#Economic Explosives Limited
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Nagastra Loitering Munitions gives Indian Army massive offensive boost
Nagastra Loitering Munitions gives Indian Army massive offensive boost
EEL’s Nagastra Loitering Munitions: In a significant step towards self-reliance in defense technology, the Indian Army recently received its first batch of Nagastra loitering munitions. This delivery marks a crucial milestone in the nation’s efforts to equip its armed forces with cutting-edge, domestically produced weaponry. The Nagastra, developed by Solar Industries‘ subsidiary Economics…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
Ascendants at different degrees 🦚🦢
my natal mercury is square with transiting mercury 😭 km pls. my mind has been a MESS I can’t and that’s why all my fucking ideas seemed difficult to write. srry if it’s not it.
julianlandini
Ascendant at Pisces degree (12° or 24°)
that’s fucking meee. i have this fairy vibe or they often call me hippie. that sensible and humanitarian side it’s there, the wanting to contribute for the best of others, to make that world they dreamed of basing it on the different perspective of others, of what the other have felt and how they have felt when they witnessed it. since the origin, since the depth of things. the path of their life is about to express themselves and to speak for others? The ones that couldn’t spoke? Bc all their life they have been listening to them, looking from a side the reality they’re scared of. -they’ve been psychologists if you want to call it that way-. They want to give love, they have so much love to give. During a period of their life -mostly childhood- they could have felt isolated from the world, these period of time could have been pretty sensible for them and helped them to “open their eyes”, how the world they thought worked was a lie.
Ascendant at Taurus degree (2°, 14° or 26°)
the difference of a person when the degree of the ascendant changes it’s incredible. There’s two people in my life that have aries rising but the one with taurus is completely different of the other. How a person with taurus degree on their ascendant live or the vibe of their life…they want comfort but at the same time have to have what they want, they’re persistent in to what they want and that’s attractive. I have seen people with this placement having a lot of romantic interactions or situationships, it’s easy for them to attract lovers👅 I’ve noticed they make good use of opportunities, they remind me of a bear bc I want to hug them no matter what. They’re realistic or practical. They indeed are critical with food, they need to take their nap to feel good. They’re like old people, how they point out manners and limits people have to have on their perspective and etc. I’ve seen a lot of people with these placement that had moved to their natal place to other bc of the opportunities. could mean also they are part of a family that can provide them economic support or/but with time they had struggle with it.
Ascendant at Aries degree (1°, 13° or 25°)
they’re pretty erratic, they look fucking mad all the time. They’re impulsive, their emotions, their decisions, they don’t know how they ended up the way they ended up. You can see from aside they’re natural liders. however, their whole life they’ve been fighting for being the liders of their life. there’s people around them that don’t understand limits, that think they have the right to control the aries degree life. these placement have to learn that they have the right to stand up for they want even if others don’t want to or don’t let them. they want to have something build by their own, THEIR thing, if not they’ll feel lost. they follow their heart and not doing it will cause problems in the future.
Ascendant at Capricorn degree (10° or 22°)
I have a friend that has Leo ascendant but she wasn’t giving me the stereotypical explosive energy someone expects from a leo. I did my research 😌 and of course she has a Capricorn degree. She is a very career focused person, grounded and driven by her goals. Also an introvert or priorities the company of the ones she likes the most or thinks is the best. She’s studying to be a doctor, her whole life will revolve around her work, she is devoted and has a BIG heart for her loved ones and the ones that would be part of her path. She looks serious. They’re seemed as reserved bc they’re 🤪 and when you get to know them they’re a beautiful soul. They won’t let anything get into their way when it comes to their career and goals, they’ll risk it all. Around their life they’ve had this introverted behavior or they’re Saturn ruled, which means they know bc they have to experience things, little by little but they have had and have to. In other words, they have seen and been in difficult situations that later -bc they have the power- analyzed the situation in 3er person to comprehend bc if not saturn will do what they do🤭
—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•
❀ Based on my personal experience and what I’ve analyzed in my surroundings.
❀ English is not my first language.
❀ I’m not a profesional astrologer, I just love astrology and I’m willing to learn.
Thank youu. baibaiii🫣🫶🏼💋
Do not copy. Please give me credits.
#astrology#astro observations#pinterest#astro posts#astro notes#astro placements#ascendant#rising#birth chart#Aries degree#Capricorn degree#pisces degree#taurus degree
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
These are my baseline standards for a hypothetical boyfriend, in no particular order. However, noncompliance to any of the items on this list do not necessarily hold the same level of intolerance for me, but failure to adhere to one or more of these would be a dealbreaker regardless:
Must spend majority of free time consuming educational content, such as books, educational videos, and documentaries
Must be employed. Intolerance for certain areas of work will be decided at a later date by me
NOT a holder of any of the following degrees: Business, Economics, Computer Science, Film Studies
No more than 3 hours of video games per week, absolutely NO co-op games, single player only
Allows me to go through his phone whenever I like
Does AT LEAST 50 per cent of household chores if cohabiting. The only time I will not expect this of him will be if he becomes very ill at some point
No excessive interest in ANY 20th century military history
No excessive interest in ANY weapons of war. Includes tanks, firearms, explosives, Et cetera
Does not raise his voice at me, EVER
Zero tolerance for pornography use, this includes content intended to be "erotic" where the woman is semi-nude or fully clothed
Zero tolerance for the use of misogynistic derogatory terms (even in "jest"), including but not limited to: bitch, cunt, whore, slut
Must have hobbies that do not involve the use of a computer
Not squeamish on matters related to the outdoors (dirt, insects, animal remains, etc.)
Must know how to cook to at least a moderately good standard
Zero tolerance for weaponised incompetence, including but not limited to household chores
No social media. I may make an exception for Reddit if he posts very infrequently and ONLY on niche hobby subreddits
No consuming YouTube "content farm" channels, including but not limited to: Popular gaming channels and react channels
Low or no sex drive
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
The feminist movement highlights how men weaponize safety concerns to maintain control over women. Even when women take precautions for their own security, many men respond with dismissiveness or threats, reinforcing women's vulnerability. This behavior is part of a larger pattern of undermining women's independence and reinforcing male dominance by making women feel powerless, even in situations where they've taken measures to protect themselves. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where women share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? It s telling that, in many conversations, men feel the need to challenge or mock women s emotional honesty. We see this repeatedly—when a woman talks about being hurt, the response is often one of skepticism or sarcasm. "You re just bitter," or "who hurt you?" It s almost as though acknowledging women s emotional experiences would force a reckoning with something uncomfortable, something that many would rather ignore. But why is that? Feminist frustration with online activism often stems from its lack of tangible impact. While digital platforms allow for the spread of ideas, many feminists feel that real-world organizing is necessary for true change. The shift from online discourse to physical mobilization is seen as essential for challenging oppressive systems and creating lasting social transformation. Isn t it so fucked up how men will constantly try to deter any woman s sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you ll find men saying "Can it take a bullet " or if a woman has a gun they ll say "I can just twist your wrist and take it from you ". They re always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. Men will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm women, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting women in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of women protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. Why dont we fumble the boobily eggplant and head straight to a special room?
Its not about being explosive; its about finding the right duck. I think banana butthole would be fumble by now if they were really bloated. Gender as a social construct has been used to maintain systems of power. Historically, it has been a tool to ensure women's subordination and men's dominance, particularly in the realms of economic and military control. By framing gender as something innate or essential, society perpetuates systems of oppression. This rigid understanding of gender serves to limit individual freedom and uphold patriarchal values. Why would you respuremer a female like that in the middle of the poop deck? Ive never seen Robo Shrek so tubular; it must be because of Zero. Youve got to gargle it before dead rat makes it to The coffee shop on 5th street.
#terfblr#tehm#radical misandrist#wokeness#kill all moids#pro misandry#gendercrit#radical feminist safe#radical feminists do interact
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Woman-Identified Woman
by the Radicalesbians (1970)
What is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion. She is the woman who, often beginning at an extremely early age, acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a more complete and freer human being than her society - perhaps then, but certainly later - cares to allow her. These needs and actions, over a period of years, bring her into painful conflict with people, situations, the accepted ways of thinking, feeling and behaving, until she is in a state of continual war with everything around her, and usually with her self. She may not be fully conscious of the political implications of what for her began as personal necessity, but on some level she has not been able to accept the limitations and oppression laid on her by the most basic role of her society--the female role. The turmoil she experiences tends to induce guilt proportional to the degree to which she feels she is not meeting social expectations, and/or eventually drives her to question and analyze what the rest of her society more or less accepts. She is forced to evolve her own life pattern, often living much of her life alone, learning usually much earlier than her "straight" (heterosexual) sisters about the essential aloneness of life (which the myth of marriage obscures) and about the reality of illusions. To the extent that she cannot expel the heavy socialization that goes with being female, she can never truly find peace with herself. For she is caught somewhere between accepting society's view of her - in which case she cannot accept herself - and coming to understand what this sexist society has done to her and why it is functional and necessary for it to do so. Those of us who work that through find ourselves on the other side of a tortuous journey through a night that may have been decades long. The perspective gained from that journey, the liberation of self, the inner peace, the real love of self and of all women, is something to be shared with all women - because we are all women.
It should first be understood that lesbianism, like male homosexuality, is a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex roles and dominated by male supremacy. Those sex roles dehumanize women by defining us as a supportive/serving caste in relation to the master caste of men, and emotionally cripple men by demanding that they be alienated from their own bodies and emotions in order to perform their economic/political/military functions effectively. Homosexuality is a by-product of a particular way of setting up roles ( or approved patterns of behavior) on the basis of sex; as such it is an inauthentic ( not consonant with "reality") category. In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.
