize that if you're a gay man, nothing short of a radical feminist revolution will really remove the problems you face as a homosexual, and that in the meantime all you can do is lend your support to feminists, find local and small-scale ways to soothe those aspects of homophobia that hit you hardest with support of your immediate community, make gay friends you can actually relate to and look around for more productive standpoints you can occupy towards society other than your sexual orientation. Kill the desire to center your entire experience around being gay, as you'll eventually run into a lot of dead-ends otherwise.

#asks #anonymous

59 notes · View notes

sophia-zofia · 7 months

Text

Despite its public portrayal of itself, the ADL isn’t a civil rights group in any meaningful sense, but rather, a veiled pro-Israel lobbying organization that uses superficial language of inclusiveness and anti-racism to defend Israel from criticism from the left. The ADL already assists large social media platforms in determining what is and isn’t hate speech, and by teaming up with the #StopHateForProfit effort, the group will likely have even more say in determining what content is worthy of publication. The problem is that the ADL has made it clear on a number of occasions that it considers the entire basis of the peaceful Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement — embraced by virtually all of Palestinian civil society — to be hate speech, specifically any claim that denies Israel’s “existence as a Jewish state” (e.g. its claim to ethnonational supremacy over non-Jews living in Palestine). The ADL’s website clearly states, “Anti-Israel activity crosses the line to anti-Semitism” with any statement that “Israel is denied the right to exist as a Jewish state,” and that “the founding goals of the BDS movement and many of the strategies used by BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic.”

Put another way, if Palestinians don’t co-sign their own ethnic cleansing by agreeing with the radical premise that the land of their birth, or where their families are from, is axiomatically meant for Jews, they are, according to the ADL, engaging in racist speech. So too will non-Palestinian allies of Palestine be painted as racists: Recently, the ADL’s deputy national director took to the New York Times to accuse Peter Beinart, who was once among the most prominent liberal Zionist writers in the United States, of anti-Semitism for announcing that he now supports one state based on equal rights.

The use of anti-hate-speech laws and regulations to snuff out calls for equal rights in Palestine is not theoretical — it’s common practice already in France, which has used such laws to effectively make the BDS movement illegal. While these are laws, not social media rules of conduct, the principle is the same: Any speech that calls into question Israel’s right to exist as a ethno-supremacist state is de facto anti-Semitic.

In 2017, the ADL accused the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), a grassroots Black Lives Matter organization founded in 2014, of anti-Semitism, a form of hate speech, because M4BL’s platform read, in part, “The U.S. justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.” It follows that if the M4BL were to post this statement on social media, it’s likely the ADL would view it as hate speech and demand Facebook take it down. If the ADL views the foundational documents of the M4BL as including hate speech, how can the ADL possibly assert itself as a moral authority in this moment? Has the ADL’s position changed since 2017, or does the ADL still to this day consider the M4BL’s platform anti-Semitic?

The ADL smearing Black activists who oppose Israel isn’t new. In the 1960s, the ADL harshly criticized the Black-led Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panthers for their criticisms of Israel, equating these “negro extremists” with the KKK and American Nazi Party. The ADL also worked with the Israeli government in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s to spy on Arab groups, as well as leftwing anti-South African apartheid activists. As Pulitzer Prize-winning author Glenn Frankel noted in Foreign Policy magazine in 2010, “The Anti-Defamation League participated in a blatant propaganda campaign against Nelson Mandela and the ANC in the mid 1980s and employed an alleged ‘fact-finder’ named Roy Bullock to spy on the anti-apartheid campaign in the United States — a service he was simultaneously performing for the South African government. The ADL defended the white regime’s purported constitutional reforms while denouncing the ANC as ‘totalitarian anti-humane, anti-democratic, anti-Israel, and anti-American.’”

#israel #anti defamation league #free gaza #gaza #palestine #free palestine #censorship

22 notes · View notes

ethanreedbooks · 28 days

Text

Clash of Titans: Captain America and the Avengers Meet the X-Men in X-Men '97!

Could the Appearance of Captain America and the Avengers Bring About a War with the X-Men?

The potential ramifications of Captain America and the Avengers intersecting with the X-Men storyline in X-Men '97 raise intriguing questions about the dynamics between these iconic superhero teams. While the appearance of Captain America offers a compelling narrative twist and enriches the series' world-building, it also introduces the possibility of conflict between the two groups.

Avengers vs. X-Men (AvX or AvsX) is a 2012 crossover event that was featured in comic books published by Marvel Comics. The event, consisting of an eponymous limited series and numerous tie-in books, involves the return of the Phoenix Force and the subsequent war between the Avengers and the X-Men. The 12-issue twice-monthly series was first published in April 2012, and features a storyline by Jason Aaron, Brian Michael Bendis, Ed Brubaker, Jonathan Hickman, and Matt Fraction, with a rotating team of artists including John Romita Jr., Olivier Coipel, and Adam Kubert.

