#Policy implications for businesses

[greenthestral]

Navigating Global Economic Recovery Amidst Turbulent Times

Understanding the Complexities of Global Economic Recovery

The world is currently grappling with a multitude of challenges that are hindering global economic recovery. As we strive to move past the unprecedented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, new waves of infections continue to pose significant threats to economies worldwide. In addition, rising inflation rates, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market challenges further compound the complexities. This article explores the interplay of these factors and delves into the measures required to overcome these hurdles and steer towards a resilient economic future.

The Ongoing Battle with COVID-19

Despite progress in vaccination efforts, COVID-19 remains a potent adversary to economic recovery. As new waves of infections emerge, countries are forced to grapple with imposing restrictions and lockdowns to curb the spread. Such measures, though essential for public health, have profound consequences for businesses and industries. Disruptions in workforce continuity, temporary closures, and reduced consumer demand impact economic growth.

The uncertainty surrounding the duration and intensity of these waves adds further strain to businesses' ability to plan and invest in the future. Moreover, as variants of the virus continue to evolve, adapting strategies to combat the virus becomes an ongoing challenge for governments and businesses alike.

Inflation: The Silent Eroder of Purchasing Power

Rising inflation rates present another obstacle to global economic recovery. The pandemic's economic fallout, coupled with supply chain disruptions, has caused an increase in the prices of goods and services. This phenomenon erodes consumers' purchasing power, as their income struggles to keep pace with the soaring costs of essential items.

Central banks and governments face the delicate task of balancing inflation control measures while simultaneously promoting economic growth. Tackling inflation requires a careful calibration of monetary policies and fiscal stimulus to prevent the economy from slipping into stagflation – a state of stagnant growth with soaring prices.

Supply Chain Disruptions: Bottlenecks in the Path to Recovery

The pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains. As nations went into lockdowns, the movement of goods and raw materials was severely impeded, causing bottlenecks and delays. While economies have gradually reopened, the challenges persist. Shortages of critical components and delays in production have far-reaching implications for various industries, from manufacturing to retail.

Efforts are being made to diversify and localize supply chains to enhance resilience. However, transforming complex global supply networks is no small feat and requires time and substantial investments.

Policy Uncertainties: A Hurdle for Investors

Policy uncertainties amplify the challenges faced during economic recovery. Governments worldwide have implemented various measures to tackle the pandemic's impact, often requiring businesses to adapt swiftly. However, the changing policy landscape introduces uncertainty for investors, deterring them from making long-term commitments.

Clarity and consistency in government policies are crucial to instill confidence in businesses and encourage investments that fuel economic growth. Transparent communication and collaboration between policymakers and industries can foster a conducive environment for economic recovery.

Labor Market Challenges: Finding the Right Balance

The labor market also faces its own set of challenges. Many sectors, particularly those heavily reliant on physical presence, were severely affected during the pandemic. As businesses resume operations, there is a demand for skilled workers to fill positions that have remained vacant for extended periods.

Simultaneously, the shift towards remote work and technological advancements has led to a mismatch in the skills demanded and those available in the labor pool. Addressing this gap requires retraining and upskilling the workforce to ensure a seamless transition into the post-pandemic job market.

Charting the Course for Economic Resilience

Navigating the complexities of global economic recovery requires a coordinated effort from governments, businesses, and individuals. To build economic resilience, several key strategies can be adopted:

Strengthening Healthcare Systems and Vaccination

Prioritizing public health is fundamental to economic recovery. Governments must focus on bolstering healthcare infrastructure, ensuring sufficient medical supplies, and accelerating vaccination campaigns. A healthy workforce will instill confidence in employees and consumers, ultimately fostering economic growth.

Targeted Fiscal Support

Governments can offer targeted fiscal support to industries most impacted by the pandemic. Financial aid and incentives can help businesses recover and protect jobs. By tailoring support to specific sectors, governments can maximize the impact of their interventions.

Enhancing Supply Chain Resilience

Diversifying and strengthening supply chains will mitigate the risks posed by disruptions. Businesses can explore alternative sourcing options and collaborate with partners to build redundancy and flexibility into their supply networks.

Transparency and Consistency in Policies

Transparent communication from policymakers, coupled with consistent and predictable policies, will encourage businesses to plan for the future confidently. This stability fosters a conducive environment for investments and economic growth.

Investment in Skills Development

Investing in workforce skills development is crucial to bridge the labor market gap. Governments, educational institutions, and businesses can collaborate to provide training programs that equip individuals with the skills needed for evolving job opportunities.

Embracing Technology and Innovation

Technological advancements offer transformative solutions for businesses to adapt to the changing landscape. Embracing innovation can streamline operations, enhance productivity, and open new avenues for growth.

In conclusion, global economic recovery is indeed hampered by various challenges arising from new COVID-19 waves, inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market adjustments. However, by adopting comprehensive strategies and fostering collaborative efforts, nations can navigate these turbulent times and chart a course towards a more resilient and prosperous future. The road ahead may be challenging, but with determination and cooperation, we can overcome these hurdles and emerge stronger than ever before.

What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)

In this blog article, you will gain valuable insights into the critical factors obstructing global economic recovery. Discover how new waves of COVID-19, rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market challenges intertwine to create a complex web of obstacles. Learn about the impact these challenges have on businesses, economies, and individuals worldwide. Most importantly, find out how you can contribute to and navigate through these challenging times, ensuring a resilient economic future.

Call to Action (CTA)

Ready to equip yourself with essential knowledge about the challenges hindering global economic recovery? Click here to read the full blog article and gain a comprehensive understanding of how new waves of COVID-19, rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market challenges are shaping the economic landscape. Let's work together to build a stronger, more sustainable global economy.

Blog Excerpt

The road to global economic recovery is far from smooth. As the world attempts to overcome the far-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, new waves of infections continue to emerge, necessitating ongoing restrictions and lockdowns. Alongside this, rising inflation and supply chain disruptions add to the complexities, impacting the prices of goods and the smooth flow of essential resources. Policy uncertainties further exacerbate the challenges, creating an environment of hesitation for investors and businesses. To add to the mix, labor market adjustments bring their own set of obstacles. This blog delves into the intricate web of these issues and explores potential solutions for a resilient global economic recovery.

Meta Description (320 characters)

Discover the hurdles obstructing global economic recovery: COVID-19 waves, inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor challenges. Gain insights and solutions for a stronger future.

[peccatulum-b-gone]

*a box has been left outside. looks to hold a larger animal, with an index seal on the top*

*inside is... Snakehead? but you're snakehead. in fact there's three of you in there, all with the same purple haze around them.*

I take it back, this delivery is pretty impressive. I wonder if these are somehow related to the mirror identities.

Hey, @7association-was-here, do you have any intel on identities with distinctly purple-ness to them ? I´ve got some which look sort of like me, but given that I haven´t run into any mirror versions of myself (let alone multiple versions that are somewhat purple), so these might be different thing.

You are free to come check them out. I will put the cage... somewhere where they won´t pose immediate threat if they broke out, I suppose.

[writers-potion]

I'm writing a sci-fi story about a space freight hauler with a heavy focus on the economy. Any tips for writing a complex fictional economy and all of it's intricacies and inner-workings?

Constructing a Fictional Economy

The economy is all about: How is the limited financial/natural/human resources distributed between various parties?

So, the most important question you should be able to answer are:

Who are the "have"s and "have-not"s?

What's "expensive" and what's "commonplace"?

What are the rules(laws, taxes, trade) of this game?

Building Blocks of the Economic System

Type of economic system. Even if your fictional economy is made up, it will need to be based on the existing systems: capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, feudalism, barter, etc.

Currency and monetary systems: the currency can be in various forms like gols, silver, digital, fiat, other commodity, etc. Estalish a central bank (or equivalent) responsible for monetary policy

Exchange rates

Inflation

Domestic and International trade: Trade policies and treaties. Transportation, communication infrastructure

Labour and employment: labor force trends, employment opportunities, workers rights. Consider the role of education, training and skill development in the labour market

The government's role: Fiscal policy(tax rate?), market regulation, social welfare, pension plans, etc.

Impact of Technology: Examine the role of tech in productivity, automation and job displacement. How does the digital economy and e-commerce shape the world?

Economic history: what are some historical events (like The Great Depresion and the 2008 Housing Crisis) that left lasting impacts on the psychologial workings of your economy?

For a comprehensive economic system, you'll need to consider ideally all of the above. However, depending on the characteristics of your country, you will need to concentrate on some more than others. i.e. a country heavily dependent on exports will care a lot more about the exchange rate and how to keep it stable.

For Fantasy Economies:

Social status: The haves and have-nots in fantasy world will be much more clear-cut, often with little room for movement up and down the socioeconoic ladder.

Scaricity. What is a resource that is hard to come by?

Geographical Characteristics: The setting will play a huge role in deciding what your country has and doesn't. Mountains and seas will determine time and cost of trade. Climatic conditions will determine shelf life of food items.

Impact of Magic: Magic can determine the cost of obtaining certain commodities. How does teleportation magic impact trade?

For Sci-Fi Economies Related to Space Exploration

Thankfully, space exploitation is slowly becoming a reality, we can now identify the factors we'll need to consider:

Economics of space waste: How large is the space waste problem? Is it recycled or resold? Any regulations about disposing of space wste?

New Energy: Is there any new clean energy? Is energy scarce?

Investors: Who/which country are the giants of space travel?

Ownership: Who "owns" space? How do you draw the borders between territories in space?

New class of workers: How are people working in space treated? Skilled or unskilled?

Relationship between space and Earth: Are resources mined in space and brought back to Earth, or is there a plan to live in space permanently?

What are some new professional niches?

What's the military implication of space exploitation? What new weapons, networks and spying techniques?

Also, consider:

Impact of space travel on food security, gender equality, racial equality

Impact of space travel on education.

Impact of space travel on the entertainment industry. Perhaps shooting monters in space isn't just a virtual thing anymore?

What are some indsutries that decline due to space travel?

I suggest reading up the Economic Impact Report from NASA, and futuristic reports from business consultants like McKinsey.

If space exploitation is a relatiely new technology that not everyone has access to, the workings of the economy will be skewed to benefit large investors and tech giants. As more regulations appear and prices go down, it will be further be integrated into the various industries, eventually becoming a new style of living.

[hyperlexichypatia]

I think the way nonprofits and public agencies are funded leads us to adopt some of the worst aspects of a capitalist mindset towards our service users.

In a business, the goal is clear: Generate profit. Sell more product, to generate more profit. Recruit more customers, to generate more profit. Upsell customers to a more expensive product, to generate more profit. Convince customers to keep coming back and buying more things, to generate more profit.

Manipulation is built into the process, and it's understood by all parties. When a business does something "for you," it's in the hopes that you'll buy (or keep buying, or buy more of, or persuade other people to buy) their product. When a company offers free ice cream with your insurance quote, it's not because they like you and and want you to have ice cream; it's because they want you to come for the ice cream, stay for the insurance quote, and buy their insurance policy before you leave, so they can get your money. Everybody knows this.

Nonprofits and public agencies theoretically don't have this motive. Theoretically, the services we offer are for you, the service user. Theoretically, there is no profit motive, and thus no motive for manipulation. Theoretically, whether or not people choose to use the services we offer has no effect on us, so our only goal in promoting or raising awareness of our services is so that potential users can know about them and decide whether or not to use them.

Theoretically.

But in reality, public agencies and nonprofits are funded by governments, foundations, and donors. They demand "data" to justify their funding, and a major source of "data" is the number of service users. Markers of success have to be measurable and numerical, even if that metric doesn't really make sense. So even if there's not directly a profit motive for recruiting service users as "paying customers," there can still be a financial incentive for recruiting as many service users as possible, including using "sales" techniques like giveaways and gimmicks.

Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, people in the nonprofit sector want people to use our services, so we want to get the word out about what we have to offer. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong for a nonprofit to use a raffle or a giveaway or a pizza party or whatever to get the word out and recruit new service users.

But since the services we offer are supposed to be for the service users' own benefit, sometimes the attitude around promoting them slips into the idea that the people we're ostensibly trying to serve have to be manipulated or bribed or tricked into accepting services for their own good, because they don't know or care what's good for them.

This can get into some really unfortunate implications territory in the context of the demographics of people who tend to work at nonprofits and public agencies, compared to the demographics of people those agencies tend to serve.

Attitudes can quickly morph into "Those People don't care about their children's health/education/etc., so we have to trick and manipulate and bribe them with food and prizes."

There's a difference between "Giveaways are a fun way to get the word out about our services" and "Those People don't care about their children's diabetes risk unless we make them sit through a lecture before we give them food." And way too many public agency and nonprofit workers, in private, in what they think is a sympathetic audience, are way too open about saying the latter.

[warrioreowynofrohan]

This is one of the best articles I’ve seen yet on Trump, Trumpism, and the upcoming election. It’s directed at the right and centre-right (whereas most tumblr posts on this are directed at the left), but it’s saying – with detailed analysis and evidence – exactly what needs to be said, to everyone. This is not a normal election. How you vote this November determines whether you ever get the chance to vote in a democratic election again. This is not a game. Fascism is not a buzzword or a rhetorical device to hurl at anyone and everyone you disagree with. It is real, it is dangerous, and Trump is openly running on a fascist platform.

There are only two sides in this election: those who want the United States to be a fascist dictatorship and those who do not.

I live in Canada. I do not want to live next to a fascist state (especially since the Comservatives here are way ahead in the polls and their leader gives every sign of wanting to cozy up to Trump).

Please, stop this while you still have a chance.

Today we’re going to look at definitions of fascism and ask the question – you may have guessed – if Donald Trump is running for President as a fascist. Worry not, this isn’t me shifting to full-time political pundit, nor is this the formal end of the hiatus (which will happen on Nov 1, when I hope to have a post answering some history questions from the ACOUP Senate to start off on), but this was an essay I had in me that I had to get out, and working on the book I haven’t the time to get it out in any other forum but this one. And I’ll be frank, some of Donald Trump’s recent statements and promises have raised the urgency of writing this; the political science suggests that politicians do, broadly, attempt to do the things they promise to do – and the things Trump is promising are dark indeed.

Now I want to be clear what we’re doing here. I am not asking if the Republican Party is fascist (I think, broadly speaking, it isn’t) and certainly not if you are fascist (I certainly hope not). But I want to employ the concept of fascism as an ideology with more precision than its normal use (‘thing I don’t like’) and in that context ask if Donald Trump fits the definition of a fascist based on his own statements and if so, what does that mean. And I want to do it in a long-form context where we can get beyond slogans or tweet-length arguments and into some detail.

Now the response from some folks is going to be anger that I am even asking this question and demands for me to ‘stay in my lane.’ To which I must remind them that the purpose of history and historians is, as Thucydides put it, is to offer “an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human affairs must resemble if it does not reflect it” (Thuc. 1.22.4). This is my lane. Goodness knows, I’d much rather be discussing the historical implications of tax policy or long-term interstate strategy, but that isn’t the election we’re having. And if hearing about these things that happened is unpleasant, well, Polybius offers the solution: “men have no more ready corrective of conduct than knowledge of the past” (Plb. 1.1.1). We must correct our conduct.

The author, Bret Devereaux, lays out the history of the rise to power of Hitler and Mussolini and draws out the lessons

What I want to note here are two key commonalities: First, fascists were only able to take power because of the gullibility of those who thought they could ‘use’ the fascists against some other enemy (usually communists). Traditional conservative politicians (your Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham types) and conservative business leaders (your Elon Musks) fooled themselves into believing that, because the would-be tyrant seemed foolish, buffoonish, and uneducated that such an individual could be controlled to their ends, shaped in more productive, more ‘moderate,’ more ‘business friendly’ directions. They were wrong; many of them paid for their foolish error with their lives (Victor Emmanuel III paid for it with his crown). Mussolini and Hitler would not be ‘shaped,’ – they would be exactly the violent, tyrannical dictators they had promised to be – to the total and utter ruin of their countries.

Note that these men were not exactly subtle about what they wanted to do. Mein Kampf is not a subtle book. But they both knew how to promise violence to their followers while prevaricating to their temporary allies; be wary of the fascist who promises violence in his rally speeches but assures you that, if you just give him power, he won’t hurt anyone (except the people you don’t like) – because it is a lie, of course.

Second: once these fascist leaders were in power it was already too late to stop them. Precisely because fascists had no respect for democratic processes and the rule of law – things they had declared openly in seeking power – once in power, they were unconstrained by them and swiftly set about converting all of the powers of the government into a machine to keep them in power. And the conversion from democracy to dictatorship was remarkably swift, in Italy, Mussolini marched in October of ’22, rewrote the election rules in November of ’23 and by December of ’24 had effectively dropped even the pretense of democracy; just two years. Hitler was faster: appointed chancellor in January 1933, by March of that year he had suspended constitutional protections and ruled by fiat; just three months.

The time to stop an authoritarian takeover of a democratic system is before the authoritarian is in office, because once they are in power, they will use that power, to stay in power and it becomes almost impossible to remove them without considerable violence (and difficult to do even with considerable violence).

That, however, creates a tricky situation. With most political ideologies, voters can adopt a strategy of judging by outputs: “if you don’t like the current government’s policies, let these other fellows here have a go at it and see if they do better. If not, you can always vote them out next time.” But with fascists and other authoritarians there may not be a next time and this strategy fails: by the time the actions of the fascists make it clear they are dangerous, it is too late to vote them out.

This is why it is important to listen carefully to what fascists say and what they promise and most importantly to take their threats of political violence and authoritarianism seriously.

Which is not to say that everything on the right is fascism (just as not everything on the left is its own authoritarian variant, communism). Ronald Reagan was not a fascist, nor was George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush or John McCain or Mitt Romney. They were conservatives within the liberal tradition (again, ‘liberal’ here in the old Jefferson-Locke-and-Washington sense). Most Republicans today are not fascists, although a distressing number appear ready to repeat Franz von Papen’s mistake of assuming they can achieve their goals through an alliance with fascists. Only the devil wins such a devil’s bargain.

How is one to tell the difference? Listen to the things they promise to do and understand that they make speak out of both sides of their mouth: promising violence to one audience and then toning down their rhetoric to another. But politicians speaking from within the tradition of liberty don’t need to speak that way because they don’t promise violence in the first place.

Listen for the promises of violence, the promises to suspend press freedoms, the promises to persecute political adversaries and when you hear them believe them.

I strongly recommend reading the whole article, as the author goes on to lay out two of the more common definitions of fascism and analyze, point-by-point, how Trumpism fits them.

There is a reason why some Republicans, even some of the people who were in Trump’s inner circle in 2016-2020, have jumped ship now. The Republicans who are willing to vote for Kamala aren’t doing it because she’s conservative – they’re doing it because they’re anti-fascist. It would be deeply ironic if people on the left who have been calling themselves anti-fascists for the last eight years proved to be less so than those Republicans. This may be one of the most crucial moments in American history. Take it seriously.

[collapsedsquid]

97% of firms in India, 96% of firms in Indonesia, and 91% of firms in Mexico have fewer than 10 employees. Of these, most are just a single owner-operator, or perhaps a household enterprise. 55% of employment in developing countries is self-employment, rising to a staggering 77% in sub-Saharan Africa. These individuals operate firms, producing goods or providing services. Indeed they operate most firms. If we want to enable firms to grow, how should we think about these self-employed people? One possibility is that self-employed people are “micro-entrepreneurs.” They would like to grow their enterprises, but don’t have the resources to do so. This is the premise of microfinance, the most popular development intervention of the 2000s. Microfinance is the practice of giving households small loans that they can use to set up or grow a home business. If self-employed people are really microentrepreneurs, then the key to firm growth is giving them more access to capital. However, many different lines of evidence suggest that this view of self-employed people is inaccurate, and that it is more accurate to think of them as workers looking for wage employment than as entrepreneurs.  In developing countries, self-employed people transition to wage employment at similar rates as unemployed people — and earn similar wages when they do. This isn’t what we would expect to see if self-employed people intended to grow their businesses as “microentrepreneurs.” In that case, they would be reluctant to quit their enterprise and take a wage job. This is exactly the behavior we see in rich countries, where self-employed people transition to wage employment much less frequently than unemployed people, and do it for higher wages.  Microfinance studies also reveal that microloans have very little average impact on household or business outcomes. Most businesses run by an individual or a household are just not designed to scale. All of these facts point to self-employed people behaving more like unemployed workers than like entrepreneurs — which is to say, looking for jobs rather than aiming to create them. If self-employed people act more like unemployed workers than business owners, that implies that we should not design policy to bolster the growth of microenterprises. These microenterprises are desperate measures in the absence of wage employment, and will melt away if and when formal-sector firm growth creates more jobs. Formal-sector firm growth is key to making developing countries grow. Another urgent implication of this fact is that there is an unemployment crisis in developing countries that isn’t captured by official statistics. The typical approach to measuring unemployment is to ask whether people want to work but are unable to find any opportunities to do so — including self-employment. By this measure, the official unemployment rate in developing countries is 5% and 6% — around the same as in developed countries. However, if self-employed people are unemployed “in disguise,” this number could be much higher. One study estimated that at least 24% of self-employment during India’s agricultural lean season occurs solely because workers cannot find jobs. If we (loosely!) extrapolate this to a sub-Saharan African country with 77% of workers being self-employed, then the true unemployment rate jumps from 6% to 25%! Even if only 50% of workers are self-employed, then the true unemployment rate is still 18%. That level of unemployment is a catastrophic failure, and a crisis that cuts against both poverty alleviation for individuals and aggregate growth. 

[dailyhistoryposts]

A Rundown of Henry Kissinger's Life

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević. While Henry continues to nibble nori rolls and remaki at A-list parties, Cambodia, the neutral nation he secretly and illegally bombed, invaded, undermined, and then threw to the dogs, is still trying to raise itself up on its one remaining leg.”

--Anthony Bourdain (2018)

It's difficult to be precise, but all told Henry Kissinger killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in pursuit of American business interests.

EARLY LIFE

Henry Kissinger was born in 1923 as Heinz Kissinger in Fürth, Bavaria, Germany, to a German-Jewish family. Throughout his youth, he was relentlessly and violently harassed and discriminated against by members of the Hitler Youth and authorities. At the age of 15, Kissinger and his family fled Nazi Germany, settling in New York City. He finished high school at George Washington High School in NYC and began studying accounting at the City College of New York, but his undergraduate studies were interrupted in 1943 when he was drafted into the US army.

In the army, fluent German speakers were in short supply, so Kissinger was quickly assigned to military intelligence. During the American invasion of Germany, he worked to set up civilian administration of conquered cities and tracked down Gestapo officers as a Special Agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps. He received the Bronze Star Medal

After his time in the army, Kissinger returned to his studies. He graduated summa cum laude in political science from Harvard College, as well as his Masters and PhD. He taught at Harvard, and his studies focused on international 'legitimacy', when an international order is widely accepted by international leaders, without regard to public opinion or morality.

POLITICS

Beginning in the 1950s, Kissinger began to be more active on the political stage. He was a consultant for the National Security Council and a study director for the Council of Foreign Relations. He notably was against Eisenhower's massive retaliation nuclear doctrine, where the United States would respond to a nuclear attack with a much, much greater nuclear attack. Instead, Kissinger advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons on a regular basis in more wars.

In the 1960s, Kissinger began working with Republicans running for office as an advisor in foreign affairs. He contributed to the Nixon campaign, and when Nixon took office in 1969, Kissinger was appointed as National Security Advisor, and later Secretary of State. As a diplomat, Kissinger heavily used Realpolitik, the in-fashion Cold War approach focusing on pragmatism and realistic outcomes rather than ideological or moral purity. In international politics, it largely has to do with obtaining and maintaining power on the world stage.

Kissinger focused on relaxing US tensions with the USSR and China, leading an American foreign policy that supported Taiwan on the face but in the shadows removed all support for Taiwan and essentially waited for it to fall apart.

In 1974, he directed the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200), sometimes called the "Kissinger Report" the official United States policy for many years, though it remained classified until the 1990s. The Kissinger Report advocated for population control in undeveloped nations to ensure easy resource extraction and protect American business interests abroad. Projects were designed to reduce fertility while keeping up the appearance of improving quality of life--the plan specifically attempted to avoid an appearance of "economic or racial imperialism". Birth rate was particularly noted due to concerns about an adequate global food supply and because young people more readily fight back against corruption and imperialism. The Report also brought up increasing abortion rates as a method of obtaining this goal.

In 1975, policies based on the Report went into affect. The National Security Council would recommend withholding food and using military force to prevent population growth, prioritizing aid for small families, and even paying people to get sterilized. Thirteen countries were named as particularly problematic to US interests. Of note, Nigeria lost development and the United States took control of Nigerian resources, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was responsible for some of the 300,000 forced sterilizations in Peru--largely impoverished or indigenous women--during the Fujimori administration. The Fujimori government has been accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court for these abuses, and today the Peruvian economy suffers due to the low population resulting from these sterilizations.

ACTIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

The Vietnam War had started back in 1955. Kissinger had originally supported it, but as time dragged on began to view it as harming American prestige. Kissinger leaked information about peace talks to get into power at Nixon's side, and then failed to end the war in 1972, leading to the Christmas bombings. A very similar agreement was signed the next month, leading to a ceasefire (that would collapse) and the withdrawal of American troops--bitterly seen as a betrayal by South Vietnam. When Kissinger and Vietnamese diplomat Lê Đức Thọ were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this, Thọ declined to accept it and two members of the Nobel Committee left it in protest.

It was in the middle of the Vietnam War, and during the Cambodian Civil War, that Operation Menu and Operational Freedom Deal went into play. From March 1969 to May 1970, the United States Strategic Air Command carried out a series of first tactical and then carpet bombings in eastern Cambodia. Then, from May 1970 to August 1973, the United States provided close air support and widespread bombing. Part of a 'secret' war to support the Kingdom of Cambodia/Khmer Republic against communist rebels, it ultimately failed and the communists would take power in 1975.

In the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, Nixon and Kissinger supported the Pakistani president Yahya Khan. It was in this that the strongest dissent in the history of the U.S. Foreign Service, the Blood Telegram (named after sender Archer Blood), was sent. It reports the US was about to lose, describes systemic abuses, and uses the word 'genocide' to describe the actions by US-supported Pakistan. It said the US government was morally bankrupt. Blood was recalled early from Bangladesh, and US interests were lost when Bangladeshi Independence was secured within the year.

MIDDLE EASTERN POLICY

Kissinger was originally excluded from any policy-making on Israel, as part of Nixon's orders to exclude all Jewish-Americans from such work. Still, in 1973, when Kissinger became Secretary of State, he was included in all US Middle Eastern policy. This means he was largely responsible for the handling of the Yom Kippur War--this handling included not noticing precipitating factors leading up to it (he was so engrossed in Paris peace talks he didn't notice the Egyptian President Sadat ready to move on Sinai), delaying telling Nixon about and stalled negotiating a ceasefire, hoping Israel would push across and fully obtain the Suez Canal.

Kissinger's diplomacy included giving equipment to Israel, but not as much as he'd promised, and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia at the same time, in exchange for access to Saudi Arabian oil. By largely handling to event and not involving France or the United Kingdom, and by minimizing the power of the Soviet Union, Kissinger took large steps in giving US power over much of the Middle East.

It should be noted that this was done purely to protect US interests rather than any form of Jewish security. When questioned about the persecution of Soviet Jews at the same time, Kissinger said

"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy, and if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

-Henry Kissinger (1973)

Also in the region., Kissinger supported Iran against Iraq.

TURKISH INVASION OF CYPRUS

In 1974, the Greek military regime and Turkiye invaded the island of Cyprus. The military regime had been supported by Kissinger, and anti-Kissinger sentiment was strong among young people. Cyprus is now an independent island country, though its northeast portion is de facto separate, making up the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Kissinger considers his own handling of the Cyprus Issue unfavorably.

LATIN AMERICA

With Kissinger's influence, the United States maintained relations with non-left-wing governments regardless of commitment to democracy. It was with Kissinger's input that the CIA encouraged a military coup against Chilean president-elect Salvador Allende due to his socialist ideals.

Operation Condor, a US-backed program of political repression by right-wing dictatorships of southern South America, was also Kissinger's work. It included assassinations, the Dirty War in Argentina, and supporting Brazil's nuclear weapons program because it would benefit the U.S. private nuclear industry.

SOME OTHER STUFF

Kissinger's policy on post-WWII decolonization was mixed, based on what would benefit the U.S. He helped transition Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) away from White minority rule, expressed moderate support for the Portuguese Colonial Empire, and helped Indonesia occupy East Timor.

After Watergate forced Nixon to resign, Kissinger stayed on under President Ford but left office when Democrat Jimmy Carter came into power. He was offered an endowed chair at Columbia University, which was canceled due to student opposition, but was appointed to Georgetown University instead. He ran a consulting firm, supported the Chinese government in the Tiananmen Square massacre, and served on the 2000 Commission of the International Olympic Committee. He was supposed to help President Bush respond to the 9/11 attacks but stepped down because he refused to reveal if he had a business conflict of interest.

In 2010, he took a strong stance urging world governments to destroy all nuclear weapons. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, he said that Crimea should remain under Ukrainian sovereignty, but in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine said that Crimea and Donbas should be given to Russia.

Kissinger was a board member of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes' biotech scam.

In response to the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, and seeing pro-Palestinian protestors in Germany, Kissinger called Muslim immigration into Germany "a grave mistake".

DEATH

Kissinger died peacefully in his home in Connecticut on November 29th, 2023,

[eugenedebs1920]

One of the beautiful things about how our representative democratic constitutional republic works is the varying opinions. The array of views and theories, the proposals and approaches, from the patchwork of ideology America has attracted, gives us the opportunity to select the peak ideas of so many backgrounds and cultures. Many of the founders, Washington in particular, were against the formation of political parties. Because of such contrasting views this was unavoidable.

There used to be a dozen or more political parties in the U.S. Wigs, federalist, socialists, labor and others brought their perspectives and that of their constituency to Congress. This enabled a more zoomed in viewpoint of the issues across the nation.

Our Population in this country, and the planet as a whole, has BOOMED! With it, so have perspectives, concerns and opinions. It becomes harder and harder to address everyone’s needs when the diversity and size of those you’re representing is so vast. This becomes even more burdensome when there’s red and blue to choose from. The puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

I’ll have to do more research into why exactly but some time between the beginning on the twentieth century and 1940’s the cluster of political parties that had existed before pretty much consolidated in the two that dominate now. Sure, there are other parties out there, but not with much influence, or power as there was before the Second World War.

From a business perspective this makes sense, you buy out your rival for less competition so you can set market value to your liking. But this is not a business, some will argue the federal government is the largest business on earth. It goes beyond the financial side to the personal level. These are policies and practices that have real world implications. That affect real people lives in droves.

This “big tent” approach sounds wonderful in theory, but when you start looking at the details it becomes much more complicated. The extremes of both sides tend to be the loudest voices while representing the smallest fraction of the party.

It has proven to be detrimental to the functioning or our democracy! With just the two sides, when one side is unhealthy, unhappy and unwilling to compromise the system bogs. This last House term being an excellent example. These MAGA obstructionist sinking the ship. Making an ass out of themselves and the entire Republican Party. A party that used to be a proud, noble group, resorted to lacking leadership for months, failed vote counts and the title as the least productive Congress in this century. The “big tent” approach for the Republican Party has the loudest voices being heard while the mature, responsible, more centered Republicans are lumped in with them.

The same can be true of the left to an extent. Dems will kick those with unacceptable behavior words or conduct to the curb though, which is a huge difference. Yet there are extremes on the left that don’t necessarily reflect the views of most Democrats.

This, winner take all grasp for power has lessened the effectiveness and stature of the political spheres in this country. So it’s down to the puppet on the left or the puppet in the right. A brown paper bag with a name on it.

So we have the two parties with the two extremes. One party despite its downfalls wants to govern. Wants to see progress. Wants to enact change.

The other is fighting culture wars, denying science, and tiptoeing a line on bigotry that is stepped over habitually. Their method as the “party of no” which they labeled themselves during the Obama years does NOTHING for the citizens of this country. The obstructionist approach of saying no because the other side proposed it is not helpful, if you’d call it governing at all! The “war on woke” and this owning the libs thing is some childish, useless sh*t! Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Can we have representatives who actually work together and find compromise to accomplish SOMETHING!!!?

Anyway… There’s only one healthy party in America right now. And it sure ain’t the Republican MAGA Party…

[thatssosussex]

The Duke of Sussex participated in a powerful one-on-one interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times’ annual DealBook Summit. The conversation took place in front of an influential audience of leaders at the intersection of policy, finance, business, and culture.

The Duke shared his personal experiences navigating media scrutiny, the mental health challenges that arise from relentless media attention, and the global implications of distorted narratives on society. He discussed the importance of tackling the mental health crisis exacerbated by misleading information and the role media plays in shaping public discourse.

Throughout the interview, The Duke emphasized the responsibility that platforms distributing information—including both legacy and social media companies—bear in keeping users safe. He called for accountability in how algorithms shape the narratives we encounter online and underscored the profound impact time online is currently having on youth and the wider public.

The conversation also touched on the importance of empowerment and mobilizing change—urging those in positions of power to take tangible actions that promote a healthier media environment, stronger safeguards against harmful content, and a future where truth, empathy, and responsibility lead the way.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villareal at LGBTQ Nation:

Anyone with eyes in their head can see that the American government and media both have a clear pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias. Neither one officially recognizes Palestine as a state, and any criticisms against the Israeli government or in favor of Palestinian civilians are automatically labeled (at best) as ignorant, misinformed, and over-idealistic or as hateful, antisemitic, and pro-terrorist. The goal of these denunciations seems to have only one aim: to silence any criticism of Israel. I’m sick of it… and I’m not alone.

In numerous conversations, when I have argued that perhaps the Israeli government is becoming increasingly right-wing, I have been told that Israel is a queer oasis in the bigoted Middle East and that all of Israel’s neighboring countries are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and will gladly kill their own queer citizens. When I mention that Israel’s military-enforced policies of forced displacement and segregation against Palestinian citizens could violate their dignity and human rights, I’m reminded of the Holocaust — as if I somehow forgot — and am told that Hamas wants to exterminate Israel and all Jews and that all of Israel’s neighboring countries have threatened to wipe Israel off the map as well. If I mention any recent news report about Israeli forces killing Palestinian journalists or civilians, I’m informed that I do not know my history and that Palestine’s government has repeatedly allowed terrorists from its region to infiltrate Israel and commit atrocities against innocent Israelis. [...]

When any politician or activist publicly criticizes Israel in the media, they’re denounced, and we’re told that we must defend Israel at all costs to protect stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East and to offer a shining beacon of Western democracy to the people living in the otherwise barbaric region. These talking points are reinforced by American media, which commonly depict Israel as a bustling modern nation and depict all other Middle Eastern countries as war-torn deserts consisting of mostly huts, murderers, and goats. These things have all been pretty uniform throughout my entire life: Israel can do no wrong. To imply otherwise is to show your own stupidity or align with Nazis and terrorists. End of conversation. As if numerous progressive Jews and international human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, haven’t asked the same questions or reached the conclusion that Israel is hardly above reproach. The other not-so-subtle implication is that anyone who wants to criticize Israel openly should either be Jewish themselves or at least have university degrees in Israeli history, Middle Eastern studies, and international political science.

[...] The October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and recent reports that an estimated 35,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza since Israel’s military destroyed Palestinian homes, schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure. I’ve been thinking about it as more and more voters vote “uncommitted” in the Democratic primaries, signaling to President Joe Biden that America’s mostly unconditional support of Israel could cost him the election. I’ve been thinking about it as bipartisan politicians urge mayors, police, and the National Guard to violently disband pro-Palestinian student encampments on university campuses rather than engage in good-faith discussions about the institutions’ investments in businesses that benefit from Israel’s conflict.

As a journalist, I would normally turn to trust U.S. news sources to learn more about what’s happening on the ground in Gaza. But journalists and aid workers are being killed there, media outlets that criticize Israel run the risk of driving advertisers away, and pro-Palestinian journalists sometimes get hate mail and death threats. As a result, I hear even less in the news about Palestine than I do about Africa. I want to be clear: I denounce all terrorist actions and the murder of civilians, regardless of nationality. I support Israel and Palestine’s right to exist and the right of all people to peacefully practice their religion without any threats of violent persecution. I acknowledge that antisemitism is real, that hateful attacks on Jewish people and neo-Nazi activity have increased over recent years, and that some of Israel’s critics are bigoted. I also know that some white Christian nationalists and Republicans who support Israel don’t actually approve of anyone who doesn’t embrace Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior. Rather, they support Israel because of Biblical prophecies that say its existence will bring about Jesus’s return and the end of the world.

Daniel Villarreal wrote in LGBTQ Nation on how America needs to speak up on the abuses the Israel Apartheid government have heaped on Palestinians and the effects of silencing criticism of Israel has had adverse effects on discourse.

[sagistrology]

𝖍𝖔𝖜 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖕𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖔 𝖎𝖓 𝖆𝖖𝖚𝖆𝖗𝖎𝖚𝖘 𝖙𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖘𝖎𝖙 𝖒𝖎𝖌𝖍𝖙 𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖆𝖈𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖌𝖊𝖓𝖊𝖗𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖘 (𝖘𝖈𝖔𝖗𝖕𝖎𝖔, 𝖘𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖆𝖗𝖎𝖚𝖘, 𝖈𝖆𝖕𝖗𝖎𝖈𝖔𝖗𝖓)

(these observations are general and do not cover all aspects)

♇ the significance of pluto lies in its association with disruption - 'death' in both a symbolic and literal sense, regeneration, and rebirth. in each respective sign, pluto demands collective change through the sign's principles, without compromise. as an outer planet its personal implications can be more subtle, yet they intrinsically affect you.

♇ think of pluto as the wound of perception, subconsciously impacting us through trauma - whether individually or collectively.

♇ pluto dismantles and doesn't console, but rather pushes you to the edge in order for you to evolve and reclaim your power.

collective impact - pluto in aquarius

♇ in the ‘humanitarian’ sign, combined with pluto’s implications, we’re likely to see the previously established overturned and reformed. fragile structures, ‘unjust’ power, and inauthenticity can be expected to be dismantled on a large scale. authority and its ability will be questioned, along with blatant lies being exposed. this can be a time of societal values centring on communities, a collective, factual questioning of the status quo, and a critical eye on institutions, as well as the power held by them. think of uncompromising idealism, protests in reaction to crises and human rights violations, and redefining morality - centred on equality. discernment is invaluable.

♇ we're likely to see an influx of information and graphic exposure to humanity's deepest wounds, demonstrating the fragility of our existence.

♇ seeing these vulnerabilities (pluto) in relation to global structures (uranus) this might affect technology at large - highlighting its flaws and shortcomings. in a situational context, this could mean exponential advancements in tech - both positive and negative, e.g. more surveillance, an increase in cyber-attacks, data being deleted, power outages, further implementation of ai, plagiarism, etc.

pluto in scorpio

♇ wound of sorrow and cyclical loss, purging of trauma and ancestral wounds, purification, the occult, pain, rage, and anger.

♇ a gen deeply attuned to crises and disillusioned about the state of the world, sensing the potency of global struggles.

♇ may bring forward hidden information on corporations, political figures or governments through whistleblowers or officials. also paying more attention to their privacy and how their data is being processed.

♇ perhaps seeking positions of mentoring - helping to build a foundation. questioning and reevaluating social circles, looking for connections that align with them and preferring solitude to company that isn't beneficial.

pluto in sagittarius

♇ philosophy, religion, 'meaning', wound of seeking, inquiring, and investigating constrained by structure - often experiencing alienation due to a misalignment with cultural and societal norms.

♇ it will be invaluable to practice groundedness in order to implement idealism, setting an intention but also planning how to achieve this desired state globally, esp. when it comes to activism. can be eccentric, optimism has to be backed by strategies.

♇ themes can include the questioning of authority esp. in academic settings, seeking education outside institutions, and diverse qualifications rather than convention.

♇ may lead to a surge of entrepreneurs, startups, value-based businesses, more autonomy, less traditional employment etc. (working hours or location)

pluto in capricorn

♇ wound of responsibility - pragmatism, endurance, authority, implementation of new baselines, philosophies become policies - tradition and identity, social responsibility, emotional withdrawal, prone to anxiety and depression.

♇ with capricorn being a cardinal sign, there’s an emphasis on death and renewal – signifying new standards, demanding change rather than petitioning for it. these norms may create a sense of detachment from previous generations.

♇ different values and a deep sense of urgency and responsibility, no sugarcoating and radical action, centred on benefitting the masses and pushing boundaries.

[moonshynecybin]

you had a fantasy au forever ago… how does marc find out vale loves him

i for one. always believe rosquez is just as horny as it is tortured and just as stupid as it is horny. i think it’s this fraught thing where after a LONG saga of trying to keep marc safe and worrying about him (marc is captain of the guard/general!!! it’s his whole job to keep VALE safe but vale thinks about any scenario where marc sacrifices his life to save him and it feels like open HEART SURGERY…) and after trying to ease him into a more bureaucratic role as “advisor” (luca voice comma dryly. pecco already does all that. you are teaching him things a consort knows. you do realize that. it’s important to me that you’ve realized that.) by involving him on strategy and policy he i think. entirely without thinking through the emotional implications wherein. decides marc needs to get married to him. truly the only way he can make marc safe the only way he can physically keep him off the battlefield the only way he can. marriage is a political and transactional enterprise to him and he SHANT fall in love anyways so whatever. get married to marc present his most cogent military mind as unequivocally allied with him and keep marc from killing himself 8000x problem solved. the small ruthless part of him also is like. marc cannot leave me and stage a coup with our neighbors to the west if he is legally bound to me :) forever :)

(i would say they have a break up in this universe because vale is a lil insecure about marc’s ability to rule slash uccio meddlings but. it all brings glory to vale here. it’s all under his banner. that’s part of what he liked about marc to begin with… now if marc came from another noble house?? late stage royal parentage reveal??? then shit would get cwazy)

and he lays this all out to our capricorn moon queen marc marquez who sees the logic here and despite KNOWING it’s a bad idea because he is ass over teakettle in love with vale he ALSO sees this as like. the ultimate way to keep vale safe. he can contribute the same way he does now and he knows he’ll never have all of vale but at least he’ll have SOME of him… be able to produce an heir… so he says yes and vale’s like cool. chill. married as work associates. cool.

it’s all this emotional distancing/repression/denial that plays out into what they THINK is a business transaction until it’s the NIGHT OF. and they have to go in there and consummate their MARRIAGE. and vale lays marc out on their fine silken marriage bed and kisses his scarred arm and asks him if it’s okay and watches the way marc’s eyes squeeze shut when he pushes inside of him and the way he shivers when vale’s presses his mouth to the junction of his shoulder and his neck. the flex of his stomach the splay of his thighs the way he’s looking at vale like he’s something new. something that no one has ever seen before… feeling things no one has ever felt before (marc marquez may very well believe valentino rossi invented the prostate orgasm here) and THATS when vale thinks. uh oh !

[methed-up-marxist]

‘Imperialism’, in Marxist terms, has a specific definition. It is an economic definition that explains how capitalism came to dominate the world and how it continues to survive. It’s an explanation that implicates the ruling-classes of every nation great and small. Frustratingly for us, the term ‘imperialism’ has been tampered with and obscured until it means something else entirely to most of society. When Lenin wrote Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism in 1916,(1) he was responding to the misuse of the term by the so-called socialists of the Second International. In this case, socialists, of whom Kautsky is the most famous example, had lost their Marxist minds and instead put their trust in the state and reformism. When the First World War was on the horizon, they performed various opportunist backflips to invent a definition of imperialism that justified supporting their own nation’s war efforts. In fact, throughout Lenin’s critique, we see that the capitalist defenders of imperialism, those who cherished the destruction of the world, put forward better understandings of imperialism than the misguided socialists.

Today, we have even more problems, not least since Stalin’s distortion of numerous terms.(2) In fact, perhaps the only word that’s been distorted more than imperialism is communism itself. Now, the word ‘imperialism’ is found on every ‘communist’ poster. Where the second-internationalists redefined imperialism to defend their own Western countries, leftists influenced by Stalinist and Trotskyist distortions redefine imperialism to defend any enemy of the West. Gaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, and most recently Sinwar, all become noble anti-imperialist fighters. Then again, Ukraine reminded us that plenty of ordinary liberals are happy to use the term too, now applied to Russia – again, to support one warmonger against another.

In short, imperialism is not simply a policy that one country takes against another.

We cannot talk of imperialism without talking of capitalism. Capitalism, in theory, we are taught, is defined by its free market, free competition between the individual owners of manufacturing businesses. In Europe in the 1860s, this form of capitalism was at its peak, with industrialisation having been completed. The crash that followed in 1873 saw the growing emergence of cartels – businesses joining together to take out the competition. During a short boom in 1889, more and more businesses were taking to joining cartels, and throughout the 1890s the cartel system became an established and durable business form – mostly in the trade of raw materials. By the next economic crash of 1900-1903, cartels seemed like the solution for the capitalists, and free competition, the problem. Ownership of the means of production was now well on the way to being concentrated in the hands of a shrinking minority. In another word, monopoly. Monopolies, formed by the initial alliances of a few businesses, were in the position to bully, blackmail and eradicate smaller businesses. The owners of these conglomerates have no particular knowledge of industry but know how to accumulate and invest wealth. We call these financial speculators.

While the means of production were being concentrated, so the banks were too, and their purpose changed in the process. Originally, the bank was an intermediary through which capitalists made payments. As with the cartels, the small banks became absorbed or eliminated by growing banking alliances, alliances which eventually could take total control over the capitalist business owners, and essentially run capitalism. Then finally, the biggest banks and the biggest businesses came to operate together, and this monopolist system was completed by the union of the banks, the businesses, and the state. In Lenin’s words, “a sort of division of labour amongst some hundreds of kings of finance who reign over modern capitalist society”. Total control of the economy was no longer in the hands of the owners of industry, but in the hands of speculators and bankers; the vast separation between money capital and productive capital, this is finance capital at its most powerful. The country that produces the most is no longer the most powerful – but the country that owns the most. There we have what we would call superpowers, a tiny minority of countries running capitalism through financial domination.

At a certain point, the capitalist drive for expansion leads capitalists beyond their own homelands in search of greater profit. They start to export capital to less economically developed countries, investing in industry abroad, handing out loans, and ultimately forcing a monopolist model of capitalism onto the entire world. The entire world then is divided among a minority of highly developed capitalist countries. No stone is left unturned – where a profit can be made, it is made – without any regard to human life or ecological health. And once again, alliances are formed between the capitalists of different countries, among the state and among the owners of capital, to eliminate the competition from other countries. It is easy to see, without much explanation at all, how such a system arrives at international rivalries, and at times of crisis, war. This has not changed today. The political independence of countries is never 'true' independence as their economies and militaries rely on backing from a superpower, or indeed are caught between rival superpowers. We might call these states proxy or client states. In this situation, no economic rivalry, no war, no coup, exists outside of capitalist world domination – outside of imperialism.

Imperialism then is a phase of capitalism, not just the foreign policy of individual states. Lenin provides five essential features:

1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life. 2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital’ of a ‘financial oligarchy’. 3) The export of capital, which has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities. 4) The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves. 5) The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers is completed.

[tani-b-art]

THEE IDA B. WELLS, the resistance of a Black American: Boycotting, migration, the international shaming of America and the importance of now using the lineage, ethno-term of Foundational Black American.

Wells’ two anti-lynching lecture tours in 1893 & 1894 in Britain had huge economic impact that doesn’t get discussed enough.

Not only did she encourage and practice boycotting, she also strongly urged the activism of migrating and traveled across the world to put the United States of America on blast!

“International shaming influences behavior—it’s one of the best tools to combat human rights violations. It imposes social costs. It embarrasses the target’s reputation and legitimacy and mobilizes domestic opposition in the target state and puts pressures on policy makers.” International shaming is social sanctioning. The objective of international shaming is to galvanize action in the form of tangible repercussions.

Ida went to London not once but twice and each time, she indicted America! Her activism absolutely put the country in bad standing with the UK. America’s reputation, status, security, esteem and recognition became devalued because of her! The ties between both countries went into yellow alert so to speak because of her campaign. Honestly would label Ida B. Wells as the original geopolitical moderator or geopolitical enforcer because she put both the target and shamer on notice.

I don’t think we grasp the vast significance of The Great Migration. The migration of six million+ Black Americans in a span of six decades held a lot of economic weight in consequences and power. The exercising of that citizenship practice was financial activism in and of itself. The Great Migration was this massive exodus of Black Americans from the US south to the north (and west and east) that transformed the literal landscape of American life. "By their actions, they would reshape the social and political geography of every city they migrated to. When the migration began, 90% of all Black Americans were living in the South. By the time it was over, in the 1970s, 47% of all Black Americans were living in the North and West." Our ancestors did this multiple times, in two waves (1910-1930, 1940-1970). Their migration away from the south had grave after effects on the white business sector of the south too. Their migration had dual implications -- one, it was for themselves, their families and their progeny in that it was for our people to gain their rightful place into the American dream they built within the country and the physical upward mobility was a movement of empowerment (financially, psychologically, bodily, spiritually) by rescuing themselves from the racial violence that was heavily accepted in the south and two, their actions would cause a ripple effect in that the white commerce of the cities all over would suffer financially as a result of them migrating out the south. I find it so courageous and selfless that many families also moved as support for their fellow community members, their next door neighbors (the solidarity of community was the reason why Ida even began reporting on lynchings because her friend and his business partners were lynched out of jealousy by a white mob). They stood in solidarity with one another by collectively departing their own homes and own cities, towns and states and left behind businesses as well. That takes so much fortitude and strength and faith and sacrifice to just up and leave what is all some of them had known. To just pickup and leave behind family homes passed down from generation to generation and leave behind a place that was home to them. They decided that all their capital in their spending, buying, entrepreneurship, intellectual capital, labor capital and population capital could be appreciated up north or elsewhere and they did just that and left behind wastelands for the racist white community to figure out themselves. The Great Migration was a permanent act of resistance. One that should be praised. One that should be repaired and compensated for as well because many were also forced to migrate from their homes from the white terror inflicted upon them, destroying their communities in the wake—there are countless white families today that have been passing down unearned and un-inherited homes, businesses and land that their ancestors violently confiscated from Black American families with the help of the government, police, politicians, military. Which is why they migrated. Why we practice migrating. The migration within our country - crossing city lines, zip codes, regions, parishes, counties and state lines shows the resilient nature of us.

Wells' usage of her voice to advocate boycotting and her intellectual, journalistic power to travel across the pond to shame America with their international economic partners was an extremely geopolitical success. She did something in a manner to leverage our community against the entire globe. She couldn't reach to the lacking human sensibilities, decency and morals of white America, so she re-strategized.

And her strategy was absolutely boss-mode! The offense and defense she played with our country and other countries is such a valuable blueprint to study. She played checkers, chess and it was all so tactical!!!

This brings me to how we as Black Americans are foundational to this country. I grasped this about a year or two ago but tucked it away not fully realizing the magnitude of it.

What Wells did while in Britain shows what having a governmental power in your corner means. Governmental power with the control to economically damage another entity that is inflicting harm on a disenfranchised group. Wells went to London with the precise intentions to give America an ultimatum. You don't want to stop lynching my people and I am exposing the violent, deadly act you condone to your biggest trading partners. She did it by appealing to what seemed to be the overbalance of human decency that the British had over America. Her urging to boycott as a response to lynching and also going out of the country to expose the domestic terrorism resulted in financial consequence and also helped to form The English Anti-Lynching Committee. What’s remarkable is that Britain has never been Black Americans’ native land yet Wells had that much righteous indignation for the ways Black Americans were mistreated that that alone was enough influence to galvanize them to action. A revolutionary!

In 2021, when Biden signed the Anti-Asian Hate Bill is when it instantly hit me that it's really all about money. The uptick of violence that Asian Americans began to experience was so quickly remedied by that administration that it was alarming to me. Here is where I understood that it is all about the monetary relationship ethnic groups have with our country. The swift response to creating and signing a bill into law showed to me that Asian countries gave an ultimatum to the US. "America, you either do something about this increase in violence to our people or our money goes." My city's mayor at the time in 2019 or early 2020 was quick to respond to the then unknown COVID virus with a statement along the lines of "Please continue to patron Asian businesses". It wasn't a first thought or major concern with health safety at all with what none of us knew of the virus, it was all about revenue and patronage. In real-time, I was discussing this in a group chat when Biden announced he was “cracking down on Asian hate”. The group chat member I was conversing with brought up the mass lynching of Italian immigrants in New Orleans of 1891. Their home country of Italy went as far as cutting off trade and diplomatic ties for about a year until President Harrison gave in to acknowledge it and appoint a special investigation. There's a "mother land" to phone home to when your new homeland participates in subjugating you and doesn't speak up about the atrocities you are experiencing. And America has a fear of losing trade partners that funnels and generates so much money into our financials that we did act out to find a solution to end the violence against these immigrant groups. THIS is something Black Americans do not have in our corner. A deck of cards we don't have in our possession as other groups have and have been able to use. There is no continent or country to back us up as a group when the oppression continues as other groups are able to do. There is no other country that we can appeal to to condemn America's acts of injustice upon us. Centuries ago, Wells had this international support from London but that isn't the case in contemporary times.

But because there is no other country to run to, to call on, to find sanctuary in, that isn't an option for us. We don't get to call on any country to penalize America when our country causes harm on us (by its white citizens or by the white racist controlled judicial system, health system, educational system, all the systems). There isn't a nation to tap on the shoulder to punish America when it does us harm. We don't have an Italy that can threaten America to do right by us or suffer the transactional consequences. There isn't a country to turn to to declare to America that they'll cease trade, that they'll cease the mining of their resources with if you don't do right by our fellow diaspora family. We can't do that because our country is America. Our homeland is America and for many that were here before colonization and long before it was “discovered”, it is our motherland. And this is why we are foundational to America. Rooted to America in totality. None of our ancestors immigrated here. Many were already here and many were brought here before the founding of this country (making them the only non-immigrant group here). Before the establishment of America. Long before 1492, 1526, 1619, 1776 and 1863. Our ancestors were the founders of America. We are Black American all the time—we don’t have anywhere to run to as a safe haven or sanctuary country and that is why we always remind America and make America live up to its creed.

Which is why we have to be so on code here in America, our homeland. So on code, that we've created a protective culture. Creating it was/is our way to insulate ourselves from the outside harms of those who were/are not of our lineage. Our protective culture was a response to the racist terror, discrimination and harm from the dominant white society. In our protection we created our own schools (HBCUs—(Mary Lumpkin, Mary McLeod Bethune) to educate ourselves. In Investing through founding and chartering Black owned banks (True Reformers Bank-Rev. William Washington Browne, U.S. Capital Savings Bank of Washington, Saint Luke Penny Bank-Maggie L. Walker, Unity National Bank). Why our great(great)-grands and grandparents and parents formed things like The Negro Motorist Green-Book, guiding Black Americans of the safe havens and sanctuary spots of Black-owned proprieties all over America. Our same great(great)-grand mothers and grandmothers were the baby-catchers of our matriarchs and built the community of doulas and midwives to ensure the safe births of newborns and mothers (Annie Mae Taylor-Jasper, Gladys Milton, Maria Milton). The Chitlin' Circuit was their entertainment network they created to give entertainers the freedom to tour and be safe while doing so. The inhabitation of the Great Dismal Swamp that was a refuge for our people who escaped slavery (Maroons). Established sanctuary cities filled with places that Black Americans occupied so that others could become a part of once they escaped for their freedom and founded freedmen’s municipalities—self-reliant, fully autonomous, self-sufficient, all-Black towns, cities and communities (Mound Bayou, MS,; Greenwood Tulsa, OK; Central Park, NY; Rosewood, FL; Sunnyside, TX; Brownlee, NE). The Deacons of Defense, the organization made up of Black American veterans from World War II, who believed in armed self-defense. We created the insular system of self health care. Healing and spiritual practices as well were/are protective measures. Through root work with faith healers, known as a traiteur or traiteuse down South, a Creole healer or a traditional healer (Ella Louise, Mary Stepp Burnette Hayden, Hermon Lee, Lucreaty Clark) and seers that imparted their therapeutic wisdom and acumen for both spiritual & physical breakthroughs on behalf of those who came to them for guidance, manifestation, deliverance. Making house calls too. What’s known as Black folk medicine was literally the beginnings of modern day medicine and these insular systems were the pioneers of the industry of hospital.

Self-care was also protective. They were so tapped in with their spiritual essence and clicked in and in tune with nature and plants that they knew what foods to grow in their own gardens and what minerals to combine to make concoctions to remedy ailments, injury and cure illnesses. Their healing intellect and expertise stopped plagues and diseases and many were rewarded for their life-saving by gaining their freedom as well as creating huge financial stability from their service (Biddy Mason, Dr. Jim Jordan). Our ancestors were the first unofficial doctors and biochemist before these industries were even a thing (Emma Dupree, Caroline Dye, George Washington Caver). “…the ineffectiveness of white medical traditions contributed to the reliance of the enslaved on folk medicine.”

From decades ago with The Harlem Renaissance to modern times with the Black American LGBTQ+community coming together to create their extended families within Ballroom culture. Formed not only to entertain and give space to creators in peace but to also protect and shelter one another.

We always innately had that protective spirit to survive and thrive and even help others. We had to come up with all systems and operations in order to protect ourselves from the anti-Blackness of living within our own country.

[to point out--Biden and his administration has yet to sign or pass the Anti-Black Hate Crime Bill, a bill dating back to 2015 that some federal lawmakers started making a topic in response to the Charleston massacre of nine innocent Black church members, the same bill that was readdressed to this admin after the Jacksonville massacre in 2023. As of today, we still lead in hate crime victims and are still massively targeted because of race but still no hate crime bill passed. He has less than a week left to fulfill anything Black American specific.; the midwifery network was so immaculate and efficient, it became trusted and sought out from white expecting mothers as well.]

The un-actualized, one-sided Pan African movement could've worked or is supposed to work in that way. There should be economic cells and enclaves as well as residential ones, educational ones and links setup all across the continent of Africa or in South America and the Caribbeans that act as bridges to link those of the diaspora to be able to traverse back and forth freely with provisions. Abroad those links should be in place but I have yet to see that they are. America has created a very exploitative, imperialistic relationship over many of these countries (continents) that makes this almost impossible to do but it is also worth mentioning that some of these majority Black countries and their leaders are also creating ominous relations with other countries that is very reflective of colonization years ago. Pan Africanism should be so established that when Black Americans suffer any injustice as a collective on such a large scale, the trading with Africa should temporarily cease until justice is served and until the constant injustice against Black Americans continue, then international transactions are put on pause. As was done here in America on behalf of South Africa to end apartheid—many Black Americans leaders, activists and athletes such as Rosa Park, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Coretta Scott King, Stevie Wonder and Arthur Ashe protested and were arrested for pressuring our own Congress to pass an act on behalf of South Africa. “By 1988, more than 155 academic institutions had fully or partially divested from South Africa, including the University of California, which withheld some $3 billion from the country. In addition, by 1989, 26 U.S. states, 22 counties and more than 90 cities had taken economic action against companies doing business in South Africa. U.S. groups also raised funds to help pay legal expenses for South African political prisoners and their families and organized boycotts of South African sporting events and cultural performances to show their solidarity with the South African people. Many U.S. churches also voiced their protest and found ways to apply economic pressure. The combined force of this decentralized group of American anti-apartheid activists finally pressured the U.S. Congress to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which imposed economic sanctions against South Africa until the government agreed to release Mandela and all political prisoners and entered into “good-faith negotiations” with the black majority. President Ronald Reagan vetoed the measure, but Congress overturned that veto and followed by voting for even more restrictive sanctions.” We forced our own country to take a stand for the systems of injustice in other countries.

But Black Americans can’t be the only group of the diaspora doing this activism. The sanctuary country can't only be the US for those who immigrate here. It can't be a one-sided, one-way movement because it doesn't help the collective. The Pan-Af movement to Black people who aren't Black American is foreign and quite frankly, is a movement they want to have nothing to do with. Another thing that is very noticeable is that when those who do immigrate here to the US, they have created their own enclaves with very distinct boundaries. Boundaries that make it very difficult and just outright impossible for Black Americans to become a part of. No matter that "we're all Black", many melanated immigrants do practice segregating and separating themselves from us. There are so many concentrated areas across the country where those of the diaspora that have come here have created and make it a point to not let us in. Black Americans are very welcoming (too welcoming to a fault) but that isn't reciprocated from other Black people within the diaspora. I honestly don't even know if any type of movement like this can really work. Sad to say, I think there are too many people of the diaspora that still have an attitude of "stay away from those Black Americans" so their idea of partnership with us is already non-existent and is hard to be successful — but the posturing of everyone else as deity and the quick willingness to partner with them is the complete opposite. Once again, delineation is very important -- why we are beginning to see Black Americans adopt the ethno-term of Foundational Black American culturally and are pushing for Freedman to become a distinct race/ethnic category for us. We are all Black yes, but we are still very different. There really isn’t a global Blackness in terms of how we have viewed it (not with the way Black Americans are so despised by other Black people in other countries). We don’t even view Black the same across the world. So, we aren’t all Black when it comes down to it. Especially not when you have some individuals with political power or influence attending hearings and town halls on reparations for Black Americans and they are opposed to it — and come to find out that they opposed it because they themselves are not Black American but of Black Caribbean and Black Latin (Afro Latino) descent but still melanated yet still undermining us. Not when we’ve had the first non-white President and Vice President oppose reparations for us. It makes all the sense now. Again, the hope I once had in the Pan African movement and global Blackness has dissolved and waned totally.

Even with a fractured legal framework that is directly against us, that's been forever, we are always staying right here, fighting our own country to apply its principles and standard of justice & freedom to us. We are always fighting to make our country stand in its democracy of our human rights. Reminding America to live up to the integrity it claims. The fight to always remain here in our motherland to replace the system of injustice with a real justice system for generations to come.

We have always resisted the mistreatment and have always stood up against the people and the system they put in place. Fighting in all American wars to battle for freedom (American Revolutionary War, 1812, Black Seminole, Civil War, WWs etc. — Buffalo Soldiers, Tuskegee Airmen), escaping slavery through self-emancipation and at times becoming spies once a war broke when those wars often times were incited because of the debate of slavery (Harriet Tubman, Ona Judge, Josephine Baker, Harriet Robinson-Scott, Mary Ellen Pleasant, Mary Elizabeth Bowser, Ellen & William Craft, Solomon Northup) rose in rebellion to the slavery with revolts (New York of 1712, Stono Rebellion 1739, Louisiana of 1811, Southampton Insurrection 1839), formed clandestine operations and networks on the course to liberating ourselves (Underground Railroad-coded messages stitched in quilts to guide those escaping for freedom [whether myth or not], Pattin' Juba), resisted presidential propositions to be expelled from the country, enacting movements (Civil Rights, Selma, Freedom Riders), becoming activists and staunch anti-slavery abolitionists (Sojourner Truth, Frances E. W. Parker, David Walker, Sarah Parker Redmond, Henry Highland Garnet, Peter and Sarah Mayrant Fossett) in the efforts to free their people long before 1863’s Emancipation and gained their own freedom and emancipated others (Jane Minor, Doctor Caesar), starting and participating in boycotts & protests (Baton Rouge bus, Montgomery bus), went on strikes that threatened to shutdown cities (Atlanta Washerwomen’s Strike 1881, Memphis Sanitation Strike 1968), self-defended as hoodoo (Julia “Aunt Julia” Brown, John the Conqueror) & voodoo (Marie Laveau) practitioners and conjurers — for good things on behalf of others and themselves & for righteous vengeance (Nat Turner), became martyrs by sacrificing their own lives and their progeny to no longer be under the chains of slavery (Anna Williams, Margaret Garner, Gabriel Posser) and suing former slave owners once their freedom was acquired (Henrietta Wood, Dred Scott, Belinda Sutton, Elizabeth Freeman) as well as implementing mass reparations plans for reparative, financial justice for slavery (Callie House, Rep. John Conyers, Dr. Claud Anderson). Y’all, we resist so much against the system of racism that they had to enact laws (Fugitive Slave Act) and even invent un-scholared, fictitious psychological disorder terms to counter our resistance and deviance to being enslaved (drapetomania).

Self-sufficiency is also an act of resistance in our food and cuisine too. Transforming the leftover, undesirable foods given into Soul Food that sustained us. Fed the entire plantation from each other to the slave masters and mistresses themselves (shrimp and grits, gumbo, fried chicken, red beans & rice, collards, chitlins, pig feet, hush puppies, Black eyed peas, barbecue, mac and cheese, cornbread). Not only did Soul Food sustain us by providing the nutrients we needed but the cuisine’s certain staples also stand to cure us and is symbolic for wealth and prosperity and to ward off evil spirits. Nutritional watermelon that’s associated to us gave us financial security at the ending of the Civil War and post-Emancipation. Our people would sometimes negotiate informal contracts with their owners to cultivate and sell their own crops on designated plots of land on the plantations they worked on. As watermelons were easy to grow, they became a popular choice. The newly freed Black Americans continued to eat and grow watermelons and sold them to generate income for themselves. A lot of our folks made a grip of money from selling watermelons! A cash-crop that gained them wealth. Watermelon is a symbol of freedom (liberation) and self-reliance for us! Hush puppies were used to distract bloodhounds off their trail when they were escaping. The culinary prowess in turning survival into art is resistance just as well. The Black Panther Party’s free breakfast program was an act of survival and resistance by feeding the young so they wouldn’t go hungry throughout the day to be able to effectively learn while in school—nourishing the minds and bodies to be the next generation.

There’s also resistance in the innovation and creation of our languages (Kouri-Vini, Tutnese “Tut”, Black American Vernacular English) to use as secret, coded barriers to go unrecognized against our oppressors and most importantly, to teach and learn spelling and reading when it was forbidden to us—and of it was discovered that we could, punishment followed, hence, the secrecy of these languages. In our naming practices too. Our parents uniquely created our names. “Black naming practices, so often impugned by mainstream society, are themselves an act of resistance. Our last names belong to the white people who once owned us. That is why the insistence of many Black Americans, particularly those most marginalized, to give our children names that we create, that are neither European nor from Africa, a place we have never been, is an act of self-determination.”

The desire and demand to educate themselves and others outweighed the punishable laws of not being permitted to read. And educators taught others to read and write clandestinely (Mary S. Peake, John Berry Meachum, Frances Ellen Watkins, Susie King Taylor). Defiance!

In our beauty also is resistance and rebellion. From headscarves to Afros! Because of the Tignon Law of 1803 that intended to somehow hide the beauty of our matriarchs by forcing them to cover their hair, they creatively made the very head wraps, headscarves and handkerchiefs elaborate and stylish!

Resistance in corrective actions to counter the stereotypes & exclusions by showcasing our beauty, talent and dignity through creating our own art. We created publications (JET magazine, Ebony, Essence, Fire!!, The New Negro, Negro Digest, Chicago Defender) illustrated radical cartoons within them (Jackie Ormes, Leslie Rogers, Jay Jackson) and wrote pieces, essays in them (Alain Locke, Wallace Thurman, Countee Cullen, Claude McKay, Gwendolyn Brooks), and record labels (Motown), founded their own media to platform their people (Don Cornelius, Bob Johnson, Cathy Hughes), fashion & fashion brands (Zelda Wynn Valdes, Maxine Powell, Dapper Dan, Ruth Carter, Daymond John), motion pictures and film industry (Oscar Micheaux, Keenen Ivory Wayans, Tyler Perry, Spike Lee, Julie Dash, Kasi Lemmons, Robert Townsend), authored books to preserve our culture (Toni Morrison, Octavia Spencer, Zora Neale Hurston, Ernest Gaines) and sculpted, painted, textiled, printmaking, photographed and quilted to redefine and reimagine ourselves (Faith Ringgold, the women of Gee’s Bend in Nettie Young, Harriet Powers, Ernie Barnes, Augusta Savage, Elizabeth Catlett, Kara Walker, Gordon Parks).

Resistance in our musical anthems as protest to challenge injustice and instill pride, often at the extreme detriment of their very lives by being targeted (Billie Holiday “Strange Fruit”, Nina Simone “Mississippi Goddam”, Edwin Starr “War”, Marvin Gaye “What’s Going On”, Sounds of Blackness “Optimistic”, Michael Jackson “They Don’t Care About Us”, James Brown “Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud”, Public Enemy “Fight The Power”, Sister Souljah “The Hate That Hate Produced”). Singers and musicians stood against the institution of not only American racism, segregation and helped to fund movements but abroad against the Nazi regime and performed at integrated venues and were arrested because of it (Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzie Gillespie, Mahalia Jackson, Marian Anderson). Defiance.

