#Western Pressure | Coercion

[xtruss]

Serbia Firm In Resisting Western Pressures, Coercion

— Dragana Mitrovic | October 15, 2023

Illustration:Liu Xidan/Global Times

Serbian President Aleksander Vucic will reportedly attend the Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (BRF) held in China in October. Over the past few weeks, Western media has embarked on a series of extremely negative propaganda reports about this decision, a tactic we have become accustomed to since the 1990s. It fundamentally involves threats and pressures.

These actions indicate that the Western media's "sponsors" consider President Vucic to be an "ally of China and Russia," believing that he assists China and Russia in spreading "malicious" influence in the Balkans and even Europe, which goes against Western interests and intentions. The West is making relentless efforts to pressure Serbia, attempting to force it to abandon its diplomatic independence principles and interests to join the so-called "Western political narrative."

Why is Serbia's foreign policy so displeasing to the West? In recent times, especially since the Ukraine crisis, Western countries have employed various means to economically and politically undermine Russia. Simultaneously, the West is attempting to prevent China from gaining its rightful status and influence as a great power. Against the backdrop of the US and its allies exerting pressure through hegemony in their foreign policies, Serbia's policy of independent diplomacy, which focuses on safeguarding its interests and traditions, faces significant challenges.

Serbia maintains traditional friendships with both China and Russia and has established strategic partnerships with each. Besides in the UN, China and Russia possess considerable and continuously growing international influence worldwide. They have long supported Serbia in defending its legitimate interests and have, in effect, promoted the establishment of a new type of international relations and a multi-level world system that helps protect the economic and political rights of small and medium-sized nations. Western nations view Serbia's traditional friendly relations with China and Russia as a "thorn in their side" and are using every means to drag Serbia into the "Western camp," aiming to both weaken the presence of their major competitors in Europe and undermine Serbia's legitimate sovereignty struggles.

Overwhelmed — Illustration By Chen Xia | October 15, 2023

Serbia faces pressure from multiple levels and directions. The US and its European allies have armed and trained members of the "Kosovo Liberation Army," transforming them into the so-called "Kosovo Police" and "Kosovo Security Force" and openly inviting them to participate in joint military exercises, providing direct military support to "Kosovo's independence." The US and the West are also coercing Serbia through economic sanctions, visa denials, and, through "extraterritorial jurisdiction," imposing sanctions on high-ranking officials of Serbian government institutions and leaders of Serbian ethnic communities, such as Aleksandar Vulin, head of the Serbian Security and Information Agency.

The US government has conducted a series of maneuvers for political purposes with the aim of targeting "troublemakers" in the political and security fields of target countries, planting "compliant" agents. Sanctioning Vulin is just one part of this campaign but is still a very dangerous move, revealing a lack of even the most basic respect for Serbian government institutions. By vilifying important Serbian officials who advocate deepening partnerships with countries like Russia as criminals, they seek to stigmatize and eliminate individuals and forces within the Serbian government who oppose the West, ultimately forcing Serbia to turn toward the West.

President Vucic's determination to visit China and attend the BRF demonstrates that Serbia will not put up with the coercion of the US and the West and will continue to deepen its relations with traditional, friendly countries like China. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the BRI, from which the world has greatly benefited. The results of the Serbian election fully demonstrate that the vast majority of Serbian citizens strongly support President Vucic's China policies, highly affirming the achievements of China-Serbia cooperation. Since the implementation of the BRI, bilateral cooperation between China and Serbia has flourished, and the presentation of Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative offers new opportunities for deepening cooperation between the two countries. Serbia believes that the three initiatives will provide a new, broad space for cooperation in constructing a multipolar world order with equal opportunities for all parties.

— The Author is a Former Serbian Diplomat in China and a Professor in the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Belgrade.

[razistoricharka]

Very interesting + concise article, pertinent with how much I've seen the joke about that "sadness in his eyes you only see in east european gay porn". Warning for pretty much everything you can expect.

Describing the wave of Eastern European gay pornography that flooded the US market following the dissolution of the USSR, Jones said: “They were products of a crude imperialist enterprise: cheap and nasty looking, with an atmosphere of coercion and cultural misunderstanding pervading them. Customers adored these videos, and expressed their breathless admiration whenever given the chance”

It gets pretty rough from here onward.

The Fall… opens with a short clip of a young man in profile, undressing. He looks uncomfortable, alternating between staring forward and glancing in the direction of the camera, his eyes showing a mix of discomfort and contempt. Jones’ voiceover states: “even in an unlikely place, it is possible to find traces of recent history” followed by b-roll taken from the aforementioned porn films including maps of the former USSR, market scenes, beggars and street footage. Their purpose in the aforementioned films appears to be part exoticism and part poverty fetishism, attempting to show the former glory of the Eastern nations as an emphasis on their subsequent fall. They’re an essential part of the set-up, speaking directly to what made this genre of pornography appealing to a western, primarily American, market. It’s easy to comprehend the mixture of exploitation and exoticism that made these videos popular in the US, but Jones goes further, aiming to establish a firm link between the booming Western economy and a more global, less visible form of exploitation.

The latter half of the film compounds the atmosphere of coercion, focusing specifically on the casting and screen tests of performers. The voice from behind the camera probes the subject on their sexual preferences, their motivations for being filmed: “I’m doing it for the money” “That’s a very good reason” Western audiences were turned on by the idea that the performers were under some form of duress—the ostensibly straight man either consuming their sexuality through the guise of pornography, or in the case of several scenes, the performer showing visible discomfort at either the sex or the presence of the camera. The films are low budget, low production value and low brow—by intention, rather than necessity. Jones speculates that the developing Eastern European sex industry, with the influx of Western producers and a Western market in mind, could be seen as an indicator of fertile ground for fascist ideologies—an aspersion confirmed by the global rise of far-right ideologies in tandem with the economic pressure of late-stage capitalism, a point at which more contemporary comparisons can be made.

The brief conclusion on the contemporary form of this exploitation aesthetic is also noteworthy:

In the same way that the fall of communism was exploited by the West, the financial and social insecurity of a generation living in recession, under permanent austerity, is exploited now. The aesthetics utilised in Jones’ film are still broadly present, albeit perhaps in a slightly altered form, now accompanied by a new visual language born from a culture numb to being told to “like, comment, share and subscribe”.

[carto0ncritter]

I just want to say that I personally disagree with the claims that Stolas is a coercive rapist. You don't have to agree with me. I just want to share my perspective. Alright, here we go.