Captain America's presence underscores the global impact of the Genosha tragedy and aligns with his established role as a symbol of hope and leadership in the Marvel Universe. However, his differing ideology and approach to justice may clash with the X-Men's methods, particularly in the aftermath of Rogue's vigilante actions. As a beacon of morality and order, Captain America may view the X-Men's actions as reckless or misguided, potentially leading to tension and disagreement between the teams.

Moreover, the Avengers' involvement could complicate the X-Men's ongoing struggles with anti-mutant sentiment and government persecution. If the Avengers perceive the X-Men as a threat or liability, it could escalate into a larger conflict, especially if other Avengers members share Captain America's concerns.

On the other hand, collaboration between the two teams offers exciting storytelling opportunities and the potential for alliances forged in the face of common threats. Their shared commitment to protecting humanity could ultimately outweigh any initial differences, leading to a united front against formidable adversaries like Bastion and Mister Sinister.

The event was preceded by the four-issue limited series Avengers: X-Sanction by Jeph Loeb and Ed McGuinness and Avengers vs. X-Men #0. Avengers vs. X-Men also ties into the limited series AVX: VS, described as "the fight book" which expands upon many of the one-on-one battles featured in the main series, the digital series; Avengers vs. X-Men: Infinite, and into a number of ongoing series including Avengers, Avengers Academy, New Avengers, Secret Avengers, Uncanny X-Men, Wolverine and the X-Men and X-Men: Legacy. The event was succeeded by the limited series AvX: Consequences.

Overall, while the appearance of Captain America and the Avengers adds depth and complexity to the X-Men '97 narrative, it also introduces the possibility of conflict and rivalry between these beloved superhero groups. The repercussions of their interactions may shape the future direction of the series, offering fans thrilling storylines and compelling character dynamics to explore.

17 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 1 month

Text

Imperialism, Capitalism, and the State

To understand the current situation, we must first demystify the political system in Iran.

Iran must be understood as a capitalist society and its state, both before and after the revolution, as a capitalist state. No amount of demagogic proclamations can change the fact that the Iranian state, while possessing many features peculiar to itself, is nonetheless a particular form of bourgeois class rule, a fact visible not only in its internal social relations, but also in the role it plays in the world system.

Through the course of the nineteenth century, Iran went through a process of integration and peripheralization into the rising capitalist world system. The Qajar dynasty (1794 to 1925) that ascended the Peacock Throne at the end of the previous century was quickly caught in the “Great Game” between the Tsarist Russian Empire and the British Empire as they both became more assertive in Asia. Military defeats resulted in the imposition of unequal treaties that not only led to a loss of territory but also included terms that established political and economic dominance. Iran was opened up to European commodities, while domestic production increasingly became geared towards the world market.[2]

Qajar Iran was a system that can be described as tribal-feudalism.[3] The state was not a centralized modern state. The Shah (king) ruled through various local nobles, landlords, tribal-chiefs, and senior clergy who formed the landed aristocracy and played the role of the respective powers in their locality. The latter ruled over a large mass of peasant villagers and nomadic tribes-people. There was no national army, only armies tied to local lords and chiefs. People were divided up according to ethnic groupings, tribal or religious sects, and spoke a variety of languages and dialects.

In the urban centers, which often served as provincial capitals, the center of economic life was — and to a large extent still is today — the bazaar, the traditional commercial center in the urban Middle East, with the merchants and artisans who inhabit it being collectively known as bazaari.[4] The bazaar was not just the center for shops and trade, it also often contained public baths, tea houses, as well as the central mosque. It is common for bazaari and clergy to have familial relations. Wealthy bazaaris fund the mosques and seminaries, religious processions, donate to charitable foundations, and form the main financial support for many religious affairs. Landholdings of the senior clergy and wealthy merchants increased over the course of the 19th century, with the clergy gaining land through religious endowments and donations by rich aristocrats and merchants. This relationship between the bazaari, as the traditional bourgeoisie, and the clergy is important for understanding the politics of modern Iran, and the 1979 revolution in particular, for it was this clerical-bazaari alliance that lay at the heart of the revolution, serving as the base of the Islamic Republic.

This process of integration into the world market, particularly in the form of European domination, contributed to the development of bourgeois national consciousness among merchants, clergy, and artisans. Struggles against foreign concessions and other forms of foreign domination became more commonplace as the merchant bourgeoisie of the bazaar became more assertive, solidifying a bourgeois form of national consciousness. This combination of a material-financial force in the merchants and the ideological force of the clergy transformed the traditional bourgeoisie into a genuine political force.

