#The Issues: ​Crime | Abortion | Socialism

[xtruss]

Latin America’s New Hard Right: Bukele, Milei, Kast And Bolsonaro! Crime, Abortion and Socialism, Not Immigration, Are The Issues That Rile Them

— April 1st 2024| Santiago, Chile 🇨🇱

A montage of right-wing Latin American leaders on a red and blue background with Donald Trump throwing maga hats at them. Illustration: Klawe Rzeczy

“Mr president!” Javier Milei could barely contain himself when he met Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) near Washington in February. The pair embraced and exchanged slogans, with Mr Trump intoning “Make Argentina Great Again” several times and Argentina’s new President yipping “Viva la Libertad, Carajo” (“Long Live Freedom, Dammit”) in response.

Nayib Bukele, El Salvador’s Popular Autocratic President, had already addressed the conference. “They say globalism comes to die at CPAC,” he told enraptured Republicans. “I’m here to tell you that in El Salvador, it’s already dead.” Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s Hard-Right Former President, was a star guest in 2023. He, like Mr Trump, claimed without evidence that his bid for a second term was thwarted by fraud. His supporters also attempted an insurrection.

These scenes suggest a seamless international alliance between Mr Trump and the leaders of Latin America’s hard right. Its members also include José Antonio Kast of Chile, who has spoken at cpac in the past too. This new right basks in Mr Trump’s influence. It has turned away from a more consensual form of conservative politics in favour of an aggressive pursuit of culture war.

Its ascent began with the surprise victory of Mr Bolsonaro in Brazil in 2018, followed by that of Mr Bukele in 2019. In Chile Mr Kast, the founder of a new hard-right Republican Party, got 44% of the vote in a presidential run-off in 2021 and his party won an election for a constitutional council in 2023. Mr Milei won his own surprise victory in November. Would-be leaders of the radical right jostle in the Politics of Peru and Colombia.

Unlike its older European and North American equivalents, the Latin American hard right does not have roots in the fertile soil of public anxiety about uncontrolled immigration (although this has become an issue recently because of the arrival of millions of Venezuelans fleeing their country’s rotten dictatorship).

The new group shares three hallmarks. The first is fierce opposition to abortion, and gay and women’s rights. “What unites them is an affirmation of traditional social hierarchies,” as Lindsay Mayka and Amy Erica Smith, two academics, put it. The second hallmark is a tough line on crime and citizens’ security. And the third is uncompromising opposition to social democracy, let alone communism, which leads some to want a smaller state.

There were common factors in their ascents, too. They were helped by a sense of crisis—about corruption and economic stagnation in Brazil and Argentina, gang violence in El Salvador and the sometimes violent “social explosion” in Chile.

Cousins In Arms

But each leader has adopted a different mix of these ideological elements. The hard right in Latin America are “cousins, not brothers”, says Cristóbal Rovira of the Catholic University of Chile. “They are similar but not identical.”

Mr Bolsonaro’s constituencies were evangelicals, to whom he appealed with his defence of the traditional family, and the authoritarian right in the form of the army, the police and farmers worried about land invasions and rural crime. But he was lukewarm about the free market and fiscal rigour. Mr Bukele made security the cornerstone of his first presidential term, overcoming criminal gangs by locking up more than 74,000 of El Salvador’s 6.4 Million Citizens. His economic policy is less clear and, despite his claim at CPAC, is not self-evidently “anti-globalist”.

Mr Milei was elected for his pledge to pull Argentina out of prolonged stagflation and to cut down what he brands as a corrupt political “caste”. A self-described “anarcho-capitalist”, he is a fan of the Austrian school of free-market economics. Unlike Mr Trump, he is neither an economic nationalist nor protectionist on trade. He has only recently adopted his peers’ stance on moral issues. His government supports a bill to overturn Argentina’s abortion law, and says it will eliminate gender-conscious language from public administration. Mr Bukele followed suit.

Mr Kast attempted to put conservative morality in the constitutional draft his party championed, which was one reason why it was rejected in a plebiscite. He wants tough policies on security and against immigration. “We should close the borders and build a trench,” he says. He wants to “shrink the state and lower the tax burden”. Whereas Mr Bolsonaro is a climate-change sceptic and anti-vaxxer, Mr Kast is not.

Democracy For Thee, Not For Me

Right-wing populists also have differing attitudes to democracy. With his attempt to subvert the election result, for which he is under police investigation, Mr Bolsonaro showed that he was not a democrat. Mr Bukele is contemptuous of checks and balances. His success at slashing the murder rate made him hugely popular, allowing him to brush aside constitutional term limits and win a second term in February.

Mr Milei’s “disdain for democratic institutions is clear”, says Carlos Malamud, An Argentine Historian, citing Mr Milei’s break with convention by giving his inauguration speech to a crowd of supporters, rather than to Congress. But, Mr Malamud adds, Mr Milei may yet learn that he needs to include the parliament in government.

“I’m a democrat,” insists Mr Kast, and his opponents agree. “On security and shrinking the state, we share views with Bolsonaro,” he says. “But that doesn’t mean that we are the same as Milei or Bolsonaro or Bukele.” As Mr Kast notes, policy choices are shaped in each country by very different circumstances.

So are the prospects of the various leaders. Mr Bukele is by far the most successful, with would-be imitators across the region and no obvious obstacles to his remaining in power indefinitely. In contrast, Mr Bolsonaro’s active political career may well be over. The electoral court has barred him as a candidate until 2030 (when he will be 75) for disparaging the voting system at a meeting with foreign ambassadors. He may be jailed for his apparent attempt to organise a military coup against his electoral defeat; he denies this and claims he is a victim of political persecution.

Mr Milei’s future is up for grabs. Succeed in taming inflation, and he could emerge strengthened from a midterm election in 2025. But if he refuses to compromise with Congress and provincial governors, he may be in trouble before then. In Chile, Mr Kast seemed to overplay his hand with the constitutional draft. The election in 2025 could see the centre-right take power. One influential figure of that persuasion argues that Mr Kast is unable to represent the diversity of modern Chile.

Ultimately, the group is bound by an international network built around common political discourse and cultural references. Mr Kast chairs the Political Network for Values, an outfit previously led by an ally of Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Populist Leader. Vox, Spain’s hard-right party, organises the Foro de Madrid, a network of like-minded politicians mainly from what it calls the “Iberosphere” in Latin America.

These gatherings offer a chance to share experiences and sometimes a bit more. Mr Bukele has advisers from Venezuela’s exiled opposition. Mr Trump’s activists have shown up at Latin American elections. Recently, Mr Bolsonaro took refuge in the Hungarian embassy in Brasília for two nights when he feared arrest.

But there are no signs of central direction or co-ordination. The right in Latin America has long claimed that the Foro de São Paulo, a get-together of Latin American left-wingers, is a highly organised conspiracy. All the evidence is that it is a loose friendship network. That seems to be true of its right-wing peer, too. ■

— This article appeared in the The Americas section of the print edition under the headline "The Anti-communist International"

[sparksinthenight]

News from around the world:

[cleolinda]

At a fundraiser in Massachusetts earlier this week, Walz went after Tommy Tuberville, the Republican senator from Alabama, saying, “I feel like one of my roles in this now is to be the anti-Tommy Tuberville, to show that football coaches are not the dumbest people.”