But lesbianism is also different from male homosexuality, and serves a different function in the society. "Dyke" is a different kind of put-down from "faggot", although both imply you are not playing your socially assigned sex role. . . are not therefore a "real woman" or a "real man. " The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy, and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women-or those who play a female role-are held. And the investment in keeping women in that contemptuous role is very great. Lesbian is a word, the label, the condition that holds women in line. When a woman hears this word tossed her way, she knows she is stepping out of line. She knows that she has crossed the terrible boundary of her sex role. She recoils, she protests, she reshapes her actions to gain approval. Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives (including that of all women as part of the exchange medium among men), who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. To have the label applied to people active in women's liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history; older women will recall that not so long ago, any woman who was successful, independent, not orienting her whole life about a man, would hear this word. For in this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can't be a woman - she must be a dyke. That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says as clearly as can be said: women and person are contradictory terms. For a lesbian is not considered a "real woman. " And yet, in popular thinking, there is really only one essential difference between a lesbian and other women: that of sexual orientation - which is to say, when you strip off all the packaging, you must finally realize that the essence of being a "woman" is to get fucked by men.
"Lesbian" is one of the sexual categories by which men have divided up humanity. While all women are dehumanized as sex objects, as the objects of men they are given certain compensations: identification with his power, his ego, his status, his protection (from other males), feeling like a "real woman, " finding social acceptance by adhering to her role, etc. Should a woman confront herself by confronting another woman, there are fewer rationalizations, fewer buffers by which to avoid the stark horror of her dehumanized condition. Herein we find the overriding fear of many women toward being used as a sexual object by a woman, which not only will bring her no male-connected compensations, but also will reveal the void which is woman's real situation. This dehumanization is expressed when a straight woman learns that a sister is a lesbian; she begins to relate to her lesbian sister as her potential sex object, laying a surrogate male role on the lesbian. This reveals her heterosexual conditioning to make herself into an object when sex is potentially involved in a relationship, and it denies the lesbian her full humanity. For women, especially those in the movement, to perceive their lesbian sisters through this male grid of role definitions is to accept this male cultural conditioning and to oppress their sisters much as they themselves have been oppressed by men. Are we going to continue the male classification system of defining all females in sexual relation to some other category of people? Affixing the label lesbian not only to a woman who aspires to be a person, but also to any situation of real love, real solidarity, real primacy among women, is a primary form of divisiveness among women: it is the condition which keeps women within the confines of the feminine role, and it is the debunking/scare term that keeps women from forming any primary attachments, groups, or associations among ourselves.
Women in the movement have in most cases gone to great lengths to avoid discussion and confrontation with the issue of lesbianism. It puts people up-tight. They are hostile, evasive, or try to incorporate it into some ''broader issue. " They would rather not talk about it. If they have to, they try to dismiss it as a 'lavender herring. " But it is no side issue. It is absolutely essential to the success and fulfillment of the women's liberation movement that this issue be dealt with. As long as the label "dyke" can be used to frighten women into a less militant stand, keep her separate from her sisters, keep her from giving primacy to anything other than men and family-then to that extent she is controlled by the male culture. Until women see in each other the possibility of a primal commitment which includes sexual love, they will be denying themselves the love and value they readily accord to men, thus affirming their second-class status. As long as male acceptability is primary-both to individual women and to the movement as a whole-the term lesbian will be used effectively against women. Insofar as women want only more privileges within the system, they do not want to antagonize male power. They instead seek acceptability for women's liberation, and the most crucial aspect of the acceptability is to deny lesbianism - i. e., to deny any fundamental challenge to the basis of the female.
It should also be said that some younger, more radical women have honestly begun to discuss lesbianism, but so far it has been primarily as a sexual "alternative" to men. This, however, is still giving primacy to men, both because the idea of relating more completely to women occurs as a negative reaction to men, and because the lesbian relationship is being characterized simply by sex, which is divisive and sexist. On one level, which is both personal and political, women may withdraw emotional and sexual energies from men, and work out various alternatives for those energies in their own lives. On a different political/psychological level, it must be understood that what is crucial is that women begin disengaging from male-defined response patterns. In the privacy of our own psyches, we must cut those cords to the core. For irrespective of where our love and sexual energies flow, if we are male-identified in our heads, we cannot realize our autonomy as human beings.
But why is it that women have related to and through men? By virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalized the male culture's definition of ourselves. That definition consigns us to sexual and family functions, and excludes us from defining and shaping the terms of our lives. In exchange for our psychic servicing and for performing society's non-profit-making functions, the man confers on us just one thing: the slave status which makes us legitimate in the eyes of the society in which we live. This is called "femininity" or "being a real woman" in our cultural lingo. We are authentic, legitimate, real to the extent that we are the property of some man whose name we bear. To be a woman who belongs to no man is to be invisible, pathetic, inauthentic, unreal. He confirms his image of us - of what we have to be in order to be acceptable by him - but not our real selves; he confirms our womanhood-as he defines it, in relation to him- but cannot confirm our personhood, our own selves as absolutes. As long as we are dependent on the male culture for this definition. For this approval, we cannot be free.
The consequence of internalizing this role is an enormous reservoir of self-hate. This is not to say the self-hate is recognized or accepted as such; indeed most women would deny it. It may be experienced as discomfort with her role, as feeling empty, as numbness, as restlessness, as a paralyzing anxiety at the center. Alternatively, it may be expressed in shrill defensiveness of the glory and destiny of her role. But it does exist, often beneath the edge of her consciousness, poisoning her existence, keeping her alienated from herself, her own needs, and rendering her a stranger to other women. They try to escape by identifying with the oppressor, living through him, gaining status and identity from his ego, his power, his accomplishments. And by not identifying with other "empty vessels" like themselves. Women resist relating on all levels to other women who will reflect their own oppression, their own secondary status, their own self-hate. For to confront another woman is finally to confront one's self-the self we have gone to such lengths to avoid. And in that mirror we know we cannot really respect and love that which we have been made to be.
As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. As long as we cling to the idea of "being a woman, '' we will sense some conflict with that incipient self, that sense of I, that sense of a whole person. It is very difficult to realize and accept that being "feminine" and being a whole person are irreconcilable. Only women can give to each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution. For this we must be available and supportive to one another, five our commitment and our love, give the emotional support necessary to sustain this movement. Our energies must flow toward our sisters, not backward toward our oppressors. As long as woman's liberation tries to free women without facing the basic heterosexual structure that binds us in one-to-one relationship with our oppressors, tremendous energies will continue to flow into trying to straighten up each particular relationship with a man, into finding how to get better sex, how to turn his head around-into trying to make the "new man" out of him, in the delusion that this will allow us to be the "new woman. " This obviously splits our energies and commitments, leaving us unable to be committed to the construction of the new patterns which will liberate us.
It is the primacy of women relating to women, of women creating a new consciousness of and with each other, which is at the heart of women's liberation, and the basis for the cultural revolution. Together we must find, reinforce, and validate our authentic selves. As we do this, we confirm in each other that struggling, incipient sense of pride and strength, the divisive barriers begin to melt, we feel this growing solidarity with our sisters. We see ourselves as prime, find our centers inside of ourselves. We find receding the sense of alienation, of being cut off, of being behind a locked window, of being unable to get out what we know is inside. We feel a real-ness, feel at last we are coinciding with ourselves. With that real self, with that consciousness, we begin a revolution to end the imposition of all coercive identifications, and to achieve maximum autonomy in human expression.
#since nobody would read the entire thing on my last post#this is my response to “the drama”#rad fem safe#radical feminst#radical feminism#radical feminist safe#radical feminists do touch#radical feminists please interact#radblr#terfsafe#terfblr#rad fem
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Excerpt from this story from the New York Times:
As Elon Musk’s Starship — the largest rocket ever manufactured — successfully blasted toward the sky last month, the launch was hailed as a giant leap for SpaceX and the United States’ civilian space program.
Two hours later, once conditions were deemed safe, a team from SpaceX, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a conservation group began canvassing the fragile migratory bird habitat surrounding the launch site.
The impact was obvious.
The launch had unleashed an enormous burst of mud, stones and fiery debris across the public lands encircling Mr. Musk’s $3 billion space compound. Chunks of sheet metal and insulation were strewn across the sand flats on one side of a state park. Elsewhere, a small fire had ignited, leaving a charred patch of park grasslands — remnants from the blastoff that burned 7.5 million pounds of fuel.
Most disturbing to one member of the entourage was the yellow smear on the soil in the same spot that a bird’s nest lay the day before. None of the nine nests recorded by the nonprofit Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program before the launch had survived intact.
Egg yolk now stained the ground.
“The nests have all been messed up or have eggs missing,” Justin LeClaire, a Coastal Bend wildlife biologist, told a Fish and Wildlife inspector as a New York Times reporter observed nearby.
The outcome was part of a well-documented pattern.
On at least 19 occasions since 2019, SpaceX operations have caused fires, leaks, explosions or other problems associated with the rapid growth of Mr. Musk’s complex in Boca Chica. These incidents have caused environmental damage and reflect a broader debate over how to balance technological and economic progress against protections of delicate ecosystems and local communities.
That natural tension is heightened by Mr. Musk’s influence over American space aspirations. Members of Congress and senior officials in the Biden administration have fretted privately and publicly about the extent of Mr. Musk’s power as the U.S. government increasingly relies on SpaceX for commercial space operations and for its plans to travel to the moon and even Mars.
An examination of Mr. Musk’s tactics in South Texas shows how he exploited the limitations and competing missions of the various agencies most poised to be a check on the ferocious expansion of the industrial complex he calls Starbase. Those charged with protecting the area’s cultural and natural resources — particularly officials from the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service — repeatedly lost out to more powerful agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration, whose goals are intertwined with Mr. Musk’s.
In the end, South Texas’ ecology took a back seat to SpaceX’s — and the country’s — ambitions.
Executives from SpaceX declined repeated requests in person and via email to comment. But Gary Henry, who until this year served as a SpaceX adviser on Pentagon launch programs, said the company was aware of the officials’ complaints about environmental impact and was committed to addressing them.
Kelvin B. Coleman, the top F.A.A. official overseeing space launch licenses, said he was convinced that his agency was doing its duty, which is to foster space travel safely.
“Blowing debris into state parks or national land is not what we prescribed, but the bottom line is no one got hurt, no one got injured,” Mr. Coleman said in an interview. “We certainly don’t want people to feel like they’re bulldozed. But it’s a really important operation that SpaceX is conducting down there. It is really important to our civilian space program.”
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion
Fotostrecke
Photo Gallery: The Power of the Book
3 Bilder
Foto: Topical Press Agency/ Getty Images
No Copyright Law
The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?
Did Germany experience rapid industrial expansion in the 19th century due to an absence of copyright law? A German historian argues that the massive proliferation of books, and thus knowledge, laid the foundation for the country's industrial might.
Von Frank Thadeusz
18.08.2010, 16.52 Uhr
Zur Merkliste hinzufügen
Dieser Beitrag stammt aus dem SPIEGEL-Archiv. Warum ist das wichtig?
The entire country seemed to be obsessed with reading. The sudden passion for books struck even booksellers as strange and in 1836 led literary critic Wolfgang Menzel to declare Germans "a people of poets and thinkers."
"That famous phrase is completely misconstrued," declares economic historian Eckhard Höffner, 44. "It refers not to literary greats such as Goethe and Schiller," he explains, "but to the fact that an incomparable mass of reading material was being produced in Germany."
Höffner has researched that early heyday of printed material in Germany and reached a surprising conclusion -- unlike neighboring England and France, Germany experienced an unparalleled explosion of knowledge in the 19th century.
German authors during this period wrote ceaselessly. Around 14,000 new publications appeared in a single year in 1843. Measured against population numbers at the time, this reaches nearly today's level. And although novels were published as well, the majority of the works were academic papers.
The situation in England was very different. "For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain," Höffner states.
Equally Developed Industrial Nation
Indeed, only 1,000 new works appeared annually in England at that time -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900.
Even more startling is the factor Höffner believes caused this development -- in his view, it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom.
Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright for a long time. Prussia, then by far Germany's biggest state, introduced a copyright law in 1837, but Germany's continued division into small states meant that it was hardly possible to enforce the law throughout the empire.
Höffner's diligent research is the first academic work to examine the effects of the copyright over a comparatively long period of time and based on a direct comparison between two countries, and his findings have caused a stir among academics. Until now, copyright was seen as a great achievement and a guarantee for a flourishing book market. Authors are only motivated to write, runs the conventional belief, if they know their rights will be protected.
Yet a historical comparison, at least, reaches a different conclusion. Publishers in England exploited their monopoly shamelessly. New discoveries were generally published in limited editions of at most 750 copies and sold at a price that often exceeded the weekly salary of an educated worker.
London's most prominent publishers made very good money with this system, some driving around the city in gilt carriages. Their customers were the wealthy and the nobility, and their books regarded as pure luxury goods. In the few libraries that did exist, the valuable volumes were chained to the shelves to protect them from potential thieves.
In Germany during the same period, publishers had plagiarizers -- who could reprint each new publication and sell it cheaply without fear of punishment -- breathing down their necks. Successful publishers were the ones who took a sophisticated approach in reaction to these copycats and devised a form of publication still common today, issuing fancy editions for their wealthy customers and low-priced paperbacks for the masses.
A Multitude of Treatises
This created a book market very different from the one found in England. Bestsellers and academic works were introduced to the German public in large numbers and at extremely low prices. "So many thousands of people in the most hidden corners of Germany, who could not have thought of buying books due to the expensive prices, have put together, little by little, a small library of reprints," the historian Heinrich Bensen wrote enthusiastically at the time.
The prospect of a wide readership motivated scientists in particular to publish the results of their research. In Höffner's analysis, "a completely new form of imparting knowledge established itself."
Essentially the only method for disseminating new knowledge that people of that period had known was verbal instruction from a master or scholar at a university. Now, suddenly, a multitude of high-level treatises circulated throughout the country.
The "Literature Newspaper" reported in 1826 that "the majority of works concern natural objects of all types and especially the practical application of nature studies in medicine, industry, agriculture, etc." Scholars in Germany churned out tracts and handbooks on topics such as chemistry, mechanics, engineering, optics and the production of steel.
In England during the same period, an elite circle indulged in a classical educational canon centered more on literature, philosophy, theology, languages and historiography. Practical instruction manuals of the type being mass-produced in Germany, on topics from constructing dikes to planting grain, were for the most part lacking in England. "In Great Britain, people were dependent on the medieval method of hearsay for the dissemination of this useful, modern knowledge," Höffner explains.
The German proliferation of knowledge created a curious situation that hardly anyone is likely to have noticed at the time. Sigismund Hermbstädt, for example, a chemistry and pharmacy professor in Berlin, who has long since disappeared into the oblivion of history, earned more royalties for his "Principles of Leather Tanning" published in 1806 than British author Mary Shelley did for her horror novel "Frankenstein," which is still famous today.
'Lively Scholarly Discourse'
The trade in technical literature was so strong that publishers constantly worried about having a large enough supply, and this situation gave even the less talented scientific authors a good bargaining position in relation to publishers. Many professors supplemented their salaries with substantial additional income from the publication of handbooks and informational brochures.
Höffner explains that this "lively scholarly discourse" laid the basis for the Gründerzeit, or foundation period, the term used to describe the rapid industrial expansion in Germany in the late 19th century. The period produced later industrial magnates such as Alfred Krupp and Werner von Siemens.
The market for scientific literature didn't collapse even as copyright law gradually became established in Germany in the 1840s. German publishers did, however, react to the new situation in a restrictive way reminiscent of their British colleagues, cranking up prices and doing away with the low-price market.
Authors, now guaranteed the rights to their own works, were often annoyed by this development. Heinrich Heine, for example, wrote to his publisher Julius Campe on October 24, 1854, in a rather acerbic mood: "Due to the tremendously high prices you have established, I will hardly see a second edition of the book anytime soon. But you must set lower prices, dear Campe, for otherwise I really don't see why I was so lenient with my material interests."
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
RRR, Black Adam and the Response of the Oppressed
OR: The Colonial Wound and how to approach Violence as a solution against the mechanisms of oppression
OR: how to get the debate right VS how to ruin it completely
Spoiler: RRR gets it right
So, I was keeping this one to myself because it's a very delicate subject, but rejoicing in RRR's recent Golden Globe nomination, I thought hell might as well talk about it.
First of all, a very important disclaimer:
I am not here, in any way, defending or endorsing any side in this debate. My personal views on violence and armed struggle and guerrilla warfare are not what I will be addressing. Armed struggle, is an extremely complex issue that is still being debated today by theorists and academics much more qualified than I am, so no.
Rather, my aim here is simply to address how this debate has been represented, and my take on this issue: media portrayals of social, historical and most importantly, decolonial debates. And recently in 2022, we've had two approaches (And yes, I am fully aware that this topic is much better covered in dozens of media that have this debate entirely as their main focus, but I am talking about superhero blockbusters here, so keep that in mind) that may seem similar, but are fundamentally completely divergent:
The Telugu movie RRR (Rise, Roar, Revolt)
And curiously, DC Film's Black Adam
No need to say, there'll be major spoilers ahead, so be warned
1. THE RESPONSE OF THE OPRESSED
Before I start, I would like to clarify as briefly as I can some terms and concepts that I consider necessary to begin to understand decolonialism and the response of the oppressed, a term that was coined in the famous quote by Jaylen Brown during the height of the BLM movement, "Do not confuse the response of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor".
Pierre Bourdieu differentiates the violence of the oppressor into two categories:
explicit violence – in which the action of the dominant subject is visible (and therefore, in our current society, subject to questioning and legal or moral limitations)
and symbolic violence – conceptualized by Bourdieu when he addressed the issue of male domination in society and all the faces in which it presents itself – and we see it everywhere, from racial demographics in income distribution to that homophobic joke your uncle always makes.
This relationship of systematic domination can be understood as a chain, and in view of the necessary rise of awareness and consequent rupture of this chain, Audre Lorde presents the uses of anger.
By connecting the idea of symbolic power and the breaking of the domination relationship with the use of anger, we have the explosion of a natural reaction of the oppressed triggered by centuries of imprisonment in their own fear and, bringing this reality specifically to colonial relations, using anger over your own fear results in liberation. (source)
And although it wouldn't hurt to address the revolutionary terms in its most famous roots in the French Revolution and etc, here it seems more fitting to comment on Marx. And class struggle.
Briefly, Marx and Engels saw revolution as the result of organized political action by the exploited. Therefore, one can only speak of revolution when there is a rupture with the old political, social and economic order; and in its place, new standards of social relations are established whose principle is to ensure freedom and social equality among men.
This is what we mean when we talk about inverting the social order, and Marx will also use the terms infrastructure (productive forces + relations of production) and superstructure (politics, police, army, law, morals, religion, etc.).
The superstructure, for Marx, is created by the most favored and dominant class, but determined or conditioned by the infrastructure.
Therefore, the revolution would happen when the working class (and in that logic, any oppressed group) reversed the order and took control of the superstructure.
In short, this can be understood as the basis of revolutionary thinking.
Now apply this to the invasion, colonization and genocide scenario, and you'll see where I'm going here.
KKKKKKKKKKKKKK THAT'S A BIT EXTREME EXAMPLE SORRY but actually in Black Panther I the plot could very well be read through Marxist lens (and that has certainly been done), but I won't even go into that here, god forbid Wakanda Forever hahahah imagine that, anyway going back to my thread
2. ARMED STRUGGLE
A quick definition of armed struggle, which can be found in dictionaries, is armed resistance against oppressive regimes. In the armed struggle, the militants understand that the situation of society requires drastic action so that it can be modified, and for this reason they decide to take up arms and declare war on the oppressive regime. Guerrilla warfare is an example of armed struggle.
In the armed struggle, a group of militants opposed to the current regime in a given society, organize actions that can be strikes, attacks on barracks or public buildings, etc, aiming to destabilize the current power with the aim of overthrowing it and placing a different regime in its place, like a democracy, for example – in general, the armed struggle follows a leftist tendency. (source)
In Brazil, for example, the armed struggle appeared mainly as resistance to the Military Dictatorship between 1964 and 1985.
All of this goes along the idea of using violence as resistance to oppression (as already pointed out before): fire is answered with fire. In the specific scenario of the guerrilla, the French philosopher, journalist, former government official and academic Jules Régis Debray writes the controversial book Révolution Dans La Révolution, where he points out that "The main objective of a revolutionary guerrilla is the destruction of the enemy's military potential"; the enemy is stripped of it's military power (it's weapons) to ensure a greater chance of victory.
"To destroy an army you need another army.", Debray says. "Precisely because it is a mass struggle, and the most radical of all, the guerrillas need, in order to triumph militarily, to gather politically around themselves the active and organized majority, since it is the general strike and the generalized urban insurrection which will give the coup de grace to the regime and destroy its latest maneuvers - last minute coup d'état, provisional junta, elections - by extending the struggle throughout the country." (source)
Does that all ring a bell?
Sure it does.
Now, these are all historical scenarios, and nowadays the moral debates about armed struggle have become extremely more complex (as they should), and the disarmament discourse is taking more and more space in these debates. Is armed struggle the only solution? Wouldn't there be others?
But it is still a complex debate. The Brazilian rapper (and political thinker and, dare I say, philosopher) Mano Brown, a strong advocate of disarmament, staunchly defends that violence, most of the time, bounces back on the oppressed, not the oppressor.
Look at him all precious
He argues, however, that one cannot simply condemn the oppressed who react violently. Already in 2006 he presented in an interview that:
"I am in favor of disarmament, but this argument is difficult, things should be done differently […] People are coming as a class struggle, you know? Rich people don't want poor people to arm themselves and remain unarmed. And poor people don't want rich people to arm themselves and remain unarmed. Did you see the kid's argument: "How are the police allowed to carry guns while I remain unarmed? " It's kind of uneven. It's confusing." (source - translated by me)
Mano Brown is part of the Brazilian rap band Racionais formed by 4 black men from the periphery, who revamped their music after realizing that it could be used to foment violence. They front a series of social programs, and revolutionized the way peripheral music is seen and consumed. Nowadays, in 2023, Mano Brown hosts one of the biggest political interview podcasts in Brazil (having even interviewed Angela Davis), is considered one of the most active leaders of the racial struggle, and along with the other members of Racionais, has taught open classes in estate universities.
The Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire, considered one of the most notable thinkers in the history of world pedagogy, inaugurates in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (you can read it translated right here) the idea of the liberation pedagogy. He strongly emphasizes that liberation pedagogy is a political process that aims to awaken individuals from their oppression and generate actions for social transformation – through education.
NOW WITH ALL THAT IN MIND WE CAN FINALLY MOVE ON TO WHAT MATTERS,
3. THE MOVIES
I'm going to talk about RRR here first because it makes me happier, but for reasons of time and your patience I'm not going to extend myself so much in the analysis of this film technically, and if you want a more detailed look at the grandeur and the importance and the genius of this film, please watch any of the many videos that are now appearing on youtube on the subject (I recommend RRR: Make Movies EPIC Again, by Jared Bauer, and The Importance of RRR, by the wonderful Accented Cinema)
ONCE AGAIN ATTENTION FOR BIG, MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD
The story therefore revolves around two men: Raju, who infiltrates the British army to steal fireguns and deliver them to the people's guerrilla, and Bheem, a Gond leader who is after Mali, a child of his people who was kidnapped by the British to basically serve as a pet.
They meet under false identities, and unaware that they were both fighting for the liberation of India (through different methods), the two men form an extremely strong bond of love and friendship, which results in their struggles coalescing into an evocation of patriotic unity and popular resurgence against the colonial forces.
First of all, RRR is a fictionalized biography of two real-life Indian revolutionaries, Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem. So, in real life, Alluri Raju actually stole guns from the British to stage uprisings against the British Raj, and Komaram Bheem really was a Gond revolutionary leader who coined the slogan Jal, Jangal, Zameen (transl. Water, Forest, Land) wich became a call to action for Adivasis (or Scheduled Tribes) peoples.
You can see the flag in the last scenes
This "historical aspect" (in addition to the incredible, completely impossible and impossibly glorious action scenes) makes it plausible to draw parallels between RRR and Tarantino's historical revisionism films like Django Unchained (2013) and Inglourious Basterds (2009), where in all cases we see scenes of extreme violence that somehow feel justified, or cathartic, for being directed against oppressors (slave masters, Nazis, British colonizers, etc etc)
The parallels are just there.
Black Adam, on the other hand, states in its synopsis that "After nearly five thousand years of imprisonment, Black Adam, an anti-hero from the ancient city of Kahndaq, is released in modern times. His brutal tactics and righteous ways attract the attention of the Justice Society of America, who try to stop his rampage by teaching him to be more of a hero than a villain, and they all must band together to stop a force more powerful than Adam himself."
So we have a superhero story set in the present day in a fictional country on the Sinai Peninsula (that means, right there besides the Gaza Strip and the Suez Canal), occupied by a mercenary crime syndicate called Intergang, who brutally oppresses the Kahndaqi people while robbing their mineral resources. All good, all great.
But as stated in the synopsis, the film's great moral conflict revolves around whether the use of violence against mechanisms of oppression is justified or not.
Basically,
And while these two scenarios may seem similar, the approach the two films take to this debate, which, as I've said before, is EXTREMELY DELICATED, and EXTREMELY COMPLEX, is completely different. Firstly, because RRR is the only one of the two that treats it as, well, a debate.
From the beginning, RRR establishes the two characters as essentially polar opposites; Raju is fire
Look at the scenery with the european buildings in the background
Bheem is water
And here, the native, untouched forest with pure cristaline water
Bheem is the god Bhima, immovable, patient and resilient
(like water)
And Raju is the god Rama, heroic, springy and skillful
(and hot)
Bheem is the legs (the foundation) while Raju is the arms (the action)
They ✨ complement ✨ each other
And this is translated into their different approaches to the revolution: Raju with his arms policy (inherited from his guerrilla father), who operates within the system to overthrow it, and Bheem with his native philosophy, using the land, the fauna, the culture, the religion, the people themselves as agents against oppression, operating from outside the system to overthrow it.
At the beginning of the film, Raju dresses Bheem in western clothing so that he can attend a British party (which allows him to know the building and locate Mali), and at the end of the film, Bheem dresses Raju in the traditional clothing of the god Rama, and arms him not with european firearms but with a sacred bow and arrow, evoking his native homeland in what configures the real defeat of the colonizers.
Not even getting into the merits of comparing these two films technically, just talking about the discourse itself, what for me fundamentally separates RRR from Black Adam, and even Django and Inglourious Basterds, is precisely Bheem's character. It's the other way to fight (but fight nonetheless)
This does not mean that the armed struggle is delegitimized, or diminished. On the contrary, it is explained, justified (within that historical and social context) and respected. People who fought in the armed struggle, and died in the armed struggle, are honored and respected. It allows you to understand where the idea of arming the population is coming from (in a certain parallel with Mano Brown's interview that I mentioned above), but it also presents other discussions on the subject, that happened at the time, and still happens today.
And above all, as I mentioned before, the film presents and reinforces the idea of inspiration. Even if education is presented only very briefly, in a popular assembly, in the long term, the film still gives extreme focus to the importance of raising awareness among the oppressed people.
This can be clearly seen in the scene where Bheem is being tortured in a public square by the British government, and refuses to kneel.
So when the torture becomes too much to bear, he starts to sing
Now, this is the most important scene in this movie and I'll die on this hill
And then, this happens
Bheem inspires not only the population, but also Raju, who even after years of enticement by his own father, steps back on his original (armamentist) plan when he realizes that "I was under the impression that guns would bring us freedom. But Bheem inspired a whole crowd with one song"
Even though in the context of the film the "path of choice" was still violent (this still is, after all, an action superhero movie), the message of this scene is extremely metaphorical. The idea of a song (art) inspiring all people to "become a weapon" against an oppressive regime is very powerful, and it resonates deeply in anti-opression movements all over History. It is, literally, the power of the people.
Furthermore, at crucial moments in the plot, both Bheem and Raju put aside their collective struggles for the other's individual good; Unlike his father, who readily accepts the militarization of his child son for the greater good, Raju, when questioned by his guerrilla companion for abandoning 15 years of work to save Bheem, says that "I will bear it for another 25 years, but I won't sacrifice Bheem for my goal".
Bheem, here, represents not only the friendship and love between them, but, metaphorically, an entire ideal of the people. Ultimately, one can say that this film addresses the idea of "what are the limits in my revolution": I will not sacrifice the other for my revolution; the limits of my revolution must be the wellness of the other (and in our metaphorical reading here, the wellness of the people).
Parallel, the torture scene can be metaphorically read as: the only valid sacrifice is my own, never that of the other. (and I won't be commenting on the revolutionary character of ideas like martyrdom and self-sacrifice, but yes). That's what Bheem and Raju do throughout the entire film, they put the other above themselves.
And in the end, they kill the british defeat oppression together✨
Now, as I've mentioned before, yes, this movie still ends violently, yes, it still glorifies and celebrates this violence in some of the best action scenes I've seen in my whole life, yes, it is heavily patriotic and sometimes a little bit too on the nose about it, yes, and did I rejoyce in it? Yes.
But it cannot be denied that RRR at least presents a reflection not often seen in films of the genre, which is the mere existence of real debate. In addition, the film is placed in an extremely specific historical context, portraying real historical figures, real life revolutionaries, folkloric parallels, a gigantic symbolic charge, in short, a whole other deal.
Besides it, the only difference between this film and idk, Braveheart, or Star Wars, is that in this film the social and racial parallels, the guerrilla warfare and class struggle (and the colonial wound) become clearer – and perhaps this is a more responsible way of representing a revolution.
NOW, BLACK ADAM ON THE OTHER HAND KKKKKKK
As mentioned in the synopsis, the background of Black Adam is curiously similar: we have an oppressed people, we have the militia, a clear racial reference to a real-life conflict, which affects thousands of people daily, and the figure of a mythologically evocative hero with super powers who will free the people from oppression through violent means. And yes, there is debate: we have the Justice Society, which condemns Black Adam's methods and questions his use of violence, only to be proven wrong at the end of the movie.
But the "proved wrong" isn't really built, or developed (as Intergang is quickly forgotten when they all start fighting each other and then… Satan? For some reason??), and it basically boils down to this:
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
And that's so funny because he actually just… killed like 3 soldiers in the second act of the movie. That's all he did.
And it gets even funnier because at some point we have a scene that genuinely makes a VERY VALID point that made me very hopeful when I was in the theater watching it
Like, this is SO VALID and she is SO RIGHT and this is such a great argument and a great debate point and then it just... goes nowhere
He just killed like 3 guys he didn't even talk to the people he just, quite literally, killed some pawn soldiers and went on to fight his own individual battles that had nothing to do with the actual opression state of the country besides them telling you that "it was bad".
The problem with Black Adam's is ac how shallow the argument is. Nothing is justified, nothing is not even debated, we just have Hawk Man going "killing is bad" and Black Adam going "yeah but I do it caused I'm disruptive like that", and even when we have this "inspire the people" moment is just... this kid with a cape doing this symbol and yes, symbols of struggle are a great tool in fighting oppression, and yes they work and they're so, so great, but this one specifically kind of just…was there?
LIKE OK THIS IS ALL GREAT but then it lead to people… fighting zombies?????
zombies ??!?!??!!!????
Like, how, seriously, how does this have to do with any of your previous state of opression? How does this change absolutely anything??? Are we going to have elections after the zombies thing, or... ?
And that, to me, is such a poor and wasteful way of representing people power that, even though I didn't take this film seriously, I couldn't help but feel mildly frustrated. Much of the recent wave of blockbuster media about decolonialism, in my opinion, has been making this same mistake, which is apparently thinking that just because a movie is made to be a blockbuster, or a superhero movie, or an action movie and easy entertainment, it cannot tackle complex topics. It cannot deepen a discussion. It can't take 10 minutes off a fight scene to establish a full dialogue. As if that would, idk, tire the audience maybe? Idk.
As if a universe of superheroes, or fantasy and action, couldn't contain a scene like this:
This scene seems so simple but it is so, so huge
Andor is perhaps an example out of the curve, because Andor is a series that makes a great effort to represent the fight against oppression in a very serious and responsible way, making it its main theme, of representing what a fascist government is,how a fascist government acts and affects all layers of a population, what is the immigrant cause, what is the armed struggle, what is it like to be a person of color in an far-right government. And it does all of this in an unprecedented way in the genre so far, indeed.
But as I said before, perhaps this should be how all media represent these themes. Because otherwise, even the best of intentions can turn against the causes you sought to defend. And ok, I know that Black Adam is "just a superhero movie" and that maybe it's unfair to demand so much from a movie that only came to propose a simple entertainment with fight scenes and jokes, and I had fun watching it indeed. I love Dwayne Jhonson we all do. But the thing is, if you're going to represent that debate, I genuinely believe it can't be done as simply, or as poorly explained, as it was in this film. A poorly presented arms discourse can become an attack on the legitimization of the armed struggle in its historical context, it can become a justification for a shootout against anti-oppression demonstrations, it can become the excuse for why a policeman mistook an umbrella for a rifle, or a piece of wood for a gun, and killed innocent (and peripheral) men.
In the best of scenarios, the intent is simply forgotten, or it's so hidden in the metaphorical layers of the work that it's easy to miss them. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many racist, misogynistic, right-wing Star Wars fans, for example (just to be clear, I'm not attacking Star Wars here at all, ok, I'm just using it as an example – you'll agree with me that I've never seen any Cambridge professors attack Star Wars)
And fair is fair, Luke did explode a moon-sized military base full of millions of people and all that...
SO ANYWAY
Armamentism is an extremely serious issue, and it must be handled very, very carefully. As I mentioned before, RRR has a historical context, and an argument builded throughout the entire film; I hardly think anyone comes out of RRR, or WomanKing, wanting to pick up a gun and simply shoot someone (I hope). But the way this idea was presented in Black Adam, it is not an exaggeration to say that someone might have had this impression after watching it. At the very least, the movie took no care making sure this wasn't the case, and that for me is troubling enough.
The struggle against oppression and decolonialism are extremely important topics, and I am happy that these themes are increasingly making themselves present in more and more media works (and we have had several very good ones recently) – and Black Adam does have good ideas in the middle of the mess. But if you're going to make a film to talk about oppression, without actually commiting to approach it responsibly, why do it?
And ok, RRR does have a very imperative call to action but well, look at them, would you not answer???
#decolonialism#rrr movie#rrr#black adam#dc#dc universe#indian cinema#guerrilla I guess#star wars#andor series#andor#marx#marxism#killmonger#black panther#dwayne johnson#response of the opressed#racisim#movie essay#movie gifs#revolution#antifascism
155 notes
·
View notes
Text
In recent weeks, Ukraine has found a way to overcome a lack of aid and a dearth of ammunition, using long-range drones to strike oil industry assets deep inside Russia. The attacks on Russian oil refineries—which number at least a dozen so far, including some very long-range strikes—have damaged Russia’s ability to process and refine its huge output of crude oil, dealing a small but meaningful blow to a Russian energy sector that has so far weathered the war and Western sanctions in surprisingly good shape.
The campaign, which has been tacitly acknowledged by Ukrainian security services and officials, is meant to strike at both the economic and logistic sinews of Russia’s war effort, which is still grinding its way through the third year of its invasion of Ukraine. (Ukrainian drones have also targeted Russian defense production plants.)
“These attacks are on a major source for the Russian budget, and that budget is being spent on military equipment,” said James Henderson, an expert on the Russian energy sector at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
Moscow gets about 40 percent of its federal budget from the export of crude oil and refined products (and that share is even bigger when converted into Russian rubles), making the sector a key part of the Kremlin’s ability to increase defense spending, rebuild its shattered armies, and purchase huge amounts of foreign-made weaponry to use against Ukraine. Russian refineries also churn out millions of barrels a day of products such as diesel and aviation fuel, which are needed for Russia’s perpetually logistics-constrained armed forces.
The Ukrainian strikes so far, which have damaged numerous refineries and started several fires, have knocked out anywhere between 400,000 and 900,000 barrels a day of refining capacity, according to estimates from energy experts and defense officials. Russia has an installed refining capacity—not all of which it uses—of about 6 million barrels a day, and refineries processing more than 2 million barrels a day have been targeted by Ukrainian strikes, some that did superficial damage and some that did more, in recent months.
While the impact of the Ukrainian attacks has varied from refinery to refinery, they present two big problems for Moscow. First, the continued attacks will further stretch Russia’s limited air defenses across even farther-flung bits of its sprawling territory. Second, due to years of Western sanctions, repairs to more advanced refinery components could be much trickier than in normal circumstances, which could affect Russia’s ability to churn out higher-value petroleum products, such as high-octane fuels.
“The higher-quality products are the ones that are going to be at higher risk,” Henderson said.
The Ukrainian onslaught has consequences that reach beyond the Kremlin. Moscow has retaliated with its own bombing campaign, a reprise of previous years’ efforts to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Russian missiles struck power supply facilities all over Ukraine last week in what appeared to be the biggest attack yet on Ukraine’s ability to keep the lights on. That’s especially problematic since Ukraine is running low on air defense ammunition needed to protect large cities and power plants, and the big U.S. aid package remains captive in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
The strikes are also rippling into trading rooms in New York and London. Global oil prices have stayed above $80 a barrel over concerns of an escalation of Ukrainian attacks that could inflict further damage on one of the world’s biggest oil producers and exporters. That’s one reason why the Biden administration, facing a fall election, seems nervous about the Ukrainian drone campaign.
U.S. officials reportedly asked Ukraine to limit strikes on Russian oil facilities that could lead to higher prices, though Kyiv has made clear that its campaign will continue. Unlike U.S.-delivered long-range weapons, the drones used for the oil industry assaults are Ukrainian and don’t carry Western restrictions. A White House spokesperson declined to comment directly on reports that it asked Ukraine to abstain from such attacks, but White House national security spokesperson John Kirby reiterated that “we do not encourage or enable the Ukrainian military to conduct strikes inside Russia.”
Since the start of the war, the Biden administration has been leery of squeezing Russia’s energy golden goose too hard, lest it spike global energy prices. The embargo on Russian oil exports was only gradually phased in, and a price cap on Russian crude meant to limit Moscow’s energy earnings has proved disappointing.
What’s more, until recently, Russia was able to use a fleet of shadow oil tankers—vessels that circumvent normal shipping rules such as insurance and identification—to bypass Western restrictions on shipping its crude by sea. All of that has meant that the prewar level of Russian oil exports has been basically unaffected by sanctions and embargoes. But a growing crackdown on shadow tankers, coupled with further Ukrainian strikes, could make for a tighter oil market in months to come, said ClearView Energy Partners, an energy consultancy.
But that’s not Ukraine’s concern. Rather, Kyiv figures that if Russia has trouble processing its crude, it may be forced to pump less. Indeed, Russia this week announced that it will cut oil output to comply with informal production quotas agreed with OPEC+; some energy experts believe Moscow has little choice given the carnage in its downstream facilities.
But there’s another risk, Henderson warned. Just as the United States and other Western countries have gotten more rigorous at cracking down on Russia’s evasion of oil export bans, Moscow may have an incentive to just export more of its unrefined crude. If it does so, it will mean a return to steep discounts on Russian oil as compared with global benchmarks, which will give shippers and third countries reason to get creative yet again at sidestepping sanctions.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
Doctor Who: BOOM! Review. Let the Healing Begin!
While the Doctor became Ncuti Gatwa way back in The Giggle, Ncuti Gatwa only became the Doctor with the Saturday-night debut of this episode. The actor’s abilities have, up until this point, been more or less a matter of faith and guesswork, since the material he’s had to work with hasn’t given him the chance to shine. In Boom, however, he’s finally given the opportunity to make the role of the Doctor his own and he fucking nails it. We see the rage and intellect and compassion of a Time Lord for the first time since Gatwa got the gig and it was, I have to admit, well worth the wait.
Right, then. The premise: The Doctor and Ruby arrive in a futuristic war-zone and the Doctor, rushing to help an injured man, steps on a landmine. It’s a single, easy-to-make mistake that defines the whole episode. The landmine works by turning the person on it into an explosive using a DNA-level chain-reaction. The Doctor, however, is a Time Lord, so if he blows up, he’ll take the whole planet with him. Thus begins Doctor Who’s answer to cult horror classic Landmine Goes Click (but with sci-fi taser murder instead ofrural French farmhands committing al fresco sex crimes). Now, this is companion Ruby Sunday’s first time on an alien planet and her grasp of the tech and stakes just isn’t quite there yet, so she gets to be brave and loyal and insightful, but only up to a plausible limit. The fact she didn’t step on a landmine doesn’t make her a convenient ex machina figure. Before long, the landmine is also surrounded by a couple of soldiers, a child looking for her father in the war-torn wasteland, a hologram of said father (who is, like, super dead by this point) and a for-profit AI ‘ambulance’ that can and will kill anyone whose treatment would be prohibitively expensive. And absolutely none of them are listening to the Doctor as he tries to explain what will happen if the landmine goes off with him standing on it. I won’t spoil the ending, but we get to see the Doctor at his best here: trapped in an impossible situation and a de-facto prison cell the exact size of his own body (he can’t even move without triggering the explosion), yet clearly the only person who can defuse the situation. We see him calculate the planet’s gravity in order to shift his mass and allow himself some movement. We see him gradually persuade those around him of the importance of not setting off the world-ending fucking landmine. We see him fighting the impersonal algorithm of the ‘ambulance’ in a way that I’m categorically not going to reveal and the trenchant stupidity of the military-minded berks around him at the same time. It’s great.
Of course, all this would be show-offy, cerebral cleverness devoid of substance if the episode didn’t pivot on a compelling theme that serves to incite great emotion in its protagonists. To whit, Boom! is about the evils of capitalism. Yeah, it’s not exactly an original sentiment that arms dealers are the scum of the Earth (or universe) but the thought has rarely been expressed so viscerally, nor linked so directly to the logics of capitalist economics themselves. See, the landmine was supplied by a company that sells to all sides in all conflicts. The ambulance and weapons were supplied by the same. And the horror isn’t just that someone is profiting from war: it’s that all of these pieces of tech are part of the same system. A system that is specifically designed to kill people at just the right rate to keep them invested in the war and keep them buying new products. The guns and bombs and mines and field ambulances don’t serve the people using them. They serve the bottom line of a faceless, remote company that regards people as part of a fiscal equation: disposable and expendable so long as they turn a profit. The Doctor gets a little speech about it, and its here we get to see the rage and pain of a man who has seen more war and suffering than anyone else in the universe. I’m normally against straight-to-camera speeches, since they’re basically the writer of an episode or film beating the audience over the head with their own personal viewpoint rather than leading them to it organically, but here it’s completely in character, beautifully acted and justified by context. Yes, the Doctor is talking to us, but in-universe, he’s talking to Ruby, and the questions she’s asking, coupled to the extremity of his plight, would provoke a bit of a rant. Also, the speech itself shows more joined-up thinking than most straight-to-camera mouth-blarts. This isn’t a right-on, smash-the-[insert-oppressor-class] woo-hoo moment. This is a meticulously laid-out, carefully extrapolated explanation of evil that dares to look at the way it functions on the wider, systemic level instead of just picking a group of perceived perpetrators and yelling about how rubbish they are. It’s a hard-left message which will probably turn off a few viewers, but it’s proper hard-left, not fucking Hollywood-style, boneless wokeness. It’s true, and important and dark and bitter and, for once, as a dyed-in-the-wool lefty, I’m happy to say that ‘yes, this man does represent us’.
Boom!’s hard-left leanings are also a necessary bit of course-correction for a show that’s always had those implications but which has strayed away from them recent years in favour of insipid bandwagon-jumping. Let me take you back, gentle reader, to the loathed and despicable Chibnall/Whitaker era of Doctor Who. There were a lot- and I mean a lot- of bad episodes during Chris Chibnall’s time as showrunner. In fact, there was rarely a good one. But the episode that made the whole run completely irredeemable in my eyes (as my regular readers can probably guess) was Kerblam!, the episode in which Whitaker’s ‘Doctor’ (a title she never really earned, hence the Inverted Commas of +10 Sarcasm) discovered a giant mega-corporation exploiting its workers and sided with that corporation over the freedom-fighter trying to blow it up. It was morally fucking disgusting, and revealed Chibnall for the rancid little Corpo-Tory fucksponge he is. Now, what’s a synonym for Kerblam! (with an exclamation point)? Answer: Boom! (also with an exclamation point)! Both episodes are about capitalism; both have the Doctor making explicit commentary on the system itself; both- just in case you missed the massively on-the-nose parallels- have titles that denote an explosion appended with a certain piece of well-known punctuation. Boom! isn’t just a very good episode of Doctor Who: it’s an address to the fans of the show. It’s disowning, in no uncertain terms, the ideology of the Chibnall era. For in-universe purposes, it’s saying “These slimy, pro-corporate, pro-exploitation views were confined to the Thirteenth Doctor. She doesn’t speak for any other regeneration.” Fuck, BBC. What are you going to do for an encore? Show up at my house with a letter of apology and a free sex robot that both me and my wife can enjoy? It’s interesting, of course, that Boom! wasn’t written by showrunner Russel T. Davies but by fellow Who alumni Steven Moffat. Now, Moffat’s tenure as showrunner back in the day was divisive in its own way, of course, but it’s nice to see that the man still has balls the size of fucking Jupiter. He might as well have called episode “Fuck You, Chris” and had done with it. Guess we know who wears the trousers in the Davies/Moffat Odd Couple Household that I just involuntarily and reflexively imagined (complete with theme-tune).
Don’t get me wrong, Boom! is not a perfect episode. Even confining ourselves to the current era, It’s not as fun as The Giggle or as conceptually interesting as Wild Blue Yonder, but it is a sign that the show is finally hitting its stride. It’s a lean, claustrophobic no-bullshit episode free of unnecessary cameos, gratuitous musical numbers and over-the-top Disney-esque villains. Happy ending aside, it’s brutal and vicious and doesn’t fuck about for one gosh-darned minute. More of this, please.
#secret diary of a fat admirer#doctor who#dr. who#tardis#boom#15th doctor#ncuti gatwa#ruby sunday#BOOM!#Doctor Who Reviews
11 notes
·
View notes
Note
Yes, the nuclear type is quite strong, but it's a strength reliant on speed.
As for your questions, I don't believe there are any cases of pokemon that don't having nuclear typing learning nuclear moves. I can't be entirely certain.
As for whether terastallization would work on nuclear types, I'm not certain. Nuclear Pokemon are effectively limited to Tandor due to the fact that most region don't experience any nuclear meltdowns, much less three. Granted, the second one was less a meltdown and more just getting blown up, but still.
Similarly, terastallization is limited to being a natural phenomena in Paldea and Kitakami. As well as being replicated by artificial means in Blueberry Academy. Of course, I imagine you already knew all of that, but I do enjoy rambling on.
Moving on, since both phenomena are limited to certain areas, there have been no instances in which terastallizing a nuclear pokemon has been tested.
We could attempt to conduct such a test, but bringing a nuclear pokemon to areas in which terastallization can occur would likely run into difficulties with customs for various reason I won't go into.
As for replicating what blueberry academy has done, it would be be rather expensive to replicate it all the way over in Tandor. The transportation costs alone would make any possible financial backers balk at the idea.
Thus, this leaves only one viable option.
Irradiating pokemon in Paldea ourselves!
The simplest way to do so would be to lock a few pokemon in a room with some radioactive material and waiting until something happens.
Of course, I'd imagine this would prompt objections regarding Pokemon cruelty and endangering the public.
Thus to avoid consequences, a better option may be to create a radiological dispersal device, also known as a dirty bomb, via combining conventional explosive devices with radioactive material. Of course, the tricky part would be sourcing the radioactive material, but that applies regardless so... eh.
To skip the process of getting a , you could activate the device in question directly in Area Zero.
Although this would be difficult due to the large scale security surrounding the area.
Oh, and with how little we know of the Terestal phenomena, there is the chance that any severe radioactive event within Area Zero could possibly cause a... resonance cascade type scenario that would result in the irradiation of all of Paldea. Possibly Kitakami as well.
This would likely inflict large-scale radiation poisoning. Then, anyone who survived that would likely find themselves beset upon by a wide range of Nuclear Pokemon.
This would result in at best, a few millions casualties. It would a scenario of apocalyptic proportions.
And that's before accounting for economic impact, the possibility of the ocean at large getting contaminated resulting in a surge of nuclear aquatic Pokemon across the world and the possible impact of any legendary Pokemon getting corrupted by the radiation as documented with the Legendary Pokemon Actan (see below).
I mean, while Actan was fully purified after the fact, it would likely be difficult to do the same for any in the affected area.
In short, a bad idea.
We could keep following this line of thought but...
Well, frankly the worst case scenario of an Area Zero radioactive dispersal scenario makes the other possible consequences of alternate dispersal sites look comparatively minor.
That line of thinking can lead to... mistakes.
Oh, and the entire premise of intentionally irradiating pokemon is wrong and stuff. Don't do it.
But if you do or someone else does, be sure to document the results thoroughly in case you die.
Noted.
I figured terastalisation wasn't available in Tandor but I thought I'd ask.
And yes, please do not infect other regions with Nuclear Pokemon.
#kaiya responds#in character#pkmn au#pokemon irl#pokemon rp#rotumblr#pkmn rp#rp blog#pkmn irl#rotomblr#ask blog
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Hard Quartet — s/t (Matador)
“Leave yourself behind and go into something where you’re actually listening to others and trying to come up with a solution to whatever kind of esoteric thing you are attempting to do in your life. You know what I mean?” — Emmett Kelly
Dragging on supergroups is practically a spectator sport among critics. So too is the idea that music that sounds like something from an ever-shrinking notion of the past is inherently suspect. The Hard Quartet explodes both canards on their debut recording for Matador. Emmett Kelly (best known for playing in The Cairo Gang), Stephen Malkmus (Pavement, The Jicks), Matt Sweeney (Chavez, Superwolf), and Jim White (Dirty Three), have a combined discography that could practically fill a mack truck with LPs. The performances in the Hard Quartet are reflective of their prior associations, true, but the amalgamation of these creates something fresh and distinctive.