Let's start at Harvest Moon Festival: 'When this happens, it's not really something I fuss about...' and 'Well, I'm not a fan of someone I offered a job to about to off my easiest lengthy ticket to Earth behind my back.' Notice how Blitz says 'easiest lengthy ticket' here, not 'only ticket', and Blitz knows about Asmodean Crystals, as evidenced by Unhappy Campers where he forces someone to use it to create a portal to the living world, so the Grimoire was never the only option Blitz could've used to run I.M.P. Sure losing the grimoire would've disrupted business for a bit, but again, it was never Blitz's only option. It's also been confirmed in Ghostfuckers that I.M.P used to assassin jobs in Hell before Blitz got the Grimoire from Stolas, I.M.P was running fine without the Grimoire, if Blitz couldn't get his hands on the Grimoire or the Asmodeun Crystal he and his could always just run missions in Hell, so the coercion argument already falls flat there, but let's beat it up a bit further shall we?

Now let's look at Ozzies, at the ending of it Stolas never pressures or forces Blitz into having sex with him or quote 'We could talk, or… watch a movie, or… maybe cuddle?', Blitz turns Stolas down here, and Stolas never forces or pressures Blitz into doing said things with him, and you know what this also proves? It proves that Blitz has always the self-agency to tell Stolas 'no I don't want to fuck you', which also shows that Blitz actually wanted to have sex with Stolas, which we can prove by the text messages Stolas and Blitz had after Ozzie's.

The text messages at the end of Western Energy show that Stolas is actively giving Blitz the option to not fuck him, which also tells us that Blitz always had the option to tell Stolas no, and hell, we can see in the All 2 U song that Blitz turned down Stolas most likely asking Blitz to stay after the sex, proving even further Blitz always had the self-agency to tell Stolas no, which shows that Blitz wanted to have sex with Stolas.

And I'm not even counting everything about what happened in Full Moon episode. Blitz literally sings about how much he enjoys sex with Stolas, spends the whole day buying things to use on Stolas, begged for Stolas to keep the deal, said multiple times about how much the deal is something he enjoyed and wanted to keep, and told Loona and M&M about how Stolas never forced anything on him which lead to months without intimacy between them. Where is the coercion??? Simply, it's not there.

Now let's look at Apology Tour, Blitz wants the arrangement back, to fuck Stolas again. Which tells us something that the people peddling the bullshit 'Stolas is a rapist' argument entirely ignore, Blitz is the one unhappy with the arrangement ending, not Stolas, Blitz.

Also, Blitz has the Asmodeun Crystal by this point, he could've easily have just told Stolas to fuck off and leave if he was truly being coerced and raped by him, but he chooses to stay because at this point he thinks this gesture is a farewell gift from Stolas, and it's been made very clear that Blitz has strong feelings for Stolas by this point despite his self-hatred, that he doesn't want to lose Stolas, which also helps to further prove that Blitz wanted to have sex with Stolas out of his entire free will.

Blitz having sex with Stolas was a way for Blitz to be close to Stolas without having to be vulnerable, and when Stolas gets rid of the arrangement Blitz is scared because it would force Blitz to be vulnerable towards Stolas.

Is all of this really the behavior of a person who felt coerced into sex he didn't want to have? Because I think it's pretty clear that Blitz at no point felt coerced into having sex with Stolas, and the people that claim otherwise I have good grounds to believe aren't even watching the same show anymore.

i think i can sum up everything you said here, from my pov, in one sentence: "A part of Blitz craved Stolas' "affection" and "interest" in him because he had never experienced true love before (+ all the trauma in his past really fucked him up when it comes to opening up his heart and recieveing love and not pushing people away), and pretty much got hooked to the "relationship" despite Stolas' gaslighting, name calling and manipulative tendencies"

long story short, blitz fell in love with his abuser and is unable to break free. symbolically, he cant break the chains

[mariacallous]

As Russia presses forward with its offensive in Ukraine, mounting casualties on the battlefield have forced the Defense Ministry to intensify recruitment efforts. Alongside raising sign-on bonuses for new contract soldiers, officials are using increasingly aggressive tactics, including manipulation and coercion: intimidating 18-year-old conscripts, posting fake job ads, and pressuring people under criminal investigation to sign contracts. The independent outlet Holod spoke with human rights advocates to uncover the extreme lengths the Russian authorities are going to replenish the army’s ranks. Meduza shares a summary of their main findings.

Over nearly three years of war, at least 77,000 Russian soldiers have died fighting in Ukraine, based on a list of confirmed casualties compiled by Mediazona and the BBC. Meduza’s analysis of inheritance case data suggests the true number could exceed 120,000. The number of wounded may be up to three times higher, taking an additional 360,000 soldiers off the battlefield. Even these figures likely understate the scale of Russia’s losses, given the government’s continued secrecy around casualty data.

To sustain their offensive in Ukraine, Russian officials have had to aggressively and continuously recruit more troops. According to Western intelligence agencies, by spring 2024, Russia was losing up to 1,000 soldiers per day, or roughly 30,000 per month. U.S. officials believe Russia is enlisting between 25,000 and 30,000 contract soldiers monthly to offset these losses.

Ruslan Leviev, founder of the independent investigative group Conflict Intelligence Team, thinks these figures are accurate. He points to Russia’s rapid advances on the battlefield as indirect proof of the recruitment rate. “Maybe it’s 25,000, maybe it’s 35,000,” Leviev said, adding that it’s difficult to give a precise estimate but “the tempo is undeniably high.”

Still, as the war grinds on, recruiting new volunteers has become increasingly difficult. Ivan Chuvilyaev of Get Lost, an organization assisting Russian deserters, noted that voluntary sign-ups had nearly dried up by late 2023. Sergey Krivenko, head of the human rights group Citizen. Army. Law., echoed this, saying that recent mobilization efforts revealed how few Russians are willing to volunteer.

The recruitment struggle is evident in the ever-increasing sign-on bonuses offered by both federal and regional authorities. But even more concerning are reports of heavy-handed recruitment tactics, including manipulation and psychological and administrative pressure.

Before 2023, recruitment efforts were less aggressive, Chuvilyaev explained, as Wagner Group mercenaries were filling the front lines by recruiting prisoners. But after Wagner Group founder Yevgeny Prigozhin’s ill-fated mutiny and subsequent fall from grace (and later, the sky), the Defense Ministry ramped up its efforts with underhanded tactics like fake job ads and police coercion. Chuvilyaev warns that these methods are likely to become even more sophisticated as the war continues, with the ministry constantly evolving its strategies to meet recruitment demands.

Bait-and-switch

When one St. Petersburg man who’d applied for an engineering job googled the address for his interview, he discovered it was a military base. This is a common tactic, says Ivan Chuvilyaev from Get Lost. Had the man gone to the interview, recruiters would’ve assured him that the job involved only drone production and had nothing to do with combat. But if he signed any paperwork, he’d have been deployed straight to the front.