Once again, as an Alabamian I would like to apologize for Tommy Tuberville, the former Auburn coach and current U.S. senator who is dumber than a sack of wet mice—

In an Alabama Daily News interview after the election, Tuberville said that the European theater of World War II was fought "to free Europe of socialism" and erroneously that the three branches of the U.S. federal government were "the House, the Senate, and the executive." He also said that he was looking forward to raising money from his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

—but also a fucking bigot. Please review the lengthy “Tenure” section of his Wikipedia page as to why I hate him, for reasons including but not limited to: voting against the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act; claiming that Democrats are “pro-crime” and want reparations for descendants of enslaved people “because they think the people that do the crime are owed that,” what the fuck; being an election denier and voting against a January 6th commission; being a climate change denier; being transphobic as fuck (a whole section); famously holding military promotions hostage over the issue of abortion availability for service members (yeah, he’s THAT guy); denying that white nationalists are “inherently racist” (“I call them Americans”); and calling Zelenskyy a dictator and supporting Putin TWO MONTHS AGO. Tim Walz, I bid you read this fuckstick for filth. Thank you for letting me vent. Roll tide.

[honeyfizzly]

I think my most meta milgram theory is that all the prisoners relate to social issues in Japan (this was brought up by my friend but they don't have tumblr so I'm gonna post it here)

Haruka- ableism, specifically against learning disabilities. Haruka's story is all about how he was born "wrong" and how his mother didn't want him

Yuno- the abortion debate

Fuuta- online harassment and cancel culture

Muu- bullying, and how in social structures someone always has to push someone else down to be on top (the whole hourglass metaphor)

Shidou- curroption in the organ donation system, and how brain death is viewed in Japan

Mahiru- societal expectations of women, and the pressure to marry

Kazui- okay so since his crime is vague rn, either A. Cheating or if gay kazui theory is correct B. Lgbtq issues, could also be japan and it's issues with intimacy and how his wife felt unloved but he didn't realize

Amane- Japan and its history with cults

Mikoto- ableism against the mentally ill, and the "just endure it" view of mental illness in Japan which makes alot of people reluctant to reach for mental health help. It's probably why Mikoto seems to not realize he had DID or OSDD

Kotoko- curroption in the legal system, and how crime against women and children are often ignored by the police

[cinnamonest]

Don’t worry about replying to this in any capacity. Just wanted to say that I read your most recent post and it was extremely helpful and informative for me. I was just talking to my dad earlier about really struggling to understand how anyone could support Trump when he is just a complete bumbling fool of a man at best and a piece of shit bigot and sexist at worst. (Not to say that Harris is some beacon in the darkness, not a fan of her either.) But the perspective you offered was really enlightening so thank you for it. and I hope you are doing well enough, all things considered, and that regardless of what happens in the coming days that things get better for you and your community.

Thank you, that's very kind. I'm very glad it was helpful, I was worried I was coming across the wrong way or didn't word it very well or could be misinterpreted.

If it helps, I had some more thoughts I think would expand upon that, specifically for women — since I see a lot of posts essentially asking how women can possibly vote for the guy, and I think I can explain that too, as I've been thinking and talking a lot about that with women who I know intend to do so.

1) I think for the upper class, they tend to focus more on social issues, because economic issues don't affect them as strongly.

But for some of these people, especially moms, the increased cost of living is literally a matter of "how am I going to feed my children, how am I going to pay electric AND water," etc. So it becomes a priority, especially as many families have lots of kids, and some are single moms. They don't really think as much about social issues, whereas when I went to college, most of the kids cared only about social issues. The more financially secure someone is, the less preoccupied they are with economy.

But for a mom, the safety of and provision for their kids is paramount above all else, so economy and crime will take priority.

But since we only have 2 major parties, people often assume that whichever you vote for, you must agree with ALL of the party's official stances, which is often not the case. That's part of why our bipartisan system is so divisive and breeds hostility, because it creates an "us vs them" mentality.

2) women in the area I talked about don't really even think about abortion/reproductive rights. They're not militantly anti-choice (like some of the more suburban moms of kids I went to school with), it's more that no one ever really thinks about it at all. Many of them have kids very young and lots of them, it's just normal. They also don't have careers to focus on in the way higher-class women do, and many have no chance of ever going to college, so there's less reason to hold off on it.

People do what's normal per their class/local culture — so here, if a girl gets unexpectedly pregnant (which is... not uncommon), they don't freak out or think about how it will affect their future, how they'll afford it etc, they usually just... shrug, drop out of high school, marry the guy, have the kid.

When we were 16, one of my good friends got pregnant, and she too did exactly that. She was unironically overjoyed to find out too, rather than panicked or dismayed. Like, when she took the pregnancy test, I was there with her, sitting on the tile floor of the church bathroom at 9 pm with the test we scraped cash together to buy from the gas station-pharmacy hybrid shop down the road, and she, as a 16 year old high school junior, was actively hoping, fingers crossed and smiling and everything, that it would be positive. She's now 24 and is about to have baby #5.

And part of the reason she was fine with it was... because her mom had her at 15. It's a very cyclic thing. The possibility of abortion would not occur to them unless someone else brought it up.

3) Moreover, when women vote, they focus on what affects them specifically as a woman — and prioritize what's most "real" to us as an individual woman, the hypotheticals one can most realistically see happening to them. But what that most realistic thing is, varies a lot from woman to woman.

For a woman living in, say, Maine or northeast California or even a safer rural place like Idaho, I can see how abortion is probably the most "real" thing to them, that they can see themselves being in a position to affect them.

Whereas for me, having experienced harassment and aggression, reading about these statistics and headlines, violence is something I am much more afraid of happening to me. I'm very careful to avoid an area where I was harassed before.

But for someone in a low-crime place, that isn't something that's going to be a priority.

I personally now realize that a lot of the misunderstanding and clashing is a matter of the fact that women in many blue areas simply don't think about this, because they've never had a reason to, and that's perfectly understandable.

But a lot of women in areas like my home do not realize that. Many women at home strongly believe that "them uppity rich white women out in California or wherever the hell" (quoth my 90-something year old neighbor), are aware of, but simply don't care about, the consequences women here/poor women face. I used to think so too, when I was younger, because that's what I was told.

As a result, they view their blue vote as a very "let them eat cake" heartless-rich-person sort of thing, as selfish and/or classism, in the same way that women in blue areas likely view their red votes as female-class betrayal, religious brainwashing, believe their husbands must be controlling them, etc.

Now, with greater life experience, I not only understand that it isn't like that at all on either side, but I can also see why many blue-area women dismiss our experiences as "not really happening" or "right-wing propaganda," simply due to the fact that it's very difficult for them to fathom it, because it's so different from the reality they live in, it feels like it can't be real.

4) it *is* true that these women are often demonized and gaslit for talking about the rapes, job loss etc, so that has shifted even more moderate women very rightwards over the last few years, because they feel silenced/censored.

Donald is a sort of savior figure — he acknowledges the issue they otherwise feel censored on, and moreover, has essentially promised to take away the men that hurt them, their daughters, sisters etc. They want to feel safe again, they want their husbands to get their jobs back, feel like they have a secure future, etc, and his platform is literally "make America safe again, make America rich again, make America great again."

That line you may have seen all over the internet a few days ago, where Donald said something along the lines of "I'm going to protect the women if they like it or not"? And you know how it earned disgust from the mainstream population of women?

That line was received extremely positively by women at home. I've already seen them sharing it around with my mom/aunts/grandma on facebook, in a positive light, ecstatic. It makes them feel seen and heard in a culture that otherwise puts a hand over their mouth, and they cling to those words in hope of a better future.

Tldr: it's women who are vulnerable and afraid and desperate, going for the only option that has promised to address their needs. Much conflict comes from the limited human ability to grasp things outside of ourselves, our tendency for solipsism — an unfortunate part of the human condition that has plagued our species from the dawn of time.

[truth4ourfreedom]

GEORGE SOROS SPENT $117M TO ELECT AND CONTROL LEFTIST DAs AND PROSECUTERS!!!

From: Judicial Watch

Augusta 14, 2024

Soros Spends $117 Million to Elect, Control Leftist County Prosecutors Throughout U.S.

In a scheme to promote a radical leftwing overhaul of the U.S. justice system, billionaire George Soros has spent about $117 million in the last few years to elect then control dozens of liberal county prosecutors throughout the nation, a new report reveals. Once elected the prosecutors, typically known as district attorneys who represent the government in criminal cases, meet regularly with representatives from Soros-funded nonprofits that coordinate and manage the chief officials responsible for upholding and enforcing the law in their respective districts. The Soros machine orders prosecutors to practice leftist policies that are soft on crime, target police and political opponents. The district attorneys are also directed not to enforce certain laws such as those protecting children from chemical castration and genital mutilation, procedures justified by the left as “life-saving gender-affirming” for transgender individuals.

The extraordinary details of the robust Soros effort to overhaul the nation’s justice system by embedding leftist prosecutors throughout the country were uncovered during a year-long investigation by the Media Research Center (MRS). Dedicated to documenting and combating the falsehoods and censorship of the news media, the Washington D.C.-based group examined thousands of pages of documents that show a “shocking level” of control by the Soros-funded nonprofits over many county prosecutors. “The Soros machine sets their policies and priorities, staffs their offices with hand-picked leftists, dictates media narratives, lobbies government officials and perverts the American justice system,” the MRC probe found. The investigation determined that the Soros enterprise dedicated at least $40 million to help elect 126 prosecutors and an additional $77,663,316 to the leftist nonprofits that issue their marching orders once they are in office.

MRC used public records requests to obtain 7,785 pages of internal communications from dozens of Soros-backed prosecutors and examined official files as well as electronic mail, text messages, chats, and other communications. The documents expose how the Hungarian billionaire’s groups directed the liberal prosecutors to manipulate laws involving drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, election integrity, capital punishment and even childhood sex changes. One of the key groups directing the local prosecutors is Fair and Justice Prosecution (FJP), a nonprofit committed to promoting a justice system grounded in fairness, equity and compassion. “Great strides have been made in promoting justice reforms that recognize that prior ‘tough on crime’ and incarceration-driven practices have not always resulted in safer or healthier communities,” according to FJP. The group is a sponsored project of the Tides Center, another Soros-funded conglomerate dedicated to advancing social justice. “FJP held at least 51 private meetings and published 33 formal statements and pledges that contained signatures from prosecutors within its network between 2021 and 2022 alone,” the MRC report states.

Examples include 508 communications—emails, virtual meetings, in-person conversations—between San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s office and FJP during an 18-month period, averaging at least one communication a day. Five county prosecutors in Texas worked so closely that they created a shared group chat to strategize on refusing to enforce statutes that ran afoul of their leftist political views. Combined the elected officials represent over seven million Texans and the documents reviewed by MRC show they strategized to undermine political opponents, including the state’s Republican attorney general. “At least 30 percent of the U.S. population currently lives under the boot of the Soros prosecutors who were pressured to sign pledges vowing to adhere to various Soros priorities,” the report says, adding that the “Soros machine” arranged dozens of joint statements and pledges signed by 123 of the 126 prosecutors vowing to adhere to the leftist billionaire’s priorities.

Besides embedding like-minded county prosecutors nationwide, the records obtained by MRC show that Soros also spent at least $35 million to support anti-police groups and causes in one year alone after George Floyd’s death. His beloved FJP defended the violence and racial unrest triggered by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa movements, accusing the American criminal justice system of being systemically racist. Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) also dedicated $220 million for racial justice and black empowerment in the aftermath of Floyd’s death.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

de Adder

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 8, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 09, 2024

Social media has been flooded today with stories of Trump voters who are shocked to learn that tariffs will raise consumer prices as reporters are covering that information. Daniel Laguna of LevelUp warned that Trump’s proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports could raise the costs of gaming consoles by 40%, so that a PS5 Pro gaming system would cost up to $1,000. One of the old justifications for tariffs was that they would bring factories home, but when the $3 billion shoe company Steve Madden announced yesterday it would reduce its imports from China by half to avoid Trump-promised tariffs, it said it will shift production not to the U.S., but to Cambodia, Vietnam, Mexico, and Brazil. 

There are also stories that voters who chose Trump to lower household expenses are unhappy to discover that their undocumented relatives are in danger of deportation. When CNN’s Dana Bash asked Indiana Republican senator-elect Jim Banks if undocumented immigrants who had been here for a long time and integrated into the community would be deported, Banks answered that deportation should include “every illegal in this country that we can find.” Yesterday a Trump-appointed federal judge struck down a policy established by the Biden administration that was designed to create an easier path to citizenship for about half a million undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s advisors told Jim VandeHei and MIke Allen of Axios that Trump wasted valuable time at the beginning of his first term and that they will not make that mistake again. They plan to hit the ground running with tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation, and increased gas and oil production. Trump is looking to fill the top ranks of the government with “billionaires, former CEOs, tech leaders and loyalists.” 

After the election, the wealth of Trump-backer Elon Musk jumped about $13 billion, making him worth $300 billion. Musk, who has been in frequent contact with Russian president Vladimir Putin, joined a phone call today between President-elect Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. 

In Salon today, Amanda Marcotte noted that in states all across the country where voters backed Trump, they also voted for abortion rights, higher minimum wage, paid sick and family leave, and even to ban employers from forcing their employees to sit through right-wing or anti-union meetings. She points out that 12% of voters in Missouri voted both for abortion rights and for Trump.

Marcotte recalled that Catherine Rampell and Youyou Zhou of the Washington Post showed before the election that voters overwhelmingly preferred Harris’s policies to Trump’s if they didn’t know which candidate proposed them.  An Ipsos/Reuters poll from October showed that voters who were misinformed about immigration, crime, and the economy tended to vote Republican, while those who knew the facts preferred Democrats. Many Americans turn for information to social media or to friends and family who traffic in conspiracy theories. As Angelo Carusone of Media Matters put it: “We have a country that is pickled in right-wing misinformation and rage.” 

In The New Republic today, Michael Tomasky reinforced that voters chose Trump in 2024 not because of the economy or inflation, or anything else, but because of how they perceived those issues—which is not the same thing. Right-wing media “fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win,” Tomasky wrote. Right-wing media has overtaken legacy media to set the country’s political agenda not only because it’s bigger, but because it speaks with one voice, “and that voice says Democrats and liberals are treasonous elitists who hate you, and Republicans and conservatives love God and country and are your last line of defense against your son coming home from school your daughter.”

Tomasky noted how the work of Matthew Gertz of Media Matters shows that nearly all the crazy memes that became central campaign issues—the pet-eating story, for example, or the idea that the booming economy was terrible—came from right-wing media. In those circles, Vice President Kamala Harris was a stupid, crazed extremist who orchestrated a coup against President Joe Biden and doesn’t care about ordinary Americans, while Trump is under assault and has been for years, and he’s “doing it all for you.”