The integration and peripheralization characteristic of the nineteenth century brought with it close economic ties between Iranian and Russian merchants, but also contributed to the embryonic development of a modern working class. The reality of this process hit home in Iran when the global depression of the 1870s provoked a drop in agricultural prices. Worsening conditions in the countryside forced peasants to leave their villages in search of work. Naturally, they were drawn to the growing industrial centers of the Russian Caucasus, particularly the new oil industry, the center of which being the city of Baku.

Baku’s oil fields were a crucible for working-class radicalism. In the late nineteenth century, the city attracted hundreds of thousands of Iranian migrant workers to the growing industry where they encountered the organizing of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP), itself formed in 1898. Not only Iranians, but people from all over the region traveled to work in the industry, with the result that the city boasted a significant multi-ethnic and multi-religious working class. Employers stoked hostilities often, and Iranian workers and activists in the region became involved in many of the strikes organized by the party. It was a strike wave in Baku that sparked the events that would lead to the Russian Revolution of 1905. Amidst this wave, workers gained crucial experience in party activities and strikes, and it was during the same year the Social Democratic Party of Iran (SDPI) was founded.[5]

The 1905 Revolution would directly influence bourgeois national revolutions in Asian nations such as China and Turkey, but given its proximity and its historical ties, it was felt most immediately in Iran. For Russian and Iranian Social Democrats, the revolution in Iran was directly tied to the revolution against the Tsar. Following the Tsarist reaction just north of the border, many revolutionaries turned their attention south to Iran. The revolutionary wave landing in Iran at the end of the year marked a crucial turning point, ushering in the twentieth century with the Constitutional Revolution and Civil War (1906–1911).[6] This revolution had a number of parallels with the one in Russia, and can even be seen as an extension of the latter, as it proved to be a similarly bourgeois national-democratic revolution with a strong social democratic element. Although it would not succeed in fundamentally altering the state or economic relations, it was nonetheless of great cultural-political significance, and every political tendency that will go on to shape the landscape of 20th century Iran draw their roots there. It also prolonged the bazaari-clergy alliance that had developed in the protests against foreign concessions, but did so while introducing a revolutionary element into the nascent working class and social democratic movement. Along with the struggle for a national assembly, or Majlis, we also witness the appearance and growth of the anjumans, or provincial councils that — as with the soviets — became sources of popular power that pushed the revolution further. In 1909, the first modern industry-wide trade union was established in Tehran among print shops and newspaper workers. 1910 saw the first industry-wide strike, which included all the major newspapers in Tehran. Their demands included, among other things, the eight-hour day and the installation of a minimum wage.

Faced with the threat of revolution from below and an ascendant Germany that was becoming increasingly more assertive in the Middle East, the Russian and British empires put their differences aside and came to an agreement in Asia which was formalized as The Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907. The agreement made the division of Iran into Russian and British spheres of influence official, and served as a decisive step in the construction of alliances that would eventually erupt into world war.[7] The December 1911 Russian-British invasion and occupation of Iran put an end to the revolutionary wave that had been ongoing since 1905. The Tsarist armies in particular oversaw a reign of terror against Iranian and Russian revolutionaries. While the parliament survived, it did so merely as a basis for aristocratic rule. The constitutional revolution posed, for the first time in Iran, the still crucial question: how should radical socialists relate to broader, popular democratic revolution? And it did so while demonstrating another persistent truth: in the face of social revolution bourgeois democrats will turn to imperialism and reaction.

Two years after the Anglo-Russian intervention that ended the Constitutional Revolution, the imperialist rivalry broke out into world war in 1914. Although the Iranian government officially declared neutrality, it proved powerless to prevent Iran from becoming part of the Middle Eastern theater of war between the Anglo-Russian alliance (‘Entente Powers’) and the Ottoman-German alliance (‘Central Powers’). The war had devastating effects on Iran, as it did on any place that was treated as a battleground for imperialist slaughter. Roughly two million people died from the violence of war, famine, and disease. The situation underscored Iran’s colonial situation, as the country was helpless in the face of foreign powers that effectively did as they pleased within its borders.

At this point, Iran proved to be an independent nation only in name, with the central government serving as a mere shadow for other powers. As was the case before the constitutional period, the central government had no real power outside of the nation’s capital, and even there, such power was constantly disrupted by foreign intervention. Local tribal chiefs and aristocrats seized the opportunity to assert themselves and by the end of the war, clearly constituted the actual powers in their respective regions, going so far as to strike deals and sign treaties with imperialist powers directly without any involvement of, or mediation from, the central government.