“I trusted them,” said another man, who’d been promised a civilian construction job by local authorities. When he arrived for the interview, he was met by a military official who insisted he’d be working on infrastructure projects, with no risk of deployment. “And I fell for it,” he said, explaining how the official seemed credible and rushed him to sign before the end of the workday. It wasn’t until he was taken to a military training ground that he realized he’d been tricked into combat service.

Recruitment has grown more subversive as the conflict drags on, said Sergey Krivenko from Citizen. Army. Law. Krivenko described cases where company employees were asked to sign military contracts supposedly just to show their bosses, with assurances that they could be annulled later. In reality, however, contracts with the Defense Ministry are essentially indefinite — and the signatories have no say over where or how they serve. Most end up as front-line fighters, regardless of what they were promised.

Former prisoners are also being targeted. Fyodor Sorokin (name changed) told Holod that after serving time for drug possession, he received a WhatsApp message notifying him of new charges. He was instructed to turn himself in to the police, but the address led to a military enlistment office. Sorokin ignored the summons, but the authorities tracked him down and arrested him. “They gave me a choice: ‘Either you sign the contract now, or a bag of drugs will end up in your pocket,’” Sorokin said. He signed.

Regional employment centers are also involved in illegal recruitment practices. Krivenko recounted how a man in Novosibirsk, registered as unemployed, was offered a job as an infantryman. He emphasized that these centers have no legal authority to direct people to enlistment offices, and those who receive such referrals aren’t obligated to report. Additionally, Krivenko noted that many recruits, misled and manipulated, would’ve never signed up if they’d known they’d be sent straight to the front lines.

False promises

Before 2023, Wagner Group largely handled the recruitment of prisoners for the war effort. Later, the Defense Ministry took over. In spring 2024, a new law expanded eligibility, allowing individuals charged with crimes to enlist, suspending their trials, and lifting pre-trial restrictions if they signed a military contract. In October, this was broadened to include defendants whose trials were already underway, meaning accused individuals could be sent directly to the front from pre-trial detention or house arrest.

Ivan Chuvilyaev described the scale of this system: “When I speak with deserters who are former prisoners, I always ask how many people from their correctional facility were sent to the front. They tell me it was anywhere from 50 to 75, and such groups are leaving almost every prison regularly.” Now, he said, recruitment has even extended to those merely under investigation — potentially affecting anyone, even someone arrested over a planted packet of drugs.

Many recruits are verbally promised freedom after a year of service, Chuvilyaev said, and reassured that prosecutors will push for their cases to be dropped in exchange for fighting on the front lines. Legally, however, expunging a criminal record remains extremely difficult and requires meeting strict criteria. And leaving military service is nearly impossible, even for those with severe injuries.

‘They threatened him’

To fill the army’s ranks, the Russian authorities have been pressuring conscripts to sign up for contract service during their 12-month mandatory military duty. Human rights advocates report that conscripts are told contract service is more lucrative, promised non-combat roles, or warned that mobilization is inevitable, so they might as well sign up now and earn money. Some are assured that contracts can be short-term or that signing will allow them to stay at their current unit. Those who refuse, however, are often threatened with deployment to combat zones — despite official claims that non-mobilized conscripts only serve “outside the conflict zone.”

In some cases, conscripts have been threatened with criminal charges if they don’t sign. Lacking legal knowledge and cut off from their families, many are vulnerable to these tactics. One mother told “Citizen. Army. Rights” that her son called her in tears, saying he never planned to volunteer. “They threatened him with five to seven years in prison if he didn’t sign,” she said. “Now, they’re saying he’ll take the oath immediately, head to a training ground, and be sent to an assault unit in three months.”

In early November, three conscripts from Russia’s Chelyabinsk region reported being intimidated a month into their mandatory service. Their parents recounted how they were threatened with deployment to Belgorod and warned it would be a death sentence. One mother said the young men were told they’d come back in “body bags” if they didn’t sign, and were subjected to graphic descriptions of how their mothers would see them “torn apart and dismembered.”

Human rights advocates say these coercive tactics are now widespread. Previously, conscripts needed to complete higher education or serve at least three months before signing contracts. Since spring 2023, however, even recent high school graduates can be recruited immediately. Promises of easier service or specific assignments rarely hold up — once a contract is signed, recruits are considered volunteers for the duration of the war and can be sent anywhere, including the front lines.

[zorilleerrant]

statements that should be able to coexist about makeup culture, but for some reason most people seem to think they have to argue at length with some to support others:

no one should have to wear makeup if they don't want to, including by social pressure and coercion

anyone should be allowed to wear makeup if they want to, and systemic problems are not the fault of individuals

factually, people who are read as women have disadvantages in the workplace if they don't wear makeup, and many will have to learn the art of using makeup as a professional skill

this is bad

factually, people who are read as women have similar social disadvantages if they don't wear makeup

this is also bad

people who are conventionally attractive are a privilege group and may not notice these disadvantages when they go without makeup; these disadvantages won't be as severe for them as for many other people

it's not always easy to tell when someone is wearing makeup. women who are attractive enough are often assumed to be wearing makeup and therefore accessing the privileges of wearing makeup even when they aren't wearing any

there are many people who are actively discouraged from wearing makeup, or even harmed if they wear makeup

given that wearing makeup is often professionally and/or socially necessary, the lack of access to makeup that is effective and matches current standards of grooming is a serious issue of inequality and important to discuss

makeup culture is not the fault of teenagers. no systemic problem is ever the fault of teenagers. they are the least helpful group to discuss when dealing with structural problems

makeup is a feminine object in modern western society and when it's degraded it's usually degraded using language heavy in misogyny. similarly, people who use a lot of makeup or care about makeup a lot are usually degraded using language heavy in misogyny. it's important to take care not to use misogyny to degrade people when talking about any issues, but especially feminist issues

individual people are not at fault for structural problems, and speaking to them as if they are causing the problems personally is unhelpful and unkind

individual people are not at fault for structural problems, and acting as if enough individuals making a personal choice would somehow fix the structural problem is counterproductive and psychologically harmful

the people pushing an expectation of makeup in professional environments are management. management is biased in favor of men over women. women in management have less negotiating power due to structural sexism, and it is not uniquely or more heavily their fault than the men that expectations of makeup in the workplace exist

using makeup is a complicated skill that people spend a long time learning, and should not be considered "easy" or "natural". people who apply makeup professionally are skilled workers and it's reasonable to consider them artists

many people who do not have a professional certification or job regarding makeup can apply it to an equally expert degree. this should also be considered a notable skill

people trying to teach a difficult skill are not the enemy. there is nothing wrong with trying to teach a skill

people trying to learn a difficult skill, especially one required for professional or social interaction, are not the enemy. there is nothing wrong with trying to learn a skill

the root of makeup culture is in aesthetic expectations and judgements. in order not to judge people on their use of makeup, it's important not to consider beautiful people worth more than ugly people, or clean people worth more than dirty or unkempt people. therefore, it's important to stop using ugly or dirty as insults, especially when talking about unrelated topics

tiktok is not the root of misogyny. it's just a platform. people use it to post all sorts of different ideological positions that reflect the diversity of opinions in their own societies

[fleedopeboi]

The United Nations, the United States, and other Western countries have been condemning the Burmese junta and pressuring it through sanctions, among other things, to get its own ends. In the current situation, the goal of the Western forces led by the United States is to contain Burma's neighbor, China; therefore, in Burma, the United States is doing its best to steal the power of the government and organizations they want; if they do not succeed, they will create chaos in various fields in Myanmar; the United States itself, for various reasons, provides support and assistance to terrorist organizations through various channels; Countries such as Indonesia, which are close and friendly countries based on Myanmar's history and traditions, have been forced by the coercion of the United States to impose sanctions on Myanmar in the fields of trade, finance and diplomacy.