Investigative reporter Miranda Green outlined how “pink slime” newspapers, which are AI generated from right-wing sites, turned voters to Trump in key swing state counties. Republican strategist Sarah Longwell, who studies focus groups, told NPR, “When I ask voters in focus groups if they think Donald Trump is an authoritarian, the #1 response by far is, ‘What is an authoritarian?’” 

In a social media post, Marcotte wrote: “A lot of voters are profoundly ignorant. More so than in the past.” That jumped out to me because there was, indeed, an earlier period in our history when voters were “pickled in right-wing misinformation and rage.”

In the 1850s, white southern leaders made sure that voters did not have access to news that came from outside the American South, and instead steeped them in white supremacist information. They stopped the mail from carrying abolitionist pamphlets, destroyed presses of antislavery newspapers, and drove antislavery southerners out of their region.

Elite enslavers had reason to be concerned about the survival of their system of human enslavement. The land boom of the 1840s, when removal of Indigenous peoples had opened up rich new lands for settlement, had priced many white men out of the market. They had become economically unstable, roving around the country working for wages or stealing to survive. And they deeply resented the fabulously wealthy enslavers who they knew looked down on them. 

In 1857, North Carolinian Hinton Rowan Helper wrote a book attacking enslavement. No friend to his Black neighbors, Helper was a virulent white supremacist. But in The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, he used modern statistics to prove that slavery destroyed economic opportunity for white men, and assailed “the illbreeding and ruffianism of the slaveholding officials.” He noted that voters in the South who did not own slaves outnumbered by far those who did. "Give us fair play, secure to us the right of discussion, the freedom of speech, and we will settle the difficulty at the ballot-box,” he wrote.

In the North the book sold like hotcakes—142,000 copies by fall 1860. But southern leaders banned the book, and burned it, too. They arrested men for selling it and accused northerners of making war on the South. Politicians, newspaper editors, and ministers reinforced white supremacy, warned that the end of slavery would mean race war, and preached that enslavement was God’s law.

When northern voters elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 on a platform of containing enslavement in the South, where the sapped soil would soon cut into production, southern leaders decided—usually without the input of voters—to secede from the Union. As leaders promised either that there wouldn’t be a fight, or that if a fight happened it would be quick and painless, poor southern whites rallied to the cause of creating a nation based on white supremacy, reassured by South Carolina senator James Chesnut’s vow that he would personally drink all the blood shed in any threatened civil war. 

When Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, poor white men set out for what they had come to believe was an imperative cause to protect their families and their way of life. By 1862 their enthusiasm had waned, and leaders passed a conscription law. That law permitted wealthy men to hire a substitute and exempted one man to oversee every 20 enslaved men, providing another way for rich men to keep their sons out of danger. Soldiers complained it was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” 

By 1865 the Civil War had killed or wounded 483,026 men out of a southern white population of about five and a half million people. U.S. armies had pushed families off their lands, and wartime inflation drove ordinary people to starvation. By 1865, wives wrote to their soldier husbands to come home or there would be no one left to come home to. 

Even those poor white men who survived the war could not rebuild into prosperity. The war took from the South its monopoly of global cotton production, locking poor southerners into profound poverty from which they would not begin to recover until the 1930s, when the New Deal began to pour federal money into the region.

Today, when I received a slew of messages gloating that Trump had won the election and that Republican voters had owned the libs, I could not help but think of that earlier era when ordinary white men sold generations of economic aspirations for white supremacy and bragging rights. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[reasonsforhope]

Mexico’s Supreme Court threw out all federal criminal penalties for abortion Wednesday [September 6], ruling that national laws prohibiting the procedure are unconstitutional and violate women’s rights in a sweeping decision that extended Latin American’s trend of widening abortion access.

The high court ordered that abortion be removed from the federal penal code. The ruling will require the federal public health service and all federal health institutions to offer abortion to anyone who requests it.

“No woman or pregnant person, nor any health worker, will be able to be punished for abortion,” the Information Group for Chosen Reproduction, known by its Spanish initials GIRE, said in a statement.

Some 20 Mexican states, however, still criminalize abortion. While judges in those states will have to abide by the court’s decision, further legal work will be required to remove all penalties.

Celebration of the ruling soon spilled out onto social media.

“Today is a day of victory and justice for Mexican women!” Mexico’s National Institute for Women wrote in a message on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The government organization called the decision a “big step” toward gender equality...

The Details

The court said on X that “the legal system that criminalized abortion” in Mexican federal law was unconstitutional because it “violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.” ...

-via AP News, September 6, 2023. Article continues below.

The decision came two years after the court ruled that abortion was not a crime in one northern state. That ruling set off a slow state-by-state process of decriminalizing it.

Last week, the central state of Aguascalientes became the 12th state to drop criminal penalties.

Abortion-rights activists will have to continue seeking legalization state by state, though Wednesday’s decision should make that easier. State legislatures can also act on their own to erase abortion penalties.

For now, the ruling does not mean that every Mexican women will be able to access the procedure immediately, explained Fernanda Díaz de León, sub-director and legal expert for women’s rights group IPAS.

What it does do — in theory — is obligate federal agencies to provide the care to patients. That’s likely to have a cascade of effects...

Lifting Abortion Restrictions Across Latin America

Across Latin America, countries have made moves to lift abortion restrictions in recent years, a trend often referred to as a “green wave,” in reference to the green bandanas carried by women protesting for abortion rights in the region.

The changes in Latin America stand in sharp contrast to increasing restrictions on abortion in parts of the United States. Some American women were already seeking help from Mexican abortion rights activists to obtain pills used to end pregnancies.

Mexico City was the first Mexican jurisdiction to decriminalize abortion 15 years ago.

After decades of work by activists across the region, the trend picked up speed in Argentina, which in 2020 legalized the procedure. In 2022, Colombia, a highly conservative country, did the same.

-via AP News, September 6, 2023. Headings added.

[beardedmrbean]

An army veteran has been convicted after praying silently outside an abortion clinic for his own unborn son.

Adam Smith-Connor, who was given a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £9,000, claimed that the verdict had “criminalised thought”.

The army reservist, who served in Afghanistan, was prosecuted for breaching a ban on protests within a legal buffer zone around the clinic in Bournemouth, Dorset.

He claimed that he had the right to silently pray for an unborn son whom he now regrets aborting 24 years ago and that prosecution amounted to “criminalising someone’s beliefs”.

But at Poole magistrates’ court on Wednesday, Judge Orla Austin ruled he had failed to comply with the ban under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

She said that even though he was engaged in silent prayer, his presence within the buffer zone could still have a “detrimental effect” on people attending or working at the clinic.

“He was given the opportunity to leave and chose not to comply with that,” she said.

ADF UK/X

The case comes with the Home Office set to enact legislation that will ban protests, including silent prayer, within 150-metre buffer zones around abortion clinics from the end of October.

Mr Smith-Connor said after the hearing: “When George Orwell wrote 1984, he meant it as a warning, not a guide book. His predictive powers were off by 40 years but apart from that the notion that thought crimes could become established in the British legal system was sadly accurate.

“How can we ask British troops to put their lives at risk defending freedom abroad while fining, arresting and imprisoning people back home for the thought crime of praying? This court has decided even a silent prayer is now a criminal act.”

The BPAS clinic in Bournemouth has been previously targeted by protesters and was made the subject of a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in 2022 by the local council.

The order creates an area around the clinic so women visitors and staff members can come and go without being harassed and subjected to verbal abuse by pro-life campaigners.

Mr Smith-Connor, 51, was spotted behind a tree on a green in a public space about 50 metres from the entrance of the BPAS abortion clinic on Nov 24 2022.

Catherine Brookfield, a council officer, approached him, told him he was in breach of the PSPO and asked him to leave.

Mr Smith-Connor, a physiotherapist from Southampton, Hampshire, refused, saying he was expressing his human right to pray and that he was “praying in my mind”.

Ms Brookfield told him that he was within the buffer zone and that “prayer as disapproval” was prohibited by the PSPO. He was issued him with a £100 fixed penalty notice. When he did not pay this, his case went to court for a trial.

Mr Smith-Connor argued in court that no-one was entitled to know the contents of his thoughts.

But in finding him guilty Judge Austin said he was “clearly engaged in prayer”.

“He was capable of being seen, he was engaged in prayer and it would have been perceptible to an observer. He said he would not be looking at anyone so he could not breach their privacy but I find his presence and the circumstances could cause detrimental impact,” she said.

“He was there without a reasonable excuse and it was a breach of the PSPO. The location was important to the defendant but it was open to him to attend Saturday or Sunday, before 7am or after 7pm.”

Christian charity

Mr Smith-Connor was supported by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF UK), a Christian charity. The court heard it covered his legal costs of £29,000 but he would be liable for any prosecution costs.

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, said they will be appealing the criminal conviction. He said: “This is a legal turning point of immense proportions. A man has been convicted today because of the content of his thoughts – his prayers to God – on the public streets of England.

“We can hardly sink any lower in our neglect of basic fundamental freedoms of free speech and thought. We will look closely at the judgment and consider an appeal. Human rights are for all people – no matter their view on abortion.”

[thechibilitwick]

As an honorary Shidou apologist, I am breaking my silence. I’ve finally decided to go on a rant on why I don't think Kirisaki Shidou is an organ harvester.

(fair warning I like absolutely suck ass at organizing my thoughts, so if some of this is incoherent or if it seems like i'm repeating myself my bad 😭 I mainly wrote this for fun)

So, I'm aware that this theory is the most popular consensus when it comes to Shidou (and tbh, I think part of it is because a lot of people kinda look over him? Like at least a tiny bit more than the others, considering a lot of people also don’t realize how his main victim was probably his son and not his wife, but I digress) (plus I think all milgram characters are looked over to a certain extent). While I do think parts of it are probably accurate in some way, I don't think he was a full-on organ harvester (as in he actively stole from patients through illegal means. emphasis on actively) and that the theory in and of itself is flimsy at best. He's morally questionable, yes, but it’s more in the sense that he’s a somewhat apathetic guy who lacked understanding on how his own set of morals and values (i.e. pushing for organ donation) could be seen as wrong. So if he were an organ harvester, wouldn’t he be aware that it’s illegal? That’s what confuses me whenever people bring it up. I don't actually doubt that he may have done something illegal for his family's sake, it’s just that I still highly doubt it was something he actively did. And that seems to be what a lot of people think when they refer to the theory. (if i’m wrong please forgive me, i just assume organ harvester shidou = people think he did it as a job)

Anyways, more under the cut for those interested (it's a bit lengthy my apologies)

It then kinda trickles down to how his guilt stems more from the consequences of his actions rather than the actual action of taking organs. The root of his guilt comes from the realization that basically asking families to pull the plug and use their loved ones' organs for donation is a very, very hard decision; one that he kept pressuring for. If he was an illegal organ harvester, and was aware that his actions were in fact illegal, why the hell would he feel so guilty to the point that he’d start having suicidal ideations? That’s the key difference between his profession and his possible criminal activities; one is a burden both emotionally and morally, the other is more or less a literal burden. And based off of Shidou's character, he seems to be much more emotionally affected. That's also why I think a lot of people jump to the conclusion that his guilt stems from his actual actions rather than their effects. (does that make sense oh lord i am going ☝️🤓 so hard rn)

I get that some parts of his MV or lyrics seem to be suggesting that, but also it’s important to note that Shidou has a very strong bias against himself and definitely painted himself in a negative light. I mean, that's why he thinks every single preceding patient before the final incident is a victim to him, why he shows himself staying professional in a professional setting as apathetic (minus the pressuring part), and why he literally equates his job to STEALING. Not only that but, imo, it's also a little too unrealistic and might not actually fit the criteria of Milgram. Milgram is for crimes that are in a morally grey area. So if it really was organ harvesting, is it really in a grey area? (though I guess you could say that doing it for family's sake would be, but that's only for his family. He'd have no reason to do it otherwise). Plus, it'd make more sense and fit the theme of touching upon social issues (i.e. abortion, bullying, societal standards, mental health, etc.) if shidou’s entire dilemma was in regards to (albeit questionably done) organ donation, a complicated ethical topic in Japan.

Throw Down actually gives a pretty good rough idea of Shidou's thoughts towards his crime and his feelings in regards to it. He felt like he was blinded by his own values, and that inadvertently caused him to be unaware of the suffering he caused through his job. It really does shock me that he somehow was able to pull-off getting a forgiven verdict in T1 because he certainly comes off as cold and uncaring in regards to his work.

I think the final bridge in Throw Down kinda summarizes his entire mindset, actually.

​​Now slowly close your eye, put your regret on display Wishing you for someone else's sake With the same expression no matter who comes I don’t feel scared because I don’t know

Shidou doesn't quite understand the feelings of his patient's families, and therefore he acts remorseful and sympathetic more than he actually feels. Why? Well, because he didn't know. Up until that point, he never understood the weight of his actions, and focused on his role as a doctor. "This is an upsetting subject, yes, but it's for the greater good, right?” A braindead person has little to no chances of living, so why not use this as an opportunity to donate their organs? Moreover, as a doctor I believe it’s typical to be "emotionally detached” (for lack of a better word) since I’d assume becoming emotionally connected with a patient would make things at least a bit messy.

His mindset comes crumbling down though, presumably because he experienced the same or a similar situation. This part remains muddy for me, since we don't know much about what the actual cause for Shidou's guilt is. There are several possibilities, with the most plausible ones being:

he lost his own family member and had to go through with the same decision,

he tried to save a family member using donated organs, but failed, making it seem like everything he has done as a doctor was in vain

(a secret third option would be him making someone he cares about make that decision but it's very unlikely and also requires too much mental gymnastics)

But no matter what exactly he did, it all trickles down to the validity of his morals. After realizing the pain of losing a loved one, the struggle of trying to save them, and the unfortunate failure which left all efforts practically pointless, Shidou would understand the actual weight of his actions and why all those families were so reluctant to let go of their own.

This is even more evident in his T2 voice drama, Asclepius.

"In order to save the life of someone you don't know, please let me kill your family," I told them. It doesn't even take much thinking to realize how cruel that is, but… I didn't realize it until the very end.

This is the gist of Shidou's crime, or at least part of it (considering he says "Well, about halfway" when Es asks if their judgment was right). Again, this tells us that Shidou's guilt comes from the act of the effects of organ donation rather than the literal action. And this also implies that his "murders" did in fact have to do with being in a medical situation, it's just the way he went about it was at the very least morally questionable.

I will also acknowledge that he says he killed for selfish reasons, which most likely relates to trying to save his own family member. Here he could possibly have actually done something illegal such as tampering with patients or illegally taking their organs (latter is a stretch imo). Plus, his distorted T2 voice trailer line is literally "You're in the way, hurry up and die" which would only make sense in the context of waiting for a patient to die. But it could also just be him continuing to pressure for organ donation, but now with his own selfish motives.

Going back to the "halfway" comment, while I personally believe it might have to do with how Shidou views his crime as more than just taking organs, it more likely implies that something else happened that Shidou would consider murder. That being the actual death of his family member. It's implied through Throw Down that he was trying to save someone but failed, which he was responsible for. Then from there it'd make sense to assume that he would feel some form of guilt for the rest of his patients, either for the reason of failing to actually utilize donated organs even with the opportunity of being able to save them, or for just realizing the what it actually feels like to have to give up on your loved one. (does. does that make any sense.)

So yeah, I don’t think he’s an organ harvester due to what’s known regarding his crime, the reasoning for his guilt, and with the way he is as a character. The most I’d personally believe is that he decided to harvest organs for the sake of his loved one, but even that seems like a stretch to me. Thus, that is why I believe Kirisaki Shidou is not an organ harvester.

Anyways I’ve rambled on long enough, thank you for reading if you did and remember to drink water and vote shidou innocent in trial 3 because i will shit my pants if he doesn't get inno

[mariacallous]

Why do young leftists think that under communism queer rights and women rights will be automatically protected? They make it seem like under communism we won't have to worry about these things. My parents grew up under communism where abortion was a crime and so was being gay. Socially conservative communists is all I've known growing up. It genuinely pisses me off when leftists are trying to connect every single issue back to capitalism bad/communism good as if it's that simple.

Wishful thinking, ignorance, deliberate mendaciousness, edgy contrarianism

[leverage-ot3]

time for the obligatory post about what episodes I want to see in the upcoming leverage season(s)

(for reference, I made this similar post in 2020 after the reboot was announced. I'm pasting some from that post bc I still want them to happen lol)

new ideas:

I mentioned a date night episode in the last post (apollo really did bless me with foresight for the date night job on that one) but for considerment: ot3 date night. possibly their first date night after they all get together. breanna and sophie know it's happening (harry is, like, peripherally aware) and some crime hijinks are going down and the three of them are frantically trying to stop bad things from happening that are going to interfere with the date. I want to see them going through it behind the metaphorical curtain. I want to see breanna fighting for her life trying to out-hack the hacker that is going to ruin their ten-part itineraried date. harry has to get in a fistfight and eliot is so proud about it when he finds out after everything is over

tree law episode. harry has been frothing at the mouth about it since it was made. his life has been moving him towards this penultimate moment. breanna thinks it's HILARIOUS and cheers him on 100% of the way. she is VERY enthusiastic about this con

I'm not going to mention certain things because I've seen jrogers posting on bluesky social and I know he might be already writing some of those plots

con that the food trucks have plot-relevance. like, one of his food truck stations is being harassed /victimized by, like, a local gang or something that takes advantage of food truck/cart workers and the team steps in. the actual (veteran) food truck workers get involved in the con. leverage international might just have gained a few retainer members

quinn should come back for an episode. I know the actor is friends with ckane. they should make it happen because it would be iconic and I said so

on a similar note, ckane is friends with jensen ackles and. guys. wouldn't it- wouldn't it be extremely funny if a flame from eliot's past named sean sylvester who is a rugged drifter with a questionable past

episode where tara or maggie (or BOTH, can you imagine how powerful that would be???) come back and there is slight flirting with sophie possibly??? that or very obvious chemistry from a past tryst. sophie has slept with both of them, I know it in my heart of hearts. bonus points if tara and maggie fall in love (I think it would be funny. maggie's taste in men is canonically atrocious, I think she deserves someone like tara at this point)

I just want a lot of side characters to come back, okay? sue me I miss them

gonna put the rest under the cut since this post has become obscenely long

not episode-specific, but I want more mentions of the korean leverage team. and all the other teams too! we know that in canon there is the south korean one, the nigerian one, and one in london (I think that's it for mentions so far, but correct me if I'm wrong!)

episodes addressing issues with american imperialism and its effects on minorities and marginalized communities, specifically within this country (there aren't a lot of episodes where they are actively out of country)

dear fucking god take a more abolitionist stance on policing I'm begging. would it KILL you to not be weird about cops? pls just punch some more cops. take down white supremacist cops, I'm sure you can scrounge something up bffrrn

women's rights episodes. I know it's kind of recent, but episodes about accessibility of stuff like birth control, abortion access, etc. y'all are capable of making excellent episodes on that I know it

more climate crisis-related episodes. god knows you're feeling it in the deep south

taking down a corrupt megachurch pastor (although lbr, there is no ethical megachurch anything and you can fight me on this)

something to do with ace rights bc I think it would be really cool to see the team advocate for that stuff, especially since breanna is canon ace

helping a polycule that is being victimized by X organization/entity (maybe a housing association or medical or something???). breanna is bombastic side-eyeing the ot3 the entire time. it is making hardison sweat. sophie thinks it's hilarious

taking down 'writers' that use ai and self-publish AND/OR people that take original/fan works off of like ao3 and wattpad and publish them for personal profits without the author's consent. breanna would have a field day with this (god herself could try to convince me that girl does not read/write fanfic and I wouldn't believe it)

episode about underfunded public schools. we saw corrupt private schools in the fairy godparents job but I want an episode that would make abbot elementary writers proud

episode addressing native/indigenous. eliot is from oklahoma, I'm sure he is well aware of the health/job/economic/etc disparities on reservations. I will email jrogers about it myself if I have to- it anyone can get people going about native rights through a tv show it would be leverage.

I sent an ask to wil wheaton once asking if he was open to returning to leverage and I think he said he would be down for it. but chaos either has to be a reluctant ally to leverage international and is being handled by quinn as a hitter OR he is just. in jail. bc he sucks.

bpas and/or pfas episode. breanna has mentioned microplastics before but I want more

the team tears the shit out of conversion therapy camp owners and plants the seeds for legislation that will punish parents that try to send their kids to those hellscapes

while we're at it, I'd love to see an ep where they tackle the trans bathroom issue. god knows the news doesn't talk about it nearly enough

something to do with foster care. they end up starting some sort of foster care network that past clients/allies can take part in. maybe a mentorship program for kids that want to do what they do one day (they are very reluctant to encourage kids to participate in crime BUT if that is the avenue that they are going to inevitably go towards, they guide them in the right direction). nana makes an appearance (*insert 'everybody liked that' meme*)

prison industrial complex episode. I KNOW we had the jailhouse job BUT we really need this in our year of 2024

another episode on corrupt influencers. maybe influencer parents? dear god pls take them down a notch

ep where there is an underlying message that tells you how to avoid becoming victim to scams or something, or like is a tutorial for how to identify scams you might fall victim to (sorry, I just have to say this after two separate people tried to pig butcher me in less than two (2) weeks))

not to say I want them to do an ep calling out cop city, but it would feel really good to watch the leverage team rip that concept to SHREDS

the minimum wage job. need I say more? we deserve the catharsis

pls go after goodwill execs, esp the ones in the pnw that have their sector as for-profit and have become millionaires+ because of it while paying their staff (especially disabled staff) fucking pennies

while we're on the topic, pls call out salvation army (the corporation)

I can probably go on for like five hours so I'll stop here

ep that we get to see harry and his daughter bond :)

job where they get to lower the price of insulin (and other drugs)

actually, you know what? an episode where the crew annihilates big pharma and terrible insurance companies

I think that breanna should be able to go off about mass/over consumption as a treat. I 100% believe she has Thoughts about it. like, she will absolutely call out the corporations that are responsible for these trends, but also she should be allowed to mention our tendency for overconsumption as a society. obviously there are a few corporations that are doing most of the world's pollution/ecological damage, but we should be doing our part too and I KNOW it would be in-character for her to go off on it

I bet she has a LOT to say about influencers, tbh. obviously not all influencers are bad, but there are sooooo many problematic ones and problems within the influencer industry

sizing discrimination in the modeling/clothing industry. let eliot talk about how there are no perfect bodies. also while I'm on the subject, can we PLS have more body-diverse background actors on the show? I know this is nitpicky but I'd really love to see some more people that look like me, even if they are just in the background

a thinly veiled writers' rights episode (I'm looking at you media execs and the stupid amount of time it took for you to comply to the WGA demands)

something to do with media companies making entire movies/tv shows and then fucking cancelling them/not releasing them and using them as tax write-offs. every time it happens it baffles me. that is cartoonishly stupid villain shit. I can't imagine lovingly working on a project for a year plus and then the company just going, nah, we aren't going to release it because you suck and it's a good business move

ai art and ai in general. please. let it BURN

okay now I'm done

ideas from the previous post that I still want:

comicon job. I said it before and I will say it again- we deserve it!!! come on, it's the age of the geek after all!!! (in the last post I also said a ren faire ep, but I will let the card game job count for that)

summer camp ep? I saw a tumblr fic about it and I think it could be cute. it could kinda be like the fairy godparents job- eliot in charge of some type of sports (archery, fencing, etc), hardison would be in charge of arts and crafts (this boy might be a genius with tech and in general tbh, but the show did such a good job of showing that he’s also very talented with the arts- sculpting the statue for the miracle job, forging the old diary in the king george job, etc), parker would LOVE to be in charge of a high ropes course. breanna would totally be down for some sort of nerdy kid robotics or simple, traditional camp games (can't go wrong with the classics. everyone loves making bracelets!) I feel like it's too stereotypical to have sophie have kids put on a play but we all know that's exactly what she would do. idk for harry? I think he has the same traditional camp activities vibe as breanna. he's in it for the nostalgia. OR something to do with videogames

please, please, please, please, please make an episode where they take down a cult, im begging. that would be such a good episode. definitely a mindfuck episode like the experimental job (4x11). I’ve seen a few posts about a job dealing with a cult (here’s one) and I think it would be really interesting 

MORE STERLING being DONE with leverage shenanigans!!! give me feral!sterling like in the frame-up job (5x10)!!! give me sterling that protests every step of the way but conveniently looks away and “whoops, the team just disappeared, I have no idea how that happened!!! diddly dang darn it, they got away again!!! sorry guys!!!” bonus points if mcsweeten is there too and also participates in intervening hijinks

the team takes down a circus that is still using and abusing wild animals!!! because first I’d LOVE to see acrobat!parker swinging up in the air like a pro and being in her element, but also because those places are the fucking worst and need to Go Down. give me eliot having to pose as an animal trainer with deep sympathy for the animals being abused, quietly talking soothing words to them when he thinks no one is around (correction: hardison is, in fact, around, and filming his boyfriend’s softness to save for later). give me charismatic hardison playing the role of ringmaster, running and flaunting about and being passive-aggressive to the circus master. give me eliot freeing the animals from their chains when they are finally able to shut the place down and relocate the animals to sanctuaries (his hands shaking just a little as twists the key in the lock, because he too was once an abused, caged animal in his own right and he knows how liberating it is to finally be free). 

[cosmicpuzzle]

8th Ruler and where you will face Crisis? 👾

The 8th ruler often brings sudden and unexpected events in the house it is placed in. The job of the 8th ruler is to bring transformation and spiritual purification through difficult life experiences. It balances your karma The 8th ruler gives bad results if it also rules 3rd or 7th or 11th house simultaneously.

8th Ruler in 1st: You may face challenges with some major health issues, exposure to certain risks, accidents, you should avoid taking too many physical risks as danger is often around you.

8th Ruler in 2nd: You may face challenges with money matters. You may have to rely on others for financial support. Inheritances and tax rebates could be tricky. You could have issues with mouth, throat, teeth and thyroid glands. Early childhood was very poor.

8th Ruler in 3rd: You may face challenges with younger siblings, short road travels, accidents are possible. Your communication can land you in trouble, you may mix sexual remarks in your communication, documentation issues could arise, you may lose imp. Docs.

8th Ruler in 4th: You may face challenges with land, property, vehicles. Your car or property could get damaged. War like situations can affect your property. You may have issues with mother or mother faces major crisis in life. Crisis comes after purchase of property.

8th Ruler in 5th: You may face challenges with child birth, abortions, miscarriages, loss of children. You may incur losses in speculation, trading. You could have heart troubles, cough and asthma. Your crisis could come after birth of children.

8th Ruler in 6th: You may face challenges with in laws, co workers, doctors, your workplace, possibilities of harassment in workplace, you get envy from others, your crisis comes due to your mistakes, legal troubles could arise with marriage.

8th Ruler in 7th: You may face challenges with relationships, marriage. Your relationships end suddenly or your mates cheat you (may be they are already married). You could face crisis in foreign places, road travels. Death could be sudden or due to love crisis.

8th Ruler in 8th: You may face challenges with inheritances, taxes, joint assets, finances, loans, in laws, reproductive system.

8th Ruler in 9th: You may face challenges with higher education, university studies, professors, father, mentors, spiritualists, long travels, foreigners, legal issues, hips, thighs, sciatic nerve. Your luck is wavering.

8th Ruler in 10th: You may face challenges with sticking to one career, you get caught for mistakes or crimes at work done by someone else, your general reputation is at risk, you could be in a taboo career (occult in some societies are considered taboo)

8th Ruler in 11th: You may face challenges with friends, social circle, elder siblings, regular income, paycheck, partner's longevity. Ear troubles could arise. Your finances could be up and down. Trading losses at times. Social anxiety and few friends.

8th Ruler in 12th: You may face challenges with sleep, feet. Your crisis comes in foreign lands. You may break some laws that land you in trouble especially in abroad. Your challenges come due to past life mistakes. You may face crisis with others resources.

For Readings message me here.

[everything-is-crab]

Whenever a femicide case occurs in India, first thing people question is the religion of the victim and the murderer.

Was the girl Hindu? She must be.

Was the guy Muslim? He must be.

Otherwise this case isn't worth debating about as an alarming social issue.

According to Hindu men, only Muslim men possess a threat to us. Femicide is a love jihad case. Not a patriarchal one that Hindu men are responsible for too.

After that recent incidence where a 16 year old girl in Delhi was killed by an adult male she was in a relationship with, people only cared that the guy was Muslim. Same for Shraddha Walker's case.

Nobody gave af that the people who witnessed the murder of the minor girl literally just walked away from the scene. Were those people Muslim too? Nobody gaf about how the police didn't take Shraddha seriously. Were they Muslim too?