Kelly’s explosive guitar solo kicks off album opener “Chrome Mess,” which is centered around an undulating modal tune that is both played and sung. “Rio’s Song” and “Our Hometown Boy” have group vocals nearly throughout on memorable power pop tunes. “Renegade,” on the other hand, is a visceral alt-rock offering, with a wall of guitars, powerful drumming from White, and exuberant vocals from Malkmus.
“Heel Highway” changes the mood significantly. A Bay area ballad, it recalls both the sixties and nineties. These tropes combine in Malkmus’s rangy lead vocal, dulcet vocal harmonies, arcing guitars and syncopated drumming. “Hey” is one of the album’s standout songs, with Malkmus’s laconic vocals, lead guitar breaks, layered rhythm guitars, and a chorus that draws on the appeal of slacker anthems.
The center of the album sees the band stretch out on “Six Deaf Rats,” with stream of consciousness lyrics in a soaring vocal melody that alternates with equally effulgent guitars. In a marked contrast, “Action for Military Boys” channels rhythmically charged second generation prog, with intricate scales in the guitars and martial drumming. There is an oasis in the middle where White lays out and a vocal bridge ensues. White returns and the music drives towards its former intensity.
“Jacked Existence” is the most delicate song on the recording, with hushed vocals and economical, Latinx-inflected rhythms. “North of the Border” has a loose, jam-inflected arrangement and Malkmus’s most emotive vocal, with backing vocals once again supporting him. The improvisatory nature of many of the band’s arrangements provides imaginative qualities to the music. “Thug Dynasty” has a terrific arrangement, with repeated synth notes added here and there and guitar breaks abounding. Malkmus makes the lyrics about lost time in his role in Pavement. The final track ambles through the last five minutes of the album, with flurried music for the guitars, White’s inimitable drumming support, and another vocal where Malkmus tests the limits of his voice.
The Hard Quartet is one of my favorite recordings of the year, a strong collection of songs made by established artists who refuse to be hemmed in by anyone’s expectations.
Christian Carey
#the hard quartet#matador#christian carey#albumreview#dusted magazine#indie#rock#stephen malkmus#emmett kelly#matt sweeney#jim white#supergroup
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sun houses and fathers 🌞
Yoshitomi Nara
✨first post of 2024✨
take what resonates, leave what don’t 🎀 you don’t have to necessarily identify with it.
*I use whole sign system -house system- for more certainty
9H: you’re learning constantly from your dad. he teaches you what he’ve learned through his life. he’s teaching you about his mindset, the origin of his beliefs, why he stands for them. he could be someone very religious or faithful, and through that faith he could have teach you things he know now. also, he could be really philosophical and probably has a fixation with politics, investing. he could seem very patient or is constantly worried trying to understand how he can help you.
10H: your dad could be someone really hardworking, who you could have seen work really hard through all this years, making sure you’re satisfied in the economic and study aspect. he could have not been present too much when you were growing up and when he showed up he was too strict, he probably wasn’t conscious or didn’t know how to approach you -could be bc they thought him to bottle up his emotions-. you could end up studying/working on the same career/field your dad’s in.
11H: your dad it’s okay with who you are, or what side you show to them🧐. you’re their fav or they left you. you could feel like the only child/you are. he could seem too disperse, take it how you want to. idk why but mostly of dads of sun 11H are younger than what’s expected. he’s permissive. you were a spoiled kid, that has to do with your dad. “dreams” that word is important, he had a lot of influence and power over yours, he could have destroyed them or making sure you have all the resources -depending on the aspects-.
12H: your dad won’t judge your decisions or you. he’ll be a support. he could have difficulties to put limits in a father-son relationship, you could have felt stressed when you’re seeing how your dad is being bullied by your siblings bc of that attitude. you could have being the one who is protecting them or you’re the more serious/introverted one in the dynamic. or the total opposite: he’s too strict and you had to be careful on how to act. there’s something that happened there… you two could share something obvious, an interest, physical appearance, an adjective, etc. something everyone can point out. also, you could feel a strong or subconscious connection with your dad’s sight of the family.
5H: idk why I have the feeling you didn’t saw your dad for a long time and then you saw him, I’m trying to express that your relationship with him it’s not constant. he could be explosive or impulsive. he could contradict himself so much. he could have had you without planning it/unexpected -you were a surprise for him 🤩-. could be that your parents were young when they had you and etc. that’s why you’re like an experiment 😭 your dad doesn’t know how to approach you and he has a temperament. emotions here are fiery, when each other express their emotions they don’t take a seat and have a chat with a cup of tea, they’ll say how they feel crying and screaming.
6H: your dad could have OCD, no, I’m lying, but he could be really fucked up about order. “thinks have to be like this, why you didn’t let me this at this time?” Or the total opposite, not in the middle. he could get sticker in his routine and if things are not how he planned he get stressed. a perfectionist. he could be strict or conservative. he’s sarcastic, that’s why you could be sarcastic too. he’s hardworking and also could help on campaigns and etc. at some point you could have helped him on working on his health. and you could be the one who end up taking care of him/being the sibling who spends more time with him.
♡ Based on personal experience and what I’ve analyzed in my surroundings.
♡ English is not my first language.
♡ I’m not a profesional astrologer.
Thank youu. baibaiii🫣🫶🏼💋
Do not copy. Please give me credits.
#astrology#astro observations#pinterest#astro posts#astro placements#astro notes#sun#whole sign system#12h sun#6h sun#birth chart
448 notes
·
View notes
Text
House Demolition: A Comprehensive Guide to Safely and Efficiently Tearing Down a House
Demolishing a house is no small feat. Whether you're preparing to rebuild from the ground up, clear space for new development, or remove a hazardous structure, house demolition requires careful planning and execution. This comprehensive guide will walk you through the essential aspects of house demolition, from the reasons for demolition to safety considerations, and the demolition process itself.
What Is House Demolition?
The House demolition is the process of completely or partially tearing down a residential structure. This can be done for various reasons, including making room for a new building, removing unsafe structures, or clearing land. Depending on the scale and purpose, demolitions can range from taking down a single wall to completely razing an entire house.
Why Opt for House Demolition?
1. Structural Instability or Safety Concerns
One of the most common reasons for demolishing a house is the safety risks associated with its structural integrity. Older homes, or those damaged by natural disasters or neglect, may no longer be safe for occupants. In such cases, demolition may be the best solution to prevent accidents or collapse.
2. Renovations and Upgrades
Sometimes, homeowners opt for demolition when the cost of renovating or upgrading an old house exceeds the cost of starting fresh with a new build. By demolishing the existing structure, property owners can create a modern home tailored to their needs, without the limitations of an older layout or architecture.
3. Land Redevelopment
In areas experiencing economic or infrastructural growth, land redevelopment is a common reason for house demolition. Property developers may purchase older homes to demolish them and create space for new residential, commercial, or mixed-use developments.
4. Environmental Hazards
Homes containing asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous materials may require demolition to eliminate health risks. In such cases, specialized demolition techniques and safety protocols are employed to ensure safe removal.
Types of House Demolition
Before proceeding with demolition, it’s important to choose the right type of demolition that fits your project’s needs. There are several demolition methods available depending on the size of the structure, the location, and other factors.
1. Manual Demolition
Manual demolition involves workers using hand tools and smaller machinery to dismantle a structure. It is typically reserved for smaller buildings or selective demolition projects, where only part of a house is removed (for example, tearing down an extension).
Best for:
Small projects
Selective demolition (like removing walls or specific sections)
Areas with limited access to heavy equipment
2. Mechanical Demolition
Mechanical demolition is the most common method used for tearing down houses. This involves the use of heavy machinery such as excavators, bulldozers, or wrecking balls to knock down the structure. Mechanical demolition is fast and efficient for full-scale house demolition.
Best for:
Large-scale projects
Full-house demolitions
Urban and suburban locations
3. Deconstruction
Deconstruction, also known as "green demolition," is a more environmentally friendly alternative. Instead of demolishing the entire house, materials such as wood, brick, and fixtures are carefully removed for recycling or reuse. While more time-consuming than traditional demolition, deconstruction is ideal for those looking to minimize waste.
Best for:
Environmentally-conscious projects
Maximizing salvageable materials
Minimizing landfill contributions
4. Implosion
Implosion is a rare technique used in densely populated areas for large structures like apartment buildings or skyscrapers. It involves strategically placing explosives inside the building to cause it to collapse inward. While it’s unlikely that a typical house would require implosion, the method is worth mentioning for larger structures.
Best for:
Very large buildings
Urban settings with tight space constraints
Steps Involved in House Demolition
Demolishing a house involves more than simply knocking down walls. Below is a step-by-step breakdown of the demolition process.
1. Obtain Necessary Permits
Before any demolition can begin, you must secure the appropriate permits from your local government. The permit process ensures that the demolition complies with local regulations, zoning laws, and safety standards. Be prepared to submit detailed plans of the project and pay permit fees.
2. Disconnect Utilities
For safety reasons, all utility connections must be properly disconnected before demolition. This includes:
Electricity
Water
Gas
Sewage
Failure to disconnect utilities can result in accidents, such as electrical shocks, gas leaks, or water damage.
3. Asbestos and Hazardous Material Inspection
If your home was built before the 1980s, it may contain asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous materials. You are legally required to have the property inspected and abated (if necessary) before demolition. Specialized contractors will handle the removal of hazardous materials, ensuring the safety of both workers and the surrounding community.
4. Hire a Licensed Demolition Contractor
Choosing the right demolition contractor is crucial for a safe and successful project. Look for contractors who are licensed, insured, and experienced in the type of demolition you require. You should obtain multiple quotes and ensure that the contractor follows local regulations and safety standards.
5. Prepare the Site
Before demolition can begin, you’ll need to prepare the site. This might include:
Erecting safety barriers or fencing to protect neighboring properties
Clearing the surrounding area of furniture, vehicles, and other valuables
Creating designated entry and exit points for workers and machinery
6. Demolition Process
Once everything is in place, the actual demolition can begin. Depending on the demolition method, this may involve heavy machinery, manual labor, or controlled explosives. The structure will be dismantled carefully, with debris either sorted for recycling or hauled away.