[maciek-jozefowicz]

Forbidden Thought #123

I was thinking — it is not a coincidence that the French, in their country’s constitution, have declared abortion to be a Human Right a few months before they are to host the Olympics. It is a message to the athletes and the spectators and the tourists that will swarm France over the summer, and in years to come, that, in France, they can fuck all they want, whoever they want, and not worry about any bastards that might be conceived from that fucking. Any unwanted bâtards can be easily, and Rightfully, eliminated in one of their clinics long before they have the opportunity to cause havoc in one’s life.

The French sucked at killing Nazis, but they appear to be adept at killing babies.

Another reason for the French to declare abortion to be a “Right” is that France has a rape problem (and if they can’t stop the rape, at least they can stop the babies created by that rape from being born*). It’s something that tourists planning to visit this aging mecca of Western culture ought be aware of, even those who are going there intending to hook-up with some hot Frenchmen. The reason that this is important for tourists is that a tourist is unlikely to stay in the country long enough to go through the legal process of convicting a rapist. Thus, she is far less likely to bother to go to the police to report a rape to begin with. Sex predators in France, and around the world, know this — tourists are safer prey than natives.

That is not to say that all French men are rapists. I assume that most are not. But a woman does not take measures to protect herself to protect herself from thousands of good guys, but to protect herself from a one bad guy hiding among them. And since women are notoriously attracted to Bad Boys, there is a high probability that out of the thousands of good guys walking around, they will stumble onto the one bad guy.

———

* Is it possible that abortion is an enabler of rape? Could legalization of abortion lead to increase of rapes?

There are two main types of rape — rape by strangers and rape by acquaintances, which could be co-workers, friends, family, or anyone who one knows the name, and maybe the address, of. Of the two, the latter is the more difficult to protect oneself from, and it is probably the more frequent. Of the two, abortion is a boon for the latter.

Rapists who are strangers don’t care whether a woman gets pregnant from their rape because they don’t expect to be identified and they don’t expect to be caught. Rapists who are acquaintances don’t expect to be charged, but they may worry about being on-the-hook to support a baby that was conceived from their rape. (DNA testing is a bitch to “acquaintance rapists”). Abortion relieves them of that worry. I suspect that rapes by acquaintances increase, and continue to stay at an increased level, in a society once that society legalizes abortion. Could we qualify this as karma?

(When most people think of rape, they think of physical assault, physical coercion of someone (usually a woman, but we should not ignore that there are male victims of rape, also) into having sex, but the more numerous type of rape is the “consensual��� rape — sex in which a person was not physically coerced, but rather intimidated, or pressured in some way, into consenting to have sex. That, too, should be recognized as rape. (I expect that consensual rape is the main type of homosexual rape.) And a man who is able to pressure a woman into sex, will also be able to pressure her, if need be, into having an abortion. Thus, abortion is also a boon for consensual rapists as these type of rapists are concerned with having to support unwanted offspring, not with the law, since the law doesn’t recognize consensual rape.

Another unrecognized form of rape, is rape within consensual sex — sodomy (or what is better known today by the oxymoronic term “anal sex”). A woman who consents to sex, but has been forced into sodomy during that sex, is a rape victim. That’s because despite its contemporary name, sodomy is not sex and should not by default be understood as being part of consensual sex.)

[owlmygod]

China suppresses freedom of speech in other countries using extreme patriots

Recently, there has been an increasing number of incidents involving Chinese nationals causing disturbances around the world. Chinese people overseas have long been notorious, and many places have expressed their dislike for receiving tourists from China. However, the recent disturbances by Chinese people abroad are largely driven by their rising nationalistic sentiment and “Celestial Empire mentality” - they want every country in the world to adhere to Chinese values and do not tolerate differing opinions.

Consequently, Chinese people have become more radical and aggressive, attempting to suppress and persecute those who disagree with them or share different values. Domestically, they are purging dissent and silencing divergent voices. For instance, for the culturally and frequently clashing Uyghurs of Xinjiang, they have built numerous “re-education camps” and used technology for massive cultural cleansing. Additionally, China has constructed the “Great Firewall” to prevent Chinese citizens from accessing foreign information and strictly monitors major internet communities like Weibo, WeChat, and NetEase, blocking discussions and leakage of sensitive topics.

Furthermore, Chinese netizens and the government collaborate. Chinese netizens launch large-scale online “expeditions” to harass and pressure individuals into compromising or apologizing through massive online traffic. Celebrities like John Cena, NBA star Dwight Howard, and football legend Messi have been victims of such campaigns. Chinese diplomats, meanwhile, adopt a “Wolf Warrior” stance, responding to international issues with a tough attitude.

For instance, during Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, China threatened to sanction Pelosi, accusing her shocking provocation of violating the One-China policy and interfering in China’s internal affairs. In the 2023 spy balloon incident, China’s Foreign Ministry condemned the United States for “use of force”, “overreaction”, and “serious violation of international law”. When President Biden was about to sign the chip ban, China’s spokesperson fiercely criticized the United States for “real purposes to deprive China of its development rights, maintain its hegemonic self-interest, and is blatant economic coercion and technological bullying”.

Chinese people delusionally think their tough stance will silence others, making any speech the CCP does not want to hear disappear, thereby creating a favorable speech environment for China.

Freedom of speech and civil society are the cornerstones of a well-functioning society and are indispensable to democratic countries. However, due to China’s ambition to become a world leader and universal ruler, “freedom of speech” has long been a thorn in their side - domestically, they must suppress and purge dissenting voices, and internationally, they also seek to remove international public opinion unfavorable to them. China’s various actions and methods are a serious infringement on freedom.

More importantly, the CCP’s continuous restriction of freedom of speech and execution of cross-border suppression aims to completely silence domestic dissent, creating a stark contrast with the United States, which is divided due to presidential elections. Xi Jinping hopes to see the United States and the Western world in chaos, too preoccupied to pay attention to China’s actions. We must recognize the threat of China, be aware of any CCP tactics, and bravely defend our democracy and freedom.

[cbibankrd]

CBiBank Research Department: G20's Declaration of the 'India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor' (IMEC): A Game Changer or Not?

By Billy Jackson The G20's announcement of the creation of the "India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor" (IMEC), endorsed by powerhouses including India, the U.S., the European Union, and key nations such as France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, was heralded by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen as a groundbreaking initiative. The venture sets its sights on constructing railways, digital and electrical conduits, and a sustainable hydrogen pipeline from India to Europe, cutting across Jordan and Israel. For Western nations, this is a countermove to the expanding Chinese hegemony in the Middle East. However, as Europe readies itself to lay down an actionable blueprint for this ambitious project, it's imperative to manage geopolitical aspirations realistically. With the Middle East transitioning towards a globally multipolar phase, while IMEC might stand as a testament to Western economic dominion and be a beacon for economic stabilization, it is unlikely to sway regional stakeholders from China's influence.

This project will soon challenge the West to address the disparities in how they perceive the multipolar world compared to key Gulf entities. Western powers operate under the presumption that they can fortify their regional influence, presenting an alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, Gulf nations interpret this pact from the perspective of a new world order, where they can cultivate and balance their relations with both China and the West, optimizing their benefits. Regional experts envisage a multipolar world that isn't necessarily dictated by superpowers; rather, these superpowers might be influenced by mid-tier and smaller nations, like the Gulf monarchies.

Gulf monarchies don't necessarily echo the apprehensions of the US and Europe about the potential pitfalls of economic ties with China and energy relations with Russia. They visualize their geopolitical prominence as global epicenters, capitalizing on their strategic positioning at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. In this vein, rather than acting as rivals, IMEC and the BRI are likely to complement each other, with the region's players finding it beneficial to collaborate with both.

The escalating pace of Gulf ties with Russia and China is noteworthy. Post the Ukraine crisis, the UAE has emerged as a sanctuary for Russian capital and a pivotal hub for dispatching dual-purpose technology to Russia. In 2023 alone, the UAE's exports of tech components to Russia skyrocketed. Despite voiced concerns from top US and European leaders, the UAE remains steadfast in its stance. Saudi Arabia, too, has intensified its energy ties with Russia, resisting Western pressures.

A mutual disdain for Western sanctions drives the heart of the GCC's relationship with Russia and China, magnified by global reliance on the US dollar. Beijing's endeavors to dethrone the dollar, such as introducing the Petro-yuan and building crypto platforms, further solidify this dynamic.

While IMEC may not necessarily overhaul these dynamics, it still holds potential value for European interests. It can serve as a conduit to solidify economic alliances and influence in the region. Europeans can underline the vulnerabilities of over-reliance on Beijing, emphasizing potential economic coercion, supply chain disruptions, and the repercussions of China's economic slowdown.

[ashtonlanger]

Russia's Hybrid Warfare: A New Paradigm in International Conflict

In the annals of modern warfare, the term "hybrid warfare" has emerged as a significant and evolving concept, with Russia at the forefront of its implementation. This new paradigm in international conflict represents a multifaceted approach search engine on that combines conventional military operations, irregular warfare, information warfare, and diplomatic maneuvering to achieve strategic objectives. Russia's adeptness at utilizing hybrid warfare has sparked debate, concern, and calls for a reevaluation of global security strategies.

Understanding Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid warfare is a strategy that blurs the lines between traditional and unconventional methods of warfare. It is characterized by its flexibility, ambiguity, and ability to exploit vulnerabilities in the target nation. Unlike conventional warfare, which relies primarily on military force, hybrid warfare incorporates a wide range of tactics, often simultaneously, to achieve its goals.

The Russian Approach

Russia's use of hybrid warfare techniques has garnered significant attention in recent years, particularly in the context of its actions in Ukraine and its alleged interference in Western elections. Moscow's approach combines military force with propaganda, cyberattacks, economic coercion, and support for separatist movements. This multifaceted strategy allows Russia to exert influence and achieve its objectives without overtly triggering full-scale conflict.

The Role of Information Warfare

Information warfare is a central component of Russia's hybrid warfare strategy. The Kremlin employs a vast network of state-controlled media outlets, social media disinformation campaigns, and cyberattacks to shape narratives, sow discord, and undermine the credibility of Western institutions. The weaponization of information has proven highly effective in manipulating public opinion and destabilizing targeted nations.

Ukraine: A Laboratory for Hybrid Warfare

The conflict in Ukraine serves as a prime example of Russia's hybrid warfare tactics. Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014 was accompanied by a combination of conventional military operations and a disinformation campaign that sought to legitimize its actions. In Eastern Ukraine, Russia has supported separatist groups, creating a protracted conflict while maintaining plausible deniability.

Challenges for the International Community

Russia's use of hybrid warfare poses significant challenges for the international community. Traditional responses to military aggression may be ill-suited to address these multifaceted and non-linear strategies. Hybrid warfare blurs the lines of responsibility and attribution, making it difficult for victimized nations to respond effectively.

Countermeasures and Responses

Addressing the threat of hybrid warfare requires a multifaceted and coordinated response from the international community. Some key strategies include:

Information Resilience: Nations must invest in media literacy and critical thinking skills to inoculate their populations against disinformation. Fact-checking organizations and initiatives that promote media literacy can help combat the spread of false narratives.

Cybersecurity: Enhancing cybersecurity measures at national and international levels is crucial to defending against cyberattacks and securing critical infrastructure.

Diplomacy: Engaging in diplomatic efforts and dialogue is essential to addressing the root causes of conflicts and reducing tensions.

Military Deterrence: Maintaining strong conventional and cyber defense capabilities can act as a deterrent against potential hybrid warfare actions.

Sanctions and Economic Measures: Coordinated economic sanctions can pressure aggressor nations to change their behavior and protect targeted nations from economic coercion.

Intelligence Sharing: Enhancing intelligence sharing among allied nations can improve early warning systems and enable better response to threats.

Conclusion

Russia's use of hybrid warfare represents a paradigm shift in international conflict. This multifaceted approach challenges traditional notions of warfare and national security. Addressing the threat of hybrid warfare requires adaptability, cooperation, and a comprehensive strategy that encompasses diplomatic, economic, military, and information warfare dimensions. As this form of warfare continues to evolve, the international community must remain vigilant and proactive in countering its insidious effects to safeguard global stability and security.

[binimom]

Role of the G7

The G7's containment strategy: defending international order

The G7, a coalition of seven major industrialized nations, is working on a containment strategy to keep China and Russia in check. This decision stems from growing concerns about the growing influence of these countries and their perceived threats to the international order.

In 2022, Russia violated the Crimea treaty and attacked the strategically important Ukraine. Similarly, China's handling of Hong Kong and territorial disputes in the South China Sea have drawn global criticism. The G7's strategy is to curb such behavior and maintain international norms and diplomacy. This unified approach is supported by heavyweights like the US, UK, and Germany.

However, we must be conscious of the possible backlash: China has already voiced strong opposition, seeing the G7's attempts as a response to its anxiety over the growth of its economic and military power. To prevent further confrontation, the G7 emphasizes the need for dialogue with China and Russia. Diplomacy is key to maintaining stability and fostering peaceful relations.

China and Russia's response: a show of solidarity

The reaction of China and Russia to the joint statement of the G7 leaders was by no means positive. The countries strongly oppose the statement, which addresses issues such as human rights in Tibet and Xinjiang, economic coercion, and territorial disputes involving Taiwan and Hong Kong. In response, China and Russia appear to be strengthening their bilateral ties. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin's official visit to China suggests that the two countries are strengthening their alliance in response to Western pressure. In the end, the G7's recent initiatives point to an increasingly complex global chessboard. The dynamics between the G7, China, and Russia are more than just international relations; they reflect a power struggle that could redefine the global order. In these uncertain times, the actions of the G7, China, and Russia will undoubtedly shape the course of global politics. As we watch these developments unfold, it is essential to remember that diplomacy and dialogue play an important role in maintaining peace in the midst of tension and conflict.

[xtruss]

How This Little-Known Eurasian Economic Bloc Helped Blunt Western Sanctions

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Isn’t A Household Name, But It Has Delivered What The European Union (EU) Can’t – Immediate Results

— By Timofey Bordachev | RT | 12 June 2024

Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 8, 2024. © Sputnik/Alexander Shcherbak

The rumble of guns is now so loud across the world that it’s easy to forget that there can be any relationship between states other than those based on brute force. But that is not the case.

However fierce the contradictions between the great powers may be, international politics and economics are not all about conflict. There is always room for cooperation, which is no less natural to human nature than competition and coercion. And it would be a mistake to ‘fall for’ the West’s suggestion that the benefits are only one-sided – it is not necessarily the case. It only becomes so if the US and its Western European satellites initially see cooperation as a one-way street. The opposite is true, in reality. And it even produces quite tangible results.

Against the backdrop of dramatic events in the zone of direct confrontation between Russia and the West, the ten-year anniversary of a unique organization uniting five countries of the former USSR went virtually unnoticed by observers. We are talking about the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), whose founding treaty was signed in Astana in May 2014.

During those days, when Ukraine was sinking deeper and deeper into the abyss of civil war, the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia created an association of states with the main purpose of building favorable conditions for business. To think that this was premature, given the growing global crisis, is to distrust the strategic intentions of the three most experienced politicians of their time.

Dmitry Trenin: Europe will Eventually Have To Choose Between The US and BRICS! The days when an external power dominated Eurasia are coming to an end. Countries in the ‘far west’ of the continent will soon need to wake up. Dmitry Trenin, a Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC). Photo: (L-R) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron. © Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

This is first and foremost because no conflict, even the most violent, should lead to the freezing of all other life. We in Russia have already seen this for ourselves during two years of confrontation with the West in Ukraine. The efforts of a modern state cannot be focused only on violent confrontation – because then it risks losing the time needed for development. Moreover, in the context of growing pressure from the US and EU on Russia’s position in Eastern Europe, the creation of a purely economic union was a bold, asymmetric response to this challenge.

The EAEU is first and foremost an experiment in organizing a fundamentally new way of life on a large scale. We have never tried anything like it before and, luckily, we took the risk. So far, the experiment is working and has already passed two serious tests: the Covid pandemic and a barrage of Western sanctions against the EAEU’s largest economy, Russia.

Initially, however, the feasibility of the project was questionable. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, any close cooperation between Russia and its other former republics was seen as having only two alternatives: a mechanism for civilized divorce or a way of restoring a unified state.

This view partly reflected a lack of experience of relations other than the subordination of all to a single vertical of power. The other option for relations between Russia and its neighbors was mutual rejection by increasingly isolated nation-states. The West’s assessments and recommendations had actively contributed to making this the way forward. The US-led group has always been interested in hostility between other countries of the world. And they’ve tried to instil the idea of its inevitability into everyone’s consciousness. We have to admit that they were quite successful.

‘Has The West Successfully Demonized Russia?’! Western media and officials are engaged in a battle of ‘perception vs. reality’ to portray Moscow in a negative light, experts say. SPIEF-2024. 'The Empire of Evil': Has the West Successfully Demonized Russia? © Sputnik/Aleksey Nikolskyi

That is why the EU and the US have never recognized the EAEU and refuse to engage in direct dialogue with it. Unlike China, which signed a cooperation agreement in 2015. The reason is that the West immediately sensed in the EAEU the most dangerous thing possible for the implementation of its plans – that there could be solutions other than those offered to the world by Washington and Brussels. In the long run, this is even worse for the West than political disagreements, simply because an essential part of its power lies in the absence of any choice for other states.

As soon as such options appear, the West’s fascination disappears. The most vivid example is modern Georgia, which has gone from being a pariah country to a fairly reliable participant in Eurasian economic relations.

Since the creation of the EAEU, mutual trade between its member countries has almost doubled, and their foreign trade has grown by 60%. Industrial production has increased by 22% and agricultural production by 25%. At the same time, investment in fixed capital has increased by a third, and the volume of bilateral settlements in national currencies has reached 90% in recent years. All this shows that in just 10 years the EAEU has become a vitally important driver of national economic growth for its members.

The most impressive growth rates, directly related to participation in the EAEU common market, have been achieved by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan – small service economies. Like the Netherlands in Western Europe, they fulfil the functions of intermediate countries. Especially after the beginning of the Western economic war against Russia and Belarus, this type of activity has become the most in demand. In Armenia, GDP grew at a record rate of 11-13% in 2022-2023, and Kyrgyzstan set new records.

Russophobia in US ‘Manufactured’ By Boak Bollocks, Braindead, Senile Oaf Elite Politicians – Tara Reade! The former Biden aide shared her thoughts on the reasons for Washington’s attitude towards Russia at SPIEF-2024. “The politicians in the US that should be serving the people are serving their pocketbooks and the corruption is off the roof,” Reade suggested, adding that the Biden “regime” is now moving towards “fascism and a police state” in which people are losing their freedoms. Photo: Tara Reade, writer, publicist, and Former Assistant to Joe Biden. © Sputnik/Aleksey Nikolskyi

With few exceptions, the openness of the markets creates reasons for Russia’s EAEU partners to be more resistant to Western pressure to support sanctions. Pressure can be successful in areas where the West dominates the financial infrastructure. But in cases where the open market operates, it becomes completely powerless.