The 1917 Russian Revolution fundamentally altered the situation, and breathed new life into the revolutionary forces. The Bolsheviks removed Russian forces from Iran while abolishing all Russian treaties and concessions over the country. The fall of the Romanov Tsar also marked the removal of the Qajars’ principal patron. Following the removal of Russian and Ottoman forces at the end of the war, the British became the dominant imperialist power in the Middle East. The British had initially thought to turn Iran into a protectorate, but the possibility proved untenable. Anti-British sentiment was increasing, and they had quite simply spread themselves too thin. Most importantly, the October Revolution had ushered in a new threat of social revolution. Bolsheviks-aligned Iranian socialists formed the Adalat (Justice) Party, which in 1920 became the Communist Party of Iran. More than perhaps anything else, it was the October Revolution that threatened both the British and the local ruling aristocracy. By 1920, this threat had spread to the northern province of Gilan with the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran. The Red Army now had an official presence on Iranian soil, and succeeded in pushing out both British and Iranian forces from the area.[8]

This presence forced a change in the imperialist strategy of the British. Whereas the latter had thus far supported various local nobles and tribal chiefs in an effort to maintain their influence, this tactic (in addition to direct occupation) was beginning to prove unstable in the face of the Bolshevik threat. Alongside many among the Iranian ruling class, the British searched for a strongman who could seize power, restore order, and protect their interests from the threat of social revolution. It was in this context that an officer from the Cossack Brigades named Reza Khan distinguished himself as the best candidate for the job.9 He was encouraged to organize a coup, the result of which would be an insurance of security and the withdrawal of British forces from the region.

12 notes · View notes

usafphantom2 · 4 months

Text

USAF F-16 fighters train in Bosnia on alert against "separatist activity"

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 01/11/2024 - 16:00 in Military, War Zones

Two U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons conducted bilateral air-to-ground training with joint terminal attack controllers (JTACs) from the U.S. Special Operations Command in Europe and the Bosnia and Herzegovina Armed Forces JTACs near Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina, on January 8, 2024.

This bilateral formation is an example of advanced cooperation between the military that contributes to peace and security in the Western Balkans and throughout Europe. It is also a show of force aimed at deterring the "separatist activity" of Bosnian Serbs that is in disagreement with the U.S.-mediated peace agreements, the U.S. government said.

The exercise aimed to support America's commitment to Bosnia's territorial integrity, amid growing tensions inflamed by Bosnian Serb nationalist leader Milorad Dodik, whom Russia supports.

January 9 is celebrated as Republika Srpska Day by Bosnian Serbs and marks the anniversary of the declaration of independence that started the conflict in Bosnia in 1992, which killed more than 100,000 people and led to ethnic cleansing and the massacre of civilians.

“Joint military events like this are a demonstration of the U.S.' lasting partnership with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Armed Forces,” said U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Basham, deputy commander of the U.S. European Command.

"American support for the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina is inflexible, forged over years of close cooperation. For twenty years, the Armed Forces of our two countries maintained a remarkable and robust military relationship between the military," added Basham. "The United States continues to provide assistance that will help its armed forces modernize and become a contributor to security, both regionally and globally.”

The training was part of the routine efforts of U.S. forces to exchange tactics, techniques and procedures with the forces of partner countries.

The mission of the F-16 fighters assigned to the 31ª Fighter Wing of Aviano Air Base, Italy, was supported by a KC-135 Stratotanker from the 100ª Air Refueling Wing, from the RAF Base in Mildenhall, United Kingdom, which provided air refueling for the F-16s and contributed to fulfilling all training objectives.

The U.S. Department of Defense and the Bosnian and Herzegovina Armed Forces share a common goal of contributing to continued stability in the region and are natural partners in their global commitment to global security.

In the 1990s, NATO intervened with military force, first through the beginning of Operation Deny Flight, which aimed to impose a United Nations no-fly zone during the conflict in the Balkans, and later Operation Deliberate Force, an air campaign against the Bosnian Serbian Army. In 1995, the US mediated the Dayton Agreements, agreed at Wright-Patterson Air Base, Ohio, with Republika Srpska, of a Serbian majority, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Bosnian and Croatian majority, agreeing to peace as a single state.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned in November that the alliance was “concerned about secessionist and divisionist rhetoric, as well as evil foreign interference, including Russia”.

After the celebration of Republika Srpska Day on January 9, the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo condemned the actions.

Soldiers of the U.S. Special Operations Command in Europe and joint terminal attack controllers of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) remain united during a bilateral training event at BiH on January 8, 2024. (Photo: U.S Army / Sgt. Alejandro Lucero)

“The United States has acted to address anti-Dayton actions like this in the past and will not hesitate to do so again in the future,” the U.S. Embassy said in a statement on January 9.

EUCOM said that the Air Force exercise held on January 8 aimed to strengthen peace in the Balkans.

Tags: Military AviationF-16 Fighting FalconNATO - North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationUSAF - United States Air Force / U.S. Air ForceWar Zones

Sharing

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.