Nobody gave af about the incidence in Thane where another minor girl was murdered by her brother when she had her first period. Nobody gave a fuck in 2021 when a husband murdered his wife on a main road in Delhi in broad daylight (and nobody stepped forward to save the woman) because she wanted to do a job and earn by herself.

Even now, another recent incidence in Mumbai that made the news where both the victim and murderer were Hindus, Hindu men are crying victim because the name of the man was revealed and according to them Muslim men's names aren't revealed (which we all know is a big fat lie but imagine feeling victimized when one of yours who murdered an innocent woman is publicly recognized).

Men of all kinds are sick and inhumane. They see that our lives are taken away by them when we choose to trust them as lovers, fathers, brothers or whatever (it's not stranger men attacking us). But the patriarchy doesn't exist. There must be some other politics like race or religion involved.

It is more important now than ever that Indian feminists start taking cases of femicide seriously considering the media talks only about these isolated cases that stand out most due to their disturbing descriptions of the crime and we don't have any idea about the stats because femicide isn't counted as a different crime (it comes under homicide). So many women get murdered or driven to death for marrying out of their religion,caste or for dowry related reasons. Our sex ratio isn't skewed just due to the female infanticide and sex selective abortion cases.

[blackpilljesus]

Can we not just stop birthing men like... women have to stop giving life to men.

I'm doing my part ✌️ and I agree but collectively most women wouldn't. I remember when there was discourse over a radfem having & celebrating giving birth to a baby boy. I've seen radfems praise lesbian couples adopting baby boys.

Tbh a lot of women are sellouts, they sellout other women & even betray themselves for love or having a slightly higher social status in society. When forced to cohabit with predators that have more power & essentially want to reproduce a copy of themselves, women giving them that could elevate or secure their status in society - it's an incentive & many would go for it.

Another thing to consider is that many women birth maIes to spare their lives, there's been cases where maIes would kill their partners & daughters for the woman not having a son (even though the sperm determines the sex). Part of me considers maternal instincts of women not being able to kill their maIe offspring bc that's still their child but then I think of post partum psychosis & cultures where daughters are routinely killed when they're born. If these instincts applied to maIe & female children I dont think things would've gotten this bad. Also a lot of women treat their sons much better than their daughters.

In a patriarchial society, birthing sons lets boymoms live out their power fantasies through their sons. They 'borrow' power from their sons or use their sons as a proxy for power. Like toxic mother in-laws treating their daughter in-laws like shit bc it's through the association that this woman is married to their son, women that cover up their sons sex crimes, in some cultures; boymoms look for women who've undergone FGM for their sons.

Bear in mind so many women still have faith in maIes as a collective, they think they'll raise the "good ones". This notion is popular in feminist spaces, women think they'll magically train & raise maIe allies. There's a saying of how several boymoms have emotional incest with their sons, they see there aren't good maIes in society so they want to create their own one(s).

However I think the biggest issue is that women are never going to be sociopathic or apathetic enough to moids. It would take a high level of apathy to abort maIe fetuses & refuse to birth another xy solely on the basis of their sex, to get to this point you'd need to have this feeling towards maIes generally and most women dont have this. MaIe survival is contentigent on female subjugation, women dont need to subjugate maIes to survive, we carry life, we can also provide for ourselves & maIes know it which is why they've set up societies the way they are and they're brutal about it because they and their bloodlines would be dead anyways if they dont have a system forcing women to rely on them to survive. That said; In the end despite everything, many women still want to partner with maIes, many women still love & believe in maIes. Most women wont disassociate with maIes collectively, catherine mckinnon goes into this in her book "the second sex" where she speaks about how women are scattered everywhere & identify with the tribes maIes put them into as opposed to seeing themselves as a sovereign group.

I personally dont think birthing another oppressor is worth it but people are different. Of course this can (& does) backfire against women but by the time the damage is realised it's too late. Ultimately for a shift in gender ratio & for women to refuse to birth maIes at any cost, they need to think bigger than themselves individually. Think of womankind instead of maIe supremacy & its structures but this will never happen & I wont kid myself otherwise.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Karen Thompson for Abortion, Every Day:

Earlier this year Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed into law SB 276, a first-of-its-kind legislation classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances. The drugs, commonly used to perform medication abortions, are responsible for 63% of abortions in the US. As a result of this new law, mere possession of mifepristone and misoprostol without a prescription in Louisiana can result in fines of up to $5,000 or “imprisonment of no more than five years with or without hard labor.”  We know what happens now: The outcome of this new layer of criminalization is entirely foreseeable. By putting the pills on a drug registry with special access rules, providers are no longer able to easily prescribe the pills and the ability of OB/GYNs to nimbly provide needed—and even emergency—health care if a woman is miscarrying is chilled. In Louisiana’s telling, mife and miso are the new heroin and medication abortion care puts pregnant people’s lives in jeopardy, not their own dangerous law. The lack of situational awareness around the law would be comical if the inevitable devastation of its effects wasn’t so horrifying. 

This is true even for people who are not using the drugs to end their pregnancies, but for the myriad other health issues the drugs treat—from softening the cervix for an endometrial biopsy to the insertion of IUDs. But the massive burden SB 276 places on pregnant people—particularly those seeking to self-manage their own abortions—is disastrous. By reclassifying a safe, effective, regulated drug used for a broad range of healthcare purposes into a dangerous controlled substance whose distribution and use can be entered and tracked in a state database, Louisiana, as one local health care provider noted, would “effectively be creating a database of every woman who is prescribed mifepristone and misoprostol, regardless of the reason, truly monitoring women and their pregnancies. That should be unimaginable in America.”

Such policing is not only very much imaginable in America, but has been the country’s sad truth for decades. Before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, state surveillance and criminalization of women during pregnancy and around their pregnancy outcomes—based on their alleged drug use, in particular—was the daily truth for countless women and other people who can become pregnant. A past truth is simply devolving into a dystopian present.  To be clear, classifying drugs in light of their potential harms is not a new thing. One of the most infamous classification tools, the Controlled Substances Act, has been in place since the 1970s, when President Nixon signed it into law. The CSA became the enforcing mechanism for Nixon’s “War on Drugs,” and gave both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration power to determine which substances were fit for medical use. Such regulation can serve a useful purpose; the CSA is itself the legislative grandchild of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which required food and drug manufacturers to clearly label any product that contained dangerous substances, including morphine and opium, drugs often included in everyday products from soft drinks to teething medicines. 

But SB 276 is not trying to protect babies. As John Erhlichman, one of Richard Nixon’s Watergate co-conspirators, bluntly stated in 1994: “[w]e knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could . . . vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”  Once again, government actors are lying about drugs to criminalize women’s access to and control over their own social and bodily autonomy. Louisiana’s law unmasks in broad daylight what so many people and communities living with the consequences of bad drug policy have long known: the “war on drugs” is a political invention to construct fiscal and social power over individuals and communities, not to provide much needed public health services. 

[...] By criminalizing possession of abortion medication, the Venn diagram of overlap between the “war on drugs” and the war on reproductive freedom has, once again, become a perfect circle. The efforts to control reproduction and drugs are rooted in the same forms of bigotry: controlling women’s behavior and liberties rather than providing actionable solutions to satisfy public health needs. 

Karen Thompson writes for Abortion, Every Day the impacts of criminalization of abortion medication as the new era of the War on Drugs takes shape in the post-Roe era.