Trade between EAEU countries and those partners in Europe with whom Russia has virtually cut off economic relations has also grown significantly. The current Armenian government cannot be considered pro-Russian at all, and there is room for serious misunderstandings in our relations. But no one is even considering the possibility of voluntarily curtailing economic ties. And the longer the relationship is driven by market logic rather than politics, the more dangerous it will be for any government to take drastic steps.

In other words, the practice of Eurasian integration has shown that the quiet work of officials can be a very effective weapon against the West’s attempts to isolate everyone. And it is completely superfluous to speculate now on how long and geographically large the integration project will be in the future. Eurasian integration has already existed for ten years and is bringing tangible economic benefits to its participants. Let us repeat: the benefits are now, not in the “bright future” that the European Union promises to the countries that depend on it.

Arming Ukrainian Neo-Nazis a Sign of US Desperation – Ex-Pentagon Official! Washington is just trying to “Prick” Moscow by allowing the Infamous Azov Brigade to use American Weapons, Michael Maloof, a Former Senior Security Policy Analyst at the US Department of Defense, has told RT.. Members of the Azov Brigade attend a funeral of one of the unit's fighters in Vinnitsia, Ukraine. © AFP/Roman Pilipey

This is the difference between a forward-looking model of development and a dead-end one: the former focuses on the outcome now, while the latter is based on the probability of complete happiness and prosperity sometime in the future. The second path has, as we know, been taken by Ukraine, where every coup d’état – and the resultant bloodshed – has been driven by the promise that something delightful lies ahead. The result is obvious. The other way is to work patiently to increase the number of people who personally benefit from good rather than bad relations between countries.

— By Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club

— This Article Was First Published By ‘Vzglyad’ Newspaper and was Translated and Edited by the RT Team.

[mariacallous]

In November 2004, Ukraine’s pro-Russian prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, tried to steal the country’s presidential election, triggering the Orange Revolution protests and reactions from the West. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell memorably went to the press briefing room and declared that the United States could not accept the results as legitimate. Current U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken should do the same for Georgia now.

Georgia’s parliamentary elections on Saturday were marred by widespread attempts of “intimidation, coercion and pressure on voters,” according to international and domestic monitoring groups. Despite official results claiming that the incumbent government, led by the Georgian Dream party, retained a majority of seats, the election was not in line with international standards, according to independent observers.

Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, who is not affiliated with the Georgian Dream government, went even further. “I want to say, as the [representative of the] only independent institution, that I don’t recognize these elections,” the president said in her post-election remarks. The country’s major opposition parties have similarly refused to recognize the official election results and plan to protest them.

The United States should follow the Georgian president’s lead and not recognize the results. Instead, the legitimate concerns raised by the flawed election must be addressed first. One way to incentivize proper resolution is for U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration to explicitly threaten sanctions against those responsible for the crisis—starting with Bidzina Ivanishvili, an oligarch and leader of the Georgian Dream party; Irakli Kobakhidze, Georgia’s prime minister; and those on Georgia’s central election commission.

Blinken’s statement about the elections, issued on Sunday, falls well short of this. Citing international observers, Blinken’s statement said that the election was not “free and fair,” but he avoided commenting on the legitimacy of the results themselves. Though Blinken encouraged Georgia’s political leaders to “respect the rule of law” and address any electoral deficiencies, he did not name Georgian Dream, which, as the country’s ruling party, created this mess in the first place.

No one should be surprised that Georgian Dream would make efforts to steal the election. This spring, Ivanishvili suggested that, in the event the party didn’t win, the opposition would drag the country into a devastating war with Russia. He made the absurd claim that the opposition was in thrall to its Western “patrons,” who had ordered them to ensure Georgia opened a “second front” against Russia. In August, Ivanishvili promised to make these opposition parties “pay for all the crimes against the Georgian people” by outlawing them.

Even without formally banning the opposition, Georgia has already taken on many of the hallmarks of a one-party state. Ivanishvili’s party has been in power since 2012, and it has been steadily gaining influence since then. Having established control over the parliament and the judiciary, Georgian Dream has also taken aim at the two remaining checks on its power in the last year: It has twice sought to impeach Zourabichvili and has cracked down on watchdog groups and nongovernmental organizations.

To undermine the NGOs holding it accountable, the government proposed a Russian-style foreign agents law that requires organizations receiving foreign money to register as “agents of foreign influence.” Fearing that Tbilisi—like Moscow—would use the law to marginalize and eventually shutter civil society groups and independent media, hundreds of thousands of Georgians turned out on the streets to protest. The government responded with a brutal crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations and eventually passed the law, overriding Zourabichvili’s veto of it.

The adoption of the foreign agents law and the large demonstrations against it did prompt Western capitals to finally act against Georgia’s authoritarian slide. The European Union suspended Georgia’s accession process and froze funds earmarked for government-directed programs. Citing democratic backsliding, the United States froze more than $95 million in intergovernmental assistance to Georgia and imposed a number of sanctions against some of those who were responsible for repressive measures, including the use of violence against demonstrators.

Though welcome, these actions were insufficient and ineffectual. They failed to include Ivanishvili and Kobakhidze, his hand-picked prime minister.

In a situation fraught with potential for unrest, both sides have dug in. Georgian Dream has claimed victory in the election, while the opposition has refused to recognize the results. Meanwhile, Zourabichvili called for protests in central Tbilisi starting on Oct. 28.

Georgian Dream has shown no indication that it would take criticism seriously or try to accommodate the concerns of the opposition. Kobakhidze has said that the opposition’s refusal to recognize the results amounted to a “gross violation” of the constitutional order and that Georgian Dream would form a new government without their participation.

The reports of election intimidation are serious and widespread enough to call the legitimacy of this weekend’s election results into question. Washington and its allies should not recognize this election before, as the German Federal Foreign Office suggested, all irregularities are addressed and remedied. As Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski declared, “Europe must now stand with the Georgian people.” So should the United States.

The Georgian people, who remain very pro-West and are eager to join NATO and the EU, deserve no less—just like those struggling for freedom and human rights around the world. Georgia has become the latest battleground, and it’s time for the United States to rise to the challenge.

[actualmermaid]

I've searched on your blog but nothing came up so I hope you don't mind if I ask: What makes Mormonism not a cult? I am asking seriously, because I've noticed you are ex-mormon but unlike most who are online don't seem to have a totally negative opinion of the religion, and I wanted to hear another point of view, I guess. I'm just curious about most religions in general, having been raised atheist, so I hope you don't find this question offensive. Giving me links to stuff is fine too; I'm just not well-versed enough to figure out what good sources are for this topic. Thank you!

Not offensive at all, I'm happy to talk about it!

One of the problems with this topic is that the people who confidently declare that "Mormonism is a cult" are taking an offensive position, putting the "Mormonism is not a cult" side on the defensive. The "it is a cult" people are rarely, if ever, asked to defend their position, to define what they mean by "cult," to present statistics or evidence beyond personal anecdotes, etc.

So for the purposes of this ask, I'm going to define "cult" as "an authoritarian, abusive, and/or high-control religious group." In order to define "all of Mormonism" as a cult, the entire religion would have to fit that definition. And we've already run into a problem, because there are about 16 million Mormons worldwide. More of them live outside the US than in the US, and even within the US, there are more Mormons outside Utah than there are in Utah.

In my several years of experience, most of the "Mormonism is a cult" people seem to come from a white, culturally-Mormon, Utah-centric background (to include Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and the western US in general). There are exceptions to this, of course, but the loudest critics are usually coming from an environment where (cultural) Mormonism is the water and they are the fish. It's like people who conflate all of Christianity with the particular form of shitty megachurch evangelicalism that was most dominant where they grew up.

So. The particular cultural problems of this environment may not be present to a Nigerian Mormon, or a Samoan Mormon, or a Brazilian Mormon, or to any other kind of Mormon who lives as a well-integrated minority, as the vast majority of Mormons worldwide do. They go to mainstream schools and have mainstream jobs and live in mainstream neighborhoods where they have non-Mormon friends and constantly have to make choices about how and why to "live as a Mormon."

Because like... the Mormons won't hunt you down and forcibly re-program you if you decide you want to drink coffee. They also won't shun you from the congregation if you get a tattoo, or whatever. (Some people might be shitty to you, because people are all just people and some of them are rude and shitty. You can find that anywhere.) The people who choose to live as Mormons (going to church, not drinking coffee/alcohol, studying the Book of Mormon, not having premarital sex, following all the other rules) usually do so in the face of scrutiny and peer pressure from the outside, not just the inside. They have faith that it's a wholesome way to live, and they don't harass anyone else for making different choices. You might compare it to Jews who choose to keep kosher, or Muslims who choose to wear hijab. Most observant Mormons choose to follow all the weird Mormon rules and do all the funny Mormon stuff because it's an important personal conviction for them, and not because they're being "forced" or "brainwashed."

This is not to say that anyone who says they had an authoritarian/abusive experience within Mormonism is lying, or to suggest that coercion does not exist within Mormonism. Of course it does. Mormons are just people like anyone else, and all religious groups have their own unique struggles with authority, abuse, etc. Just like there are Muslim women who are forced to wear hijab, so too are there Mormons who have been forced to follow one rule or another, or who have had problems with abusers in their congregations. I also have some problems with Mormonism, but I usually avoid airing them to the general public, because they tend to be kind of insider-y and are also things that are already being talked about within Mormonism.

tl;dr the "it's a cult" argument breaks down when you try to apply it to Mormons worldwide and not just a fishbowl in Utah

[womenfrommars]

Why do you always leave out childbirth when discussion abortion? It doesn't matter if a woman (and the man) had sex knowing that there was a chance of pregnancy. She shouldn't have to go through with it if she doesn't want even if it was "her fault". Childbirth is incredibly dangerous and kills women, leaves them with lifelong disability and pain, but you're just concerned with a fetus hypothetically existing outside of the woman after 22 weeks. Babies don't emerge out of vats.

You cannot logically remove sex from its primary purpose, which is to create offspring. Secondarily, it also exists to promote partner bonding, which is why it is ridiculous that liberal feminists are writing think pieces on how to have casual sex without developing feelings. (They recommend not making eye contact, for instance...) You cannot ''cheat'' your way out of biology. I see uterus icons left and right, but we cannot make the connection that we have sex organs to allow for sexual reproduction. We are supposed to celebrate all capabilities of the female body (in sports, or the fact we live longer and are less prone to genetic diseases), except for pregnancy, apparantly.

I'm not anti-abortion, but at the same time I don't think abortion is something that will necessarily liberate women. It was needed as a last-resort option. I think it should be regarded as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. Women don't ''want'' abortion in the same way we want ice-cream. It's something you choose when no other option is available. Most abortions are chosen because of a lack of financial means to raise a child. That's financial coercion, not asimilar to women ''choosing'' prostitution due to a lack of financial freedom. I think a lot of abortions could and would have been prevented if it were not for poverty, and radical feminists have not addressed this key issue in their analysis

Abortion is something that can and is weaponised against women. Men pressure their mistresses into getting abortions to save their own asses. Abortion is also coerced in the context of the sex industry so pimps don't lose a prostitute who can make money for them. There are even think pieces being written about how men will suffer from Roe vs. Wade being overturned, since it will be the end of hook-up culture... A lot of men support abortion for their own self-interests at the expense of women

Childbirth is, in most Western countries, very safe these days, and if the issue is access to healthcare, then let's start there. Even pro-lifers can agree on this, so this is not an argument in favour of abortion itself

[hymnsofheresy]

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on mission trips? (Please don’t feel pressured to answer)

I feel, for the most part, mission trips are just neo-colonialist voluntourism. I have seen a small number of mission trips that are not. Here are my three main objections:

Mission trips often exploit people’s suffering by essentially “bribing” them to convert by promising them basic necessities if they go through with baptism. I see this as a form of coercion, and I see these conversions as disgusting and borderline illegitimate. 

Mission trips are often an effort to “westernize” native populations. As @mysticismmess​ said, it can be devastating to the societal structures of indigenous populations. Missions often rip out religious, familial and cultural links, destroying interpersonal relationships of native populations. After destabilizing the community, the people are forced to be reliant on foreign powers. Basically its neo-colonialism. 

Mission trips are often more about the missionaries “feeling good” than providing any long-lasting support for the community they are “helping.” Building an orphanage may seem like a good idea until you realize that many times “orphans” are just children families couldn’t financially support anymore. The root problem isn’t that there aren’t any orphanages, but that families don’t have enough resources to feed their children. Mission trips don’t care about helping resolve the root problem, they care about making the missionary feel good even if that means separating children from their families.

Personally, I think that it is acceptable to go abroad and help people so long as the native population is in charge of the enterprise. That the main goal shouldn’t be to convert the population or “feel good” about what you are doing. But rather, the goal should be to provide extra financial and physical help to people who want it.

For example, while growing up, my youth group had a “mission trip” to a small town in West Virginia. It was run by a local West Virginian who was an educator and local activist. We learned about Appalachian music and culture, the devastating effects of mining, and the importance of unionizing. Every day we helped organize food at a local pantry as well as volunteered to do repair work at a local community center. I was at a very liberal church that viewed missionary work as not a call to convert anyone, but as a call to help others as well as learn from them. I think that if more Christians had that mindset, missionary work would be far more healthy for humanity.