Resistance in sports in showing solidarity to expose the injustice and mistreatment of Black Americans by their acts of defiance and boycotting (Tommie Smith, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Venus Williams, Serena Williams).

Black actors, actresses, writers, poets and playwrights were falsely placed on the Red Scare list and activists and leaders were listed in illegal FBI projects as “threats” and many were assassinated simply because they demanded America to treat us as human beings and wouldn’t keep quiet about it (Lena Horne, Paul Robeson, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Lorraine Hansberry, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, Darren Seales, Deandre Joshua). Resistance.

They pioneered their ways into the entertainment industry that was set from the beginnings to denigrate us and defied the Hollywood machine becoming first in many ways by showcasing their immense gift of acting and beauty (Hattie McDaniel, Della Reese, Teresa Graves, Dorothy Dandridge, Vanessa Williams, Diahann Carroll, Denzel Washington, Whoopi Goldberg).

Resistance in not allowing our musical genres to continue to be hijacked by always creating records and albums to showcase the limitless gift (Linda Martell, Whitney Houston, Mickey Guyton, Darius Rucker, Prince, Tina Turner, Little Richard, Beyoncé, Rapsody).

From Margaret’s martyrdom, to Callie’s mutual assistance/self-help organization, to Nat’s slave revolt, to Ida’s efficacy of international shaming. We have always resisted the conditions through uprisings, rebellions, revolts, fighting, boycotts, strikes, protests, migration, creating our own networks and international shaming. From laundresses, to athletes, to journalists, to abolitionists, to artists, to filmmakers, to authors, to doulas. Resisting has always been our method of disrupting the system of our oppression and our resistance worked as a form of getting back our agency!

All ways we've always sought and gained freedom by refusing to accept the subjugation through our resistance. We've even stood up against the injustice on behalf of others militarily (Colonel John Charles Robinson), self-enlisting despite the discriminatory practices to keep us out (The 6888th Battalion) to help others in other countries in their fight for their own liberation and even resisting by rejecting potential forced enlistment when wars were not warranted at the huge risk of their own livelihood, reputations and careers (Muhammad Ali, Eartha Kitt).

Historically, morally and culturally, the spirit of resistance is always what we possess.

...there aren’t too many incidents or events of this happening for us. Where the same has been done for Black Americans. At this point in time, we need to just face reality and know this. Only WE will fight for us.

For every ancestor of ours that gained their liberation all on their own and freed others…resistance!

For every ancestor of ours that said, “No” to presidential propositions of sending them to to foreign land after emancipation…resistance!

For every ancestor of ours that relocated to new territory through their action of migration in solidarity for one another against the terror inflicted upon them…resistance!

For every ancestor of ours like the revolutionary Ida B. Wells that didn’t back down to being threatened with death and harm for going to a whole ‘nother country to internationally shame America…defiance & resistance!

Us presently being here here today as their descendants alone is resistance!

I'm absolutely beginning to understand why the term Foundational Black American is being used by more of us. Because our direct lineage ties are here. We are the only non-immigrant group in America. This is our land. Our motherland. What is America today only is because of our ancestors--their unpaid, endless hours of brutal labor, intellectual capital, physical power and ingenuity literally built this country up. They created American culture with their innovative minds, made America the powerhouse it is, made America the standard. We are the architects of culture - here and all over the globe. The architects of politics because every inception of policies and laws were because of us. Our ancestors built this country! Their being has watered the tree of America. America doesn’t exist without the presence of Foundational Black Americans. “We gave birth to ourselves. We forged a new culture of our own.” Our ancestors—They are the founding of America, therefore, they are the foundation of it. Making us Foundational Black Americans as their descendants. That is our ethnic group. And there is so, so, so much pride in our lineage and bloodline! I am proud!

In the lyrical words of Beyoncé, “My family lived and died in America. Good ol' USA. Whole lotta red in that white and blue. History can't be erased.”

The lineage has always existed. Our HERITAGE has always been here. Our ROOTS and CULTURE are right here, in the United States of America! We KNOW WHO WE ARE!

Foundational Black American.

[mariacallous]

The United States Federal Trade Commission is taking action against two American data brokers accused of unlawfully trafficking in people’s sensitive location data. The data was used, the agency says, to track Americans in and around churches, military bases, and doctors’ offices, among other protected sites. It was sold not only for advertising purposes but also for political campaigns and government uses, including immigration enforcement.

Mobilewalla, a Georgia-based data broker that’s said to have digitally tracked the residents of domestic abuse shelters, is accused by the agency of purposefully tracking protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020. In a court filing, the FTC says Mobilewalla attempted to unmask the protesters’ racial identities by tracking their mobile devices to, for example, Hindu temples and Black churches.

The FTC also accused Gravy Analytics and its subsidiary Venntel of harvesting and exploiting consumers’ location data without consent, alleging that the company used that data to unfairly infer health decisions and religious beliefs.

According to the FTC, Gravy Analytics collected over 17 billion location signals from approximately a billion mobile devices daily. It has reportedly sold access to that data to federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Gravy Analytics could not be immediately reached for comment.

A spokesperson for Mobilewalla says the company's privacy policies are constantly evolving, adding: “While we disagree with many of the FTC’s allegations and implications that Mobilewalla tracks and targets individuals based on sensitive categories, we are satisfied that the resolution will allow us to continue providing valuable insights to businesses in a manner that respects and protects consumer privacy.”

“This data can be used to identify and target consumers based on their religion,” the FTC says. The location data collected by the two companies makes it possible, the agency says, to “identify where individual consumers lived, worked, and worshipped, thus suggesting the mobile device user’s religion and routine and identifying the user’s friends and families.”

According to the two settlements, which must be finalized in court before they would go into effect, Gravy Analytics and Mobilewalla are barred from collecting sensitive location data from consumers and must delete the historical data they gathered on millions of Americans. Mobilewalla would be banned from acquiring location data and other sensitive information from online auctions known as real-time bidding exchanges, marketplaces where advertisers compete to instantaneously deliver ads to targeted consumers. This case marks the first time the FTC has moved to police the collection of data directly from an ad exchange.

In another first, the proposed Gravy Analytics settlement would introduce military installations to the list of “sensitive locations” where the FTC bans location tracking. Under the terms, the company would be prohibited from selling, disclosing, or using data drawn from these locations, which include mental health clinics, substance abuse centers, and child care service providers.

In November, a collaborative investigation by WIRED, Bayerischer Rundfunk, and Netzpolitik.org revealed that over 3 billion phone location data points, collected by a US-based data broker, exposed the movements of US military and intelligence personnel in Germany. These movements included visits to nuclear vaults and brothels. In that story, WIRED first reported on FTC chair Lina Khan’s efforts to shield US military and intelligence personnel from data brokers.

US senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first urged the FTC to take action against Mobilewalla in 2020, praised the announcements, calling the companies’ actions “outrageous violations of Americans’ privacy.”

“These companies enabled US government agencies to surveil Americans without a warrant and enabled foreign countries to spy on service members with just a credit card,” says Wyden, who also previously investigated Venntel with other members of Congress.

While the FTC’s orders don’t directly tackle the issue of government agencies purchasing Americans’ location data—information for which a warrant is normally required—Wyden says the cases nevertheless undermine the government’s case for allowing the purchases. The orders make clear, he says, that federal agencies are hiding behind a “flimsy claim that Americans consented to the sale of their data.”

In a statement, FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya notes that while surveillance conducted by private companies won't raise the same constitutional issues as surveillance by government, the difference between the two is “porous if not irrelevant” to the people being watched. "Governments have long relied on private citizens for work that would be impractical or illegal for law enforcement," he says.

Whether the orders against Gravy Analytics and Mobilewalla will be enforced remains to be seen. Major changes are coming to the agency under the future Trump administration—most expected to undermine years of work by Khan and her staff. Many of Donald Trump's allies have been vocally critical of Khan's aggressive pro-consumer approach, including Republican megadonor Elon Musk, who has taken command of an ad hoc office that will purportedly advise the White House on improving “government efficiency.”

FTC commissioner Andrew Ferguson, whose name was floated last month as a potential Khan replacement, partially concurred with the agency’s decision to bring cases against the two data brokers on Tuesday. He agreed the companies had taken insufficient steps to ensure consumer data was properly anonymized, adding that they’d failed to obtain the “meaningfully informed consent” of the consumers they targeted.

Unlike Khan, however, Ferguson argues that the companies did not run afoul of the law by “categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics,” such as whether they attend church or political meetings. “These are all public acts that people carry out in the sight of their fellow citizens every day,” he says.

Ferguson likewise chastised the agency for attempting to restrict the power of data brokers to target protesters specifically. “Treating attendance at a political protest as uniquely private and sensitive is an oxymoron,” he says.

In a separate action Tuesday morning, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it was taking steps to crack down on predatory data brokers that traffic in people’s financial information, calling the practice a gateway for “scamming, stalking, and spying.”

Musk, who donated more than $100 million toward Trump’s reelection, called publicly last week for the bureau to be “deleted.”

[sussex-newswire]

"Earlier today, The Duke of Sussex participated in a powerful one-on-one interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times’ annual DealBook Summit. The conversation took place in front of an influential audience of leaders at the intersection of policy, finance, business, and culture. 

"The Duke shared his personal experiences navigating media scrutiny, the mental health challenges that arise from relentless media attention, and the global implications of distorted narratives on society. He discussed the importance of tackling the mental health crisis exacerbated by misleading information and the role media plays in shaping public discourse. 

"Throughout the interview, The Duke emphasized the responsibility that platforms distributing information—including both legacy and social media companies—bear in keeping users safe. He called for accountability in how algorithms shape the narratives we encounter online and underscored the profound impact time online is currently having on youth and the wider public.

"The conversation also touched on the importance of empowerment and mobilizing change—urging those in positions of power to take tangible actions that promote a healthier media environment, stronger safeguards against harmful content, and a future where truth, empathy, and responsibility lead the way."