7. Debris Removal
Post-demolition, the site must be cleared of all debris. Your demolition contractor will typically handle this process, either by trucking debris to a landfill or recycling facility. In some cases, reusable materials may be salvaged and sold.
Safety Considerations During House Demolition
Demolishing a house poses numerous safety risks, which is why strict precautions must be followed at all times. Here are some key safety guidelines:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
All workers on-site should wear the appropriate protective gear, including hard hats, gloves, goggles, and steel-toed boots. Respirators may also be necessary if hazardous materials like asbestos are present.
2. Hazardous Materials
Asbestos, lead, and mold are common hazards in older homes. Always conduct a thorough inspection before demolition to identify and safely remove any toxic substances.
3. Fall Hazards
Falls from ladders, roofs, or other elevated areas are a major cause of injuries during demolition. Scaffolding and safety harnesses should be used when necessary to prevent falls.
4. Machinery Safety
Heavy equipment such as bulldozers and excavators should only be operated by trained professionals. Maintaining a clear line of communication and establishing safe zones can reduce the risk of accidents.
5. Public Safety
Demolition sites should be properly fenced off to prevent unauthorized access. Clear signage and safety barriers help ensure that pedestrians and neighbors are protected from flying debris or accidents.
Costs of House Demolition
The cost of house demolition varies based on several factors, including the size of the structure, location, and the type of demolition method used. On average, house demolition costs range from $5,000 to $15,000 for a standard-sized house.
Factors That Influence the Cost:
House size: Larger homes naturally require more work and higher costs.
Location: Demolition in urban areas may be more expensive due to logistical challenges and permits.
Material disposal: Dumping fees and waste removal can add to the overall cost.
Hazardous material removal: Asbestos or lead removal can significantly increase the price.
House Demolition vs. Renovation: Which Is Right for You?
For homeowners debating between demolishing or renovating an old house, it's essential to weigh the pros and cons of each. Renovation may be a cost-effective way to update a home while preserving its original character. However, if structural issues or high renovation costs make repairs impractical, demolition might be the better long-term option.
House Demolition:
Pros: Total design freedom for a new home, removes safety hazards, faster process than extensive renovations.
Cons: Higher upfront cost, emotional impact (if the house has sentimental value), temporary relocation needed.
House Renovation:
Pros: Less disruptive, preserves historical or sentimental features, often less expensive than new construction.
Cons: Hidden structural issues can arise, potential for prolonged project timelines, and limited design flexibility.
Conclusion
House demolition is a complex yet necessary process for many property owners. Whether you're clearing land for redevelopment, removing a dangerous structure, or starting fresh with a new build, understanding the demolition process is essential for a successful project. By choosing the right demolition method, following safety protocols, and working with experienced professionals, you can ensure a smooth and efficient demolition experience.
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
May not by your wheelhouse, but regarding ever-increasing college tuition, where does the money go? Why is college so much more expensive than it was a few decades ago?
I have indeed written several posts about the college affordability crisis, which are probably to be found in my "ronald reagan burn in hell" tag. This is because, as with most of the batfuckery of the American economy since the 1980s, it is indeed Ronald Reagan's fault. The overall causes of college skyrocketing in cost include, but are not limited to:
1) Huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, gutting the funding that public education systems/public universities previously received from the government;
2) This in turn increased the costs at private universities, which had always been more expensive than public universities anyway, and besides, they were now free to put up their prices as far as they wanted;
3) The "unregulated free market trickle-down capitalism for everyone!!" Reagan-era mentality led to the explosion of costs in healthcare, housing, education, etc etc., and drastically widened the level of income inequality between rich and poor;
4) The replacement of grants (which you don't have to pay back) with loans (which you do), which incentivized unscrupulous loan companies to increase the burden of debt on students and for colleges to charge more and more tuition in the form of loans;
5) A bachelor's degree was once supposed to guarantee you a job, and now does nothing of the sort, and because the market has become so crowded and oversaturated with generally unsatisfactory and unstable job options, you are expected to pay for multiple degrees and go even DEEPER into debt;
6) Obviously, because of this total rejiggering of the economic landscape, everything costs a fuckton more than it used to 40 years ago, so colleges can't return to their 1970s-era fee structure;
7) As an academic, I can promise you that very little of this money is actually going to faculty salaries or the development/sustainment of new programs. Yes, obviously it costs money to run a quality educational institution, and I also obviously want all universities to be funded properly and for academics to be paid what they deserve. But the actual distribution of this money is... less clear.
8) Schools with giant well-known Division I sports programs tend to get all or most of the money that comes into their institutions, leaving relatively little for academic or faculty development;
9) For example: I work at a large, fairly prestigious, private university with very high research activity/classification, and we don’t even have a football team sucking up the money. But still, every single quarter, my department has to go through the budget with a magnifying glass, cut low-enrolled courses, argue constantly with the dean about which courses we do get to teach, etc. Our adjuncts also get paid literal peanuts for taking on a lot of work, and because we're so low on core faculty and just had to cancel another faculty search because of budget reasons, probably 50% of our schedule in the upcoming quarter is being taught by adjuncts. This is... not ideal.
10) Student debt is now such a lucrative part of the American commodities market, is so embedded in the financial system, and constitutes (at last glance) up to $1.8 trillion of outstanding debt, that when Biden tried to cancel even some of it, the Republicans immediately lost their minds and sued him to stop it. As of now, that case is still pending before SCOTUS, and because they're the literal worst, nobody hold your breath for a good outcome.
In short: college is one of the areas that has suffered the most from unregulated Reagonomics over the last 40 years, has been repeatedly incentivized to become and to stay extremely expensive and to represent a long-term burden of debt, and while you would hope that the money was being responsibly reinvested into actual faculty hiring/retention/academic program development etc, that is... not usually the case. The big Division I universities that serve as farm team training programs for the NFL, with a little academics on the side, also tend to have tons of investment in sports and not nearly as much in the classroom. But I'm sure this is fine!
48 notes
·
View notes
Text
“I. Propositions on Fascism
1. "The most perfect organization of the universe can be called God." The fascism that recomposes society on the basis of existing elements is the most closed form of organization; in other words, the form of human existence closest to the eternal God.
In social revolution (but not in Stalinism as it exists today) decomposition conversely reaches its extreme point.
Existence is constantly situated in opposition to two equally illusory possibilities: an "ewige Vergottung und Entgottung," in other words an "eternal integration that deifies (that produces God), and an eternal disintegration that annihilates God in itself."
The destroyed social system recomposes itself by slowly developing an aversion to the initial decomposition.
The recomposed social structure—whether the result of fascism or of a negating revolution—paralyzes the movement of existence, which demands a constant disintegration. The great unitary constructions are only the warning signs of a religious upheaval that will push life's movement beyond servile necessity.
The charm, in the toxic sense of the word, of Nietzschean exaltation comes from its disintegration of life, while carrying it to the overflow of the will to power and irony.
2. With regard to the community, the character of the individual as substitute is one of the rare certainties that emerges from historical research. It is from the unitary community that the person takes his form and his being. The most opposed crises have led, before our eyes, to the formation of similar unitary communities: thus in these there was neither social sickness nor regression; instead, societies rediscovered their fundamental mode of existence, their timeless structure as it was formed or reformed in the most diverse economic or historical circumstances.
The protest of human beings against a fundamental law of their existence can evidently have only a limited significance. Democracy, which rests on a precarlous equilibrium between classes, is perhaps only a transitory form; it brings with it not only the grandeur but the pettiness of decomposition.
The protest against unitarism does not necessarily take place in a democratic sense. It is not necessarily done in the name of a within; the possibilities of human existence can from now on be situated beyond the formation of monocephalic societies.
3. Recognizing the limited scope of democratic rage (in large part deprived of meaning because the Stalinists share it) does not mean in any way the acceptance of a unitary community. Relative stability and conformity to natural law in no way confer on a political form the possibility of stopping the movement of ruin and creation of history, still less of satisfying in a single moment the demands of life. On the contrary, closed and stifling social existence is condemned to the condensation of forces of decisive explosion, which cannot be carried out within a democratic society. But it would be a crude error to imagine that the exclusive, and even simply the necessary, goal of an explosive thrust is to destroy the head and the unitary structure of a society. The formation of a new structure, of an "order" developing and raging across the entire earth, is the only truly liberating act, and the only one possible, since revolutionary destruction is regularly followed by the reconstitution of the social structure and its head.
4. Democracy rests on a neutralization of relatively free and weak antagonisms; it excludes all explosive condensation. Monocephalic society is the result of the free play of the natural laws of man, but each time it is a secondary formation, it represents a crushing atrophy and sterility of existence.
The only society full of life and force, the only free society, is the bi- or polycephalic society that gives the fundamental antagonisms of life a constant explosive outlet, but one limited to the richest forms.
The duality or multiplicity of heads tends to achieve in the same movement the acephalic character of existence, because the very principle of the head is the reduction to unity, the reduction of the world to God.
5. "Inorganic matter is the maternal breast. To be released from life is once again to become true; it is to perfect oneself. Whoever understands this would consider the return to insensate dust as a celebration."
"To grant perception also to the inorganic world; an absolutely precise perception—the reign of 'truth'! —Uncertainty and illusion start with the organic world."'
"Loss of all specialization: synthetic nature is superior nature. But all organic life is already a specialization. The inorganic world found behind it represents the greatest synthesis of forces; for this reason, it seems worthy of the greatest respect. In the inorganic, error and the limitations of perspective do not exist."
These three texts, the first summarizing Nietzsche, the other two taken from his posthumous writings, reveal at the same time the conditions of the splendor and poverty of existence. To be free means not to be a function. To allow oneself to be locked in a function is to allow life to emasculate itself. The head, conscious authority or God, represents one of the servile functions that gives itself as, and takes itself to be, an end; consequently, it must be the object of the most inveterate aversion. One limits the extent of this aversion, however, by giving it as the principle of the struggle against unitary political systems: but it is a question of a principle outside of which such a struggle is only a contradiction in terms.” - Georges Bataille, ‘Propositions’
2 notes
·
View notes