#and given more power to parliament and it was the beginnings of progressive political change

[chaotic-history]

👹👹👹 i hate doing these bc recording (ew) but yes i would absolutely LOVE to talk abt french theater and its cultural significance. assignment never specified modern 💙 (which is great cause i know fuck all about modern theatre)

[girllovesromance]

The Absolon Kingdom: General information

I uploaded the picture of Idris’s face because he’s the King of the Absolon King, not because he’s totally my favorite character. 

I think it’s where the Absolon Kingdom (AK) is located.

@lunanelfeah suggested that creating a separate post to explain about the Absolon Kingdom might be a good idea, I have to admit it’s an incredible idea. And @dynastiasimss​ also suggested me this website https://www.notebook.ai/ , I love this site, thank you. Brace yourself for long af essay, forgive me if some political things just don’t make sense, lol. 

The beginning of the Absolon Kingdom dates back to the 16th century, when witch-hunt was a prevalent practice. That was God’s intention to gift ordinary people special superpower, so he could encourage the Gatekeepers to start treating people reasonably. The Gatekeepers’ duty is giving moral assessment and advice to human beings, so they can improve themselves and become a better person. But the Gatekeepers haven’t even thought about developing any sort of guidance or regulation regarding this matter, they only give people points based on their feelings. If the Gatekeepers have bad mood, or just don’t like someone’s appearance, they may give a person extremely low moral score that later affects their chance of reincarnation without any single reason. 

So God wanted the Gatekeepers to understand human better, but their ego got in the way. They found it offensive that angels and demons had been granted the Heaven and Hell respectively from the very beginning, yet the Gatekeepers had to build their own territory. They refused to accept they have equal position as the Human Beings, refused to be restricted to one country on Earth. Therefore, the Gatekeeper’s great ancestor, King Park V, had to gather people with special ability on his own and found an island following God’s prophecy.

HISTORY

First King: Park Byung Ho (Park I (Park V to the Gatekeepers, he's the 5th King of the Gatekeepers)) Second King: Idris Bennett (Idris I)

During the reign of Park Byung Ho:

He managed to establish the Absolon Kingdom, to build cities in an empty, deserted island. But he is a highly conservative man, who had been living for 1000 years. Due to the Gatekeepers' inability to accept the Absolon Kingdom as their territory, he had been sitting on the throne for approximately 500 years.

By the 1800s the Absolon Kingdom was already flourishing, but that was when a long period of stagnation started in the country. Some people began to have problem with his reign, they claimed he was too power-hungry to step down from the position and his long reign could lead to detrimental effects in the future. According to the political analysts, King Park V had become overly content with the Absolon Kingdom's current stage of development, that his conservativeness could only hinder the country's further progress. Due to these articles, censorship was tightened, significant human right concerns were observed in the AK. A great number of books, which were claimed to contain "harmful" ideologies, weren't allowed to be published (including The Realm of Magic book, that was mentioned in Lizzy's Issue).

In the beginning of the 21st century, the AK's economy still relied heavily on agriculture and magic, poverty and starvation were prevalent in the rural areas. As the country is located in a small island, the residents in disaster prone areas didn't receive neither prior warnings to evacuate nor helps from the government. Some of these areas were claimed to be abandoned by the King, but the residents were too impoverished to settle somewhere else. But the press wasn’t free to report such topics. By the end of King Park I reign the Absolon Kingdom had become severely underdeveloped. Literacy rate of the country was only 61.5%.

King Idris I reign:

(Unlimited opportunity to post pictures of my favorite boy)

During 16 years of the reign of King Idris I the Absolon Kingdom has experienced more changes compared to the last 100 years of King Park I ruling. Idris took Tran's family political ideas into account and sent groups of expedition to report on the outside world's level of development. Idris acknowledged that the current AK's agrarian society needed changes, that the country will only progress if the Absolonians find a way to combine magic and technology.

After 16 years of reign the Absolon Kingdom's farming, fishing, mining, manufacturing, textile..... industries shift to automated works. The services sector of economy grows in importance, accounting for a large percentage of employment in the AK. Many new private banks, business companies are established during Idris's ruling. The country's appearance has also been transformed significantly:

Capital city: Bloomingdon 2004 (world credit: https://thesimscatalog.com/sims3/downloads/worlds/large/wild-wild-west/)

Bloomingdon 2020 (credit: North Bloomingdon @descargassims​)

Censorship rules have been eased, for the first time people start obtaining the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and association. Even if the fear to express their political views still exists within the country, many controversial publications (such as the Realm of Magic book that promotes the idea of connecting with the outside world) are allowed to be released to the public. A great number of broadcasting and news companies have been established in the span of 16 years, the Absolonians have the opportunity to gather information from other non-governmental news sources than the NNN (National News Network) chanel.

Many disaster prone villages have been rebuilt thanks to Idris, early warning systems have also been set up in these areas to avoid the severe impact of hazards. If storms or earthquakes do occur, Idris will offer relief and humanitarian aid to these areas, he even takes time to personally visit and use his healing power to treat injured locals. Hence, that's how he's called The Angel of the Kingdom.

Despite all the changes, the practice of public and cruel executions is still prevalent in the AK. The term “Minimum wage” has never been determined in the country, in order to achieve the current level of development the subjects of the Kingdom sometimes are required to work 20 hours a day without additional pay. Prisoners are treated as subjects of torture and human experimentation. The AK is still “underdeveloped” from a legal standpoint.

Regarding the connection of the Absolon Kingdom to the God Helpers and the territory of Hadesiallania (northern part of the AK).

During 1750s the Demons and the Gatekeepers had conflicts regarding their authority as the God Helpers. Eventually, their conflicts led to war (the demons attacked first), the Reapers just silently watched the bloodshed and remained neutral. The Gatekeepers realized they were losing, so they asked for the Reapers’ help. 

The Reapers had always been considered as the sinners, the unluckiest God Helpers. They had to witness death every day, God never granted them any sovereign territory. There was a theory that the Reapers committed grave sins in their past life, so they had to live this life to pay for their mistakes. Some people rumored that the Reapers were the humans with 0 moral score, so God couldn’t decide whether to send them to hell or let them reincarnate.

So the Reapers made a deal, they agreed to support the Gatekeepers, as long as they were given part of the Absolon Kingdom territory. Hadesiallania is still a part of the Absolon Kingdom, but it’s an autonomous area. They have their own legal system, government (parliament and local executive authority), taxation system.

Edit:

The aftermath of the Tran family’s insurrection: 

During a national survey, which was conducted in 2003, 80% of Absolonians voted against the idea of introducing the Absolon Kingdom to the global world due to the fear of witch-hunt. In October 2020 (after the rebel of Chi’s family) one unofficial online poll indicated that 90% of Absolonians would prefer staying hidden from the international community. But this data might be unreliable, since after the Tran family’s execution people with similar political views are discriminated against, so they’re afraid to speak out

[popwasabi]

Civilization is coming: “Black Sails” and when rage is justified

(SPOILERS ahead! You’ve been warned...)

There’s a moment late in the first episode of the highly underappreciated series “Black Sails” that hints not only at the troubled past of its lead character Captain Flint but also describes the larger theme of the story.

Flint has gotten himself into trouble. Along with his crewmember Billy “Bones,” in an effort to secure the financing he needs to capture the gold from the Spanish warship known as L’Urca de Lima, his recklessness has gotten Nassau’s governor shot and injured and his plans all but evaporated. Billy feels they are now in too deep and they should not only turn back but perhaps new leadership is needed for Flint’s crew. It is here that Flint reveals a bit where his true ambitions lie.

(Toby Stephens, ladies and gentlemen.)

On the first viewing, Flint ominously declaring the pending arrival of “civilization” to the new world could mean anything from simply the imperialistic tendencies of the British and Spanish empire, to the draconian rulership of the crown or just “taxes” as he makes light mention of in this speech. But as the series progresses, especially in the second season, “civilization” begins to take a darker, more personal meaning.

The story begins to reveal that the dangerous pirates of Nassau are not at least inherently dastardly, although certainly violent, but victims of their various circumstances; a former slave turned prostitute turned keeper of secrets in Max, a neglected daughter becoming the bookkeeper of the pirates with Eleanor Guthrie, another former slave turned ruthless pirate captain in the vicious Charles Vane, and an abused woman turned deadliest pirate on the island Anne Bony, and none more painfully revealing than that of Flint himself.

You see Flint didn’t always go by this name, he used to be a prominent officer in the British navy named James McGraw until he met Thomas Hamilton, a wealthy proprietor tasked with solving the problem of the pirates of Nassau many years prior. Thomas had the radical idea of pardoning the entire island to bring them back into society, to avoid violence and bloodshed, and to better understand the people who would turn to piracy.

As James gets to know him more and his revolutionary philosophies of empathy and enlightenment the two unexpectedly fall in love and thus seal the fates of both their downfalls from “civilized” society.

With England unwilling to see any other way to end the pirates without exterminating all of them and looking to exploit weaknesses in Thomas to Parliament, he is outed and imprisoned. James along with Thomas’s wife Miranda, who lives in a polyamorous relationship between the two, are persona non-grata-ed and the two flee to Nassau to finish what Thomas started in an act of rebellion.

(This is seriously one of the most heart-wrenching, tragic reveals I have ever seen on TV. I totally knew it was coming at the time and I was still not prepared for how it was delivered.)

There are few things as personal as love and “Black Sails” uses this to show how far society can go to villainize people. Flint wasn’t born a monster, and he is not one for loving Thomas; he is a monster because “civilization” wanted him to be one.

As our own civilization enters a timeline that may promise great change, people who have been othered and victimized by society are finding themselves grappling with their pain and grief in the same way as Flint. People have tried peaceful reconciliation and conformity into society to avoid violence throughout history despite the labels they have been given for no other crime than being who they are, but civilization’s need for a monster always brings people down no matter how hard they try to do it the “right way.”

(Tell me if you see a justice system in this picture that looks interested in listening...)

Native Americans tried playing by the white man’s rules when America began moving west. Compromising over and over again and yet they were killed and still killed and neglected today for it.

African Americans tried becoming rich like their white counterparts in places like “Black Wallstreet” in Tulsa, Oklahoma  and were still bombed and massacred for it.

Asian and Latin Americans immigrated here to flee war and death largely caused by white imperialist countries, to survive and work jobs white Americans would not. Both are othered as foreigners, face violence from the state, and are deported everyday.

Poor working-class Americans try fruitlessly to keep their head above water as they become mired in debt, fighting a pandemic on slave wages essentially, all while our government cuts wealthy companies a fat paycheck annually with our own tax dollars. And anyone who fights back finds themselves without an income and health insurance during a recession and a pandemic.

And the LGBTQ+ community ask for the dignity to be left alone and treated normally but not only are they harassed for it but they are beaten, tortured, and killed for being different.

(Remember, Stonewall was a riot.)

Flint, himself, tries one last time, toward the end of season two, to peacefully resolve his vendetta with England and save Nassau from a war with them but instead finds himself facing the gallows anyways by the Charlestown government.

As they read out his charges, many of them real heinous things he did but also many that were fabricated, Flint stops them from proceeding any further and delivers a final act of defiance to the court.

“I have one regret,” he begins to the court of high society folks who are only interested in seeing him punished before the masses. “I regret ever coming to this place with the assumption that a reconciliation could be found. That reason could be a bridge between us. Everyone is a monster to someone. Since you are so convinced that I am yours, I will be it.”

It is at this point in the story that Flint, perhaps like other revolutionaries of the past, recognize that the system doesn’t want to reason with him, that these people aren’t looking to understand or empathize with him or even try for that matter. They wanted a monster, they made one in him, so he decides there that “civilization” as he had noted in the series first episode is not worth reconciling with and certainly not worthy of forgiveness.

And Flint spends the rest of the series in bloody war with them.

(From season 3. Again Toby Stephens, ladies and gentlemen)

“Black Sails” is about queerness, race, social politics, and the way conformity by force is used against it. It’s about the rage that boils underneath many of us as we are wronged over and over again by society, while being exploited to no end, and what happens when someone finally says “enough.”

Anyone who has experienced what it is like to be othered can find something deeply personal with the anger that Flint carries around with him in each scene of this series. We feel his pain of rejection by society, his grief for feeling ashamed of himself when he and the audience know he shouldn’t.

It's what makes the eventual reveal of his relationship with Thomas so cathartic, as we see the rage-filled guard of Flint drop as he reads Thomas’s words left for him in a book they both loved and shared.

(Again, I cannot emphasize enough how much of a gut-punch this reveal was watching this...)

"Know no shame” is so important to growth of this character and the message of this story. Civilization and those who wish to keep the status quo want those who do not fall in line with their authority and judgments to feel shame for who they are. They not only want monsters, they want you to feel like one and the reason Thomas line speaks so much to both Flint and the audience is that it reminds us there is no shame in who we are.

The country we live in is a powder keg right now experiencing the same rage that Flint feels and more specifically how he felt at the end of season 2. Though this country’s racist attitudes and subjugation of the vulnerable hardly started with this presidency it cannot be argued that it has brought all that hatred in our government and the people who support those views painfully to the surface. When people peacefully protest, peacefully assemble, and peacefully try to cast their vote and are still met with resistance, still met with hatred and violence, people have to start to wonder if operating within the system’s rules can actually affect change.

A lot has been made about the way protesters may have violently lashed out over the past three weeks, with media talking heads and privileged elites asking unironically why they couldn’t do things peacefully but more has been done as result of the rising tension than the previous 50 years combined. You can tell people to “#vote” all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that people have been trying that for decades and people are still getting quite literally killed for it.

(Again, I gotta ask, who is this protecting? Who is this serving?)

If there’s one takeaway I hope a viewer gets from “Black Sails” is that revolution, no matter how serious you are about it, should never be off the table when confronting systemic inequality. A racist, sexist, classist, and/or, in the case of Flint, homophobic power structure does not concede their power if you play to their convenience and when people are being put down, beaten, and often killed for showing their anger at this, calling for “law and order” becomes a slap in the face to the victims.

A government or system that treats you unjustly doesn’t deserve peace.

I’ll say it again.

A government or system that treats you unjustly doesn’t deserve peace.

No one wants it to get this far, I definitely don’t, and certainly not every peaceful mean has been exhausted yet in this fight perhaps but this country was literally founded on violent rebellion after being slighted all the same by out of balance power structures. I’m not advocating for violence or to take up arms against the state right now BUT no one should ever rule it out when the social contract keeps being broken and broken and broken again by those in charge who clearly don’t want to listen.

A government should always feel the threat of an uprising if it keeps wronging its people.

(See my blog post about “Do the Right Thing” if you need help understanding this quote.)

As the more fiery weeks of the protests seem to be in the rearview mirror and we find less activity and calls to action on our social media timelines, I want to remind you all to not let up with whatever you are choosing to do to help and keep fighting back out there. The people who stand to benefit from having angst of the general public leave and dissipate from our collective consciousness want us to forget how angry we are, they want us to feel fatigued and disinterested in continuing the push forward because “this is how they win” as Flint would say.

(Again, Toby Fucking Stephens, everyone.)

We have so much more power than we realize, just look at how much got done just by everyone uniting behind one marginalized group finally over the past three weeks. When we realize we are fighting essentially in the same battle for respect and dignity, justice in our society can be achieved. It can be done, and maybe just maybe we can finally change the world. Afterall who else has been as close to achieving it as we are right now?

Fight for your dignity and respect and stand in solidarity with others in their own fights as well, and always remember “know no shame.”

Raise the colors and Happy Pride, everyone! (credit: Luluxa on Tumblr)

[thephantomofthelibrary]

The Events of the Merthyr Rising (2): 3 June - 6 June 1831

3 June 1831

Early in the morning the 93rd Foot Reginent, the Highlanders, from Brecon arrived at a town in crisis. They were mocked and jeered as they marched from Brecon to Merthyr. The Highlanders joined the other authorities that had congregated at Castle Inn. The troops stationed themselves around the Inn to protect those gathered inside in case the situation turned violent. 

The crowd continued to increase. The sources differ on the exact size but the estimate is of around 10,000 people. At 10:40 am the Riot Act was read for a second time. A deputation was requested by Anthony Hill, the iron master at the Plymouth works, in order to hear the demands of the crowd. It was hoped that they could try to settle their differences and diffuse the situation.

The crowd had four main requests:

The suppression  of the Court of Requests 

Higher wages 

Cheaper prices

Immediate parliamentary reform

As was stated last time, riots tend to focus on the middle men rather than the people and institutions that were actually behind these problems. The iron masters simply could not agree to their demands. Rather these were issues that needed to be seen to at the seat of go government, not at an inn in Merthyr. The economic depression meant that wages could not be increased, not could prices be decreased. Crawshay himself had desperately tried before the rising to ensure that his workers were well provided for, but not without great economic loss to himself. Debts also needed to be paid and the iron masters had as little say politically as their workers. There was nothing that they could do to implement parliamentary reform any quicker than parliament would allow. The iron masters themselves had been advocating for these changes, even if it was for their own benefit. 

Pictured above is Castle Inn where the authorities were assembled.

11:40, the crowd was still there making every single one of them guilt of a capital offence by law. The High Sheriff of Glamorgan issued a warning to the crowd, they were to disperse or face the troops. To this one man in the crowd was reported to have said that he only came from bread. The crowd took his claim and shouted “caws gyda bara”, “cheese with bread”. This could be taken literally, asking for bread and cheese from the authorities. But also this could be a symbolic chant. They were not willing to settle for what the iorn masters could offer from their positions of comfort and relative power. Bread and cheese was given to them.

Crawshay and Guest attempted to address the crowd. As reformers themselves maybe they would be able to appeal to their joint interests. It did not work. The crowd became angrier, pushing forward to the Inn. 

The man of the hour, Lewis, was hoisted up and addressed the crowd in Welsh; 

“We are met here to have our wages raised, instead of which the masters have brought the soldiers against us; now, boys, if you are of the same mind as I am, let us full upon them, and take their arms away.”

Things quickly turned violent. The soldiers were stationed in the doors and windows ready to protect and defend the inn. The rioters pushed forward, throwing stones at the soldiers and successfully disarming some of them.In turn, the soldiers fired on the crowd. The fighting only lasted about 15 minutes but the effects were catastrophic. 16 soldiers were wounded, 6 of whom were seriously wounded. It is unsure how many rioters were killed as their bodies were secretly taken away by their fellow rioters in the night and buried. It is thought that around 20-25 rioters were killed.

But things were more serious. Symbols and standards can often portray and define a movement in a single glance. Very few images have become more iconic in the imagery of revolution that the red flag. A calf was sacrificed and a white flag bathed in its blood to create their new revolutionary standard. On top of their flag-pole they impaled a loaf of bread, symbolising exactly what their struggle was. It came along with another chant of their, “bara neu waed”, “bread or blood”. This is believed to be the first time that the red flag of revolution was first used on British soil.

Growing ever more fearful as the situation evolved, the authorities abandoned their station at Castle Inn and moved to Penydarren House for greater security. This was the home of iron master Jeremiah Homfray, the iron master of the Penydarren ironworks. 

Above is Penydarren House, the first of the grand houses to be built by the iron masters at Merthyr. It remained the grandest house until Willaim Crawshay II built Cyfarthfa Castle. 

In the night, while some of the crowd buried the bodied of their dead, other rioters searched for weapons to defend themselves against the soldiers. The situation was quickly beginning to mirror events in France at the end of the last century. Meanwhile, others still took news of the rising to the neighbouring iron towns of Monmouthshire. This was no longer a Merthyr or even a Glamorganshire uprising, the revolution was spreading. 

Above is an image of the flag being died with blood. Lewis can be seen in the background addressing the crowd. Below is a second image, the red flag vivid among the surroundings of the black and white picture. Once again Lewis can be seen in the background addressing the crowd. They are armed with old and make-do weapons like axes and pikes, a fair few with pistols in their belts and stolen muskets in their hands. 

4 June 1831 

It was clear to the authorities that more military presence was going to be needed if they were to secure the town back into their own hands. Troops were being called from the surronding area to help deal with the crisis. The Eastern Glamorgan Corps of Yeomanry Cavalry and the Royal Glamogran Militia had arrived in Merthyr. But not all fared well for the troops arriving.  The Swansea Yeomanry reached Hirwaun, ready to establish order back to Merthyr. But they were ambushed by rioters and their weapons seized. The crowd now had muskets and sabres to defend themselves and their town and not simply the stones they had been throwing the day before. Elsewhere the same fate befell others with ammunition seized from a group transporting more from Brecon to Merthyr. 

The authorities knew what would be coming to them and prepared for an attack at Penydarren House. A crowd had gathered outside, by this point swelled with the mobs who had ambushed soldiers on their way to Merthyr. With more arms on their side it seemed clear that they would soon engage with the troops stationed around the house. 

Another deputation was requested by the ironmasters with their workers. Historians are unsure of what exactly went on and what was said but when the leaders came out, again historians are unsure of what was said, they spoke to the crowd. Remarkably the crowd broke up signifying a turning point for the rising. Despite this, there were some isolated incidents throughout the day. The authorities had dodged a bullet.

5 June 1831 

Despite the progress of the day before, delegations were sent to industrial towns in Monmouthshire asking for their support. 

6 June 1831 

By the 6th a crowd of up to 20,000 marched along the Heads of the Valleys to meet the Merthyr rioters at Waun where the mass meeting to discuss politics, wages and Crawshay had helped to spark the rising. The authorities knew that they needed to act now before things escalated further and became not just a rising but a revolution. The crowd was met at Cefn Coed with 40 Highlanders, 53 Royal Glamorgan Militia and 300 Yeomanry. Guest, the ironmaster at Dowlais was with him. The Riot Act was read one again but the crowd still did not budge. 

Something needed to be done and fast. The Highlanders were ordered to train their muskets on the crowd and the Yeomanry to draw their sabres. Orders were shouted slowly and clearly so that they could ensure the crowd heard. They realised what was going to happen if they stayed and slowly began to disperse until even the most dedicated of the rioters had left. The situation  that day had been resolved without anymore bloodshed. 

But now the tables had turned and the rioters were on the run, not the authorities. Realising the tide had turned against them, the town was in panic. Arms were hidden in an attempt to distance themselves from the rising and the leaders went into hiding trying to bide their time until the wave had passed. 

The next day, the justice of the authorities would come.

[uk-news-talking-politics]

Marcus Rashford and the rise of the political influencers

By Tom Westgarth and Walter Pasquarelli

Politicians are not known for their humility. However, as the second wave of the coronavirus swept through Britain, Conservative MP Steve Baker wasn’t afraid to show some on social media.

Baker had been asked by Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford to allow him to reply to the MP’s Tweet about extending the school meals vouchers given to children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to a later date (Baker had turned off the ‘reply’ function). Baker replied, arguing that these measures would cause severe economic harm.

But the most interesting part of Baker’s response wasn’t the economic claim. His response stated: “You have 3.4 million followers Marcus, to my 96k. The power is yours here”. The white flag of surrender had been raised; Baker’s relatively smaller following meant that he had lost the online argument. The government later pledged £400 million to tackle living costs over the next 12 months for the most disadvantaged families.

Despite being one of the most influential backbenchers in the country, somebody who has one-to-one’s with prime minister Boris Johnson; how did Steve Baker succumb to feelings of powerlessness in the face of a footballer? At what point did a combination of an inspirational backstory and enormous online presence become more pivotal to shaping public policy than being an elected official?

The answer to this question cannot be realised without understanding ‘influencers’. Defining an ‘influencer’ is actually surprisingly hard to do, but they can essentially be described as individuals or small groups that exert a topical influence over a certain group of people through their online presence.

This could take the form of vloggers via their YouTube channel, or celebrities who are highly active on social media. Whilst Rashford’s initial celebrity came from a more traditional background (as a sports star), his consistent online activities mean he likely falls into such a bucket. Vlogging to a camera and casual tweeting evoke a sense of ‘relatability’ that distinguishes influencers from regular celebrities.

Internet sensations of this kind are highly sought after by brands, who pay them handsomely to promote various kinds of products. What gives these brands the bang for their buck is not the influencer’s industry knowledge, but the charismatic authority they exercise.

Despite this, many may dismiss influencers as irrelevant to social affairs. Critics lambast them as superficial figures that care more about views than values. They are often seen as symbolic of a generation glued to their screens on platforms that are eviscerating adolescent mental health.

But what these attacks on influencers appear to miss isn’t to do with their values. It is that their power is significantly underestimated. Part of the reason why the British government made such a hash of the Rashford-school meals saga was that they failed to predict the cut-through that a young, black footballer would have with the wider public.

Not every influencer has the sort of power Marcus Rashford has. But the political domain has evolved to a point where there are more than a handful of Rashford-like individuals out there. Governments and political parties need to recognise this, as influencers will increasingly start to engage in political activity.

***

At the heart of this trend is an ongoing seismic shift as to whom we trust and ascribe authority of knowledge production.  Now, this did not happen overnight of course, but it is part of an ever changing historical process.

In the beginning there was God. For centuries the church and its representatives were seen as the sole and only fountain of truth.

Then came science. In a large part of the West, science replaced religious belief as the main source of truth. The scientific method offered an alternative to the dogmatic teachings of the church, allowing flexibility to approve and reject previously-held beliefs as our methods and accuracy of inquiry evolved.

Such progress produced the internet. This provided everyone with a voice and ability to both obtain as well as disseminate information. But online, often authority can be associated with whoever shouts the loudest.

Academic and intellectual institutions, seen as the bastion of scientific progress, now come under fire. Facing charges of group think and reductive analysis, they no longer possess the same authority as they did in previous decades.

Simple analysis, and social media platforms that prefer disseminating information through retweets, shares and followers, are what makes the age of influencers so prevalent. It is under these environments that influencers are emerging as a new voice of trustworthiness, providing an alternative source of truth and knowledge. The follower count, amount of engagement and interaction have become a direct source validating their credibility akin to academic citations.

The internet and digital technologies created a vacuum as to who should be wearing the crown of trust. With traditional sources of authority becoming ever-less relevant, influencers have become credible actors for filling this gap.

*** It would be a mistake to ascribe influencers' success merely to some shallow numbers though. There is a much deeper connection, a unique relationship that they build with their followers, which makes them crave for new content like the new season of a real-life character from their favorite Netflix series.  The intimate nature of this informational distribution, where a creator is speaking down the lens of their camera, makes viewers feel as if they have a special relationship with the influencer - which is a trait that fundamentally distinguishes them from celebrities who are perceived as being polished, even from another planet.

Kenneth Burke described this phenomenon in his 1969 piece “A Rhetoric of Motives”. Burke explained that humans have an urge to identify with other groups and people. As biologically separate beings, humans seek to overcome this state of separateness through communication, music, red MAGA caps, you name it.

In times of identity politics, when voters formulate their political priorities based on the identity they espouse, influencers are set to accumulate increasing power over setting the tone. Influencers speak like you and I, fire updates in a continuous loop, broadcasting a shared sense of identity unifying a critical mass of people under a common purpose.

It is this cocktail of omnipresence and relatability that creates a weird attachment and ultimately loyalty - the most valuable currency in the political casino.

***

The UK government thought they had seen the last of Rashford over summer, once they had awarded him an MBE. Many viewed this honour as a cynical but deserved ploy to keep the Manchester striker on side. Of course, somebody as driven by the issue as Rashford ploughed on, forcing the prime minister to call the 23 year-old in order to assure him that the government was on the right track. This should serve as a case study for governments worldwide trying to work out how to engage with powerful influencers on matters of public policy.

Should they bring them on side, early doors, in order to keep them within touching distance? People are less likely to decry governments if they have a seat at the table.

The answer to this depends on several factors. One is, of course, the issue at hand. A less controversial issue may warrant greater collaboration. For example, the Sidemen, a group of British YouTubers with over 10 million subscribers, made a widely shared ‘Stay at Home’ video during the first wave of COVID-19. However, anti-establishment parties, in turn, could use influencers to destabilise the status quo from the outside.

Eventually, there may well be a point where such influencers decide to become politicians themselves. In the game of politics, the ability to carry millions with you on issues that one cares about is a highly valuable currency. If it is possible to have the adoration that many have for the likes of Trump, Farage and Johnson, without the detractors, then this makes for unbelievably powerful leadership qualities.

Objections to this belief are reasonable. Currently, influencers curry favour with a young audience that is widely geographically dispersed. In many voting systems, this will mean that building a significant coalition of support would be tough.

However, many influencers are moving away from youth-facing platforms into the ‘mainstream media’. KSI, a British YouTuber who came to fame playing FIFA in his bedroom, is now a chart-topping rapper. He twice sold out huge arenas to have a boxing bout against American vlogger Logan Paul (whose own charisma helped him recover from major controversies). These stars are by no-means ‘staying in their lane’, meaning they will capture both traditional and new forms of public life. When will we have our first YouTuber politician?

Finally, there seems to be little sign that Marcus Rashford is stopping. Not only has he released a BBC documentary on food poverty, he has partnered with publisher Macmillan to promote reading for economically disadvantaged children. Maybe he will stand for parliament one day, maybe he won’t. What is clear, though, is that influencers have the potential to become serious political players in the issues of tomorrow. But perhaps this time the politicians in question won’t come of age playing at Eton, but playing Esports.

Tom Westgarth and Walter Pasquarelli are policy consultants at Oxford Insights. They specialise in understanding trends in emerging technologies and AI.

[murdochmysteriesimagines]

The Rose of Texas

Request: Female S/O and George writing love letters to each other please.

A/N: What was asked of me and what I provided are completely different. I had an idea and it snowballed into a product not only longer than intended but something I plan to work on further. In the end I wrote something that I wanted to write. I hope you enjoy it.

__________________________________________

12/02/1910

My Sweetest George

I assume its too late to say Merry Christmas while I’m writing to you, no doubt when you finally receive it. If it manages to get through whatever blockade is set up for the Red Cross Couriers. I should have written to you when I first departed. That night I left it felt like I hadn’t said enough to you, now I can barely think of any words that could explain the world I find myself in.  But like you say George, its best to start from the beginning. What I ask myself is what is the true beginning of this? I suppose your start would be me sneaking off in the middle of the night. I’ve had a lot of time to think about what I said to you that evening, or to be more accurate, to say what I yelled at you in blind anger. All the trouble I’m going through seems to be an appropriate punishment for my sins, but I still feel guilty for it. I guess I’m not as heartless as you think. Kidding aside I am truly sorry for what I said about you George, you are one of the best men I know. No man I’ve met can hold a candle to you, such a man does not deserve to be branded a coward because he refuses to follow every whim I have like a trained dog. Regardless of what you believe me to be, just know I deeply regret what I said to you. I love you George, do not ever think otherwise.

To most Canadians this ugly situation would have officially started back in ‘01’, when McKinley was shot dead and our beloved Roosevelt ascended to the Oval office, to the rank of self-appointed King. Another Caesar stabbed in the senate house with an opportunistic Augustus looking to forge his throne from the blood of the opposition. For every Pure Food and Drug Act making headlines, there was a coal miners strike repressed by federal troops. For every shining railroad built off the labour of the Southern states in his so-called relief camps, political opponents arrested and shipped out west. Corruption in the government pulled out like a weed and replaced with a loyal lap dog. Any man could see Roosevelt moved against anyone who dare opposed him with a vengeance, quickly and decisively. The press would say it was all in the name of stability and security; those journalists untouched by the Bears Claws at the cost of singing him endless praise and justifying every sin they could not cover up. The press in Canada more than happy to parrot their kin who looked up to the ever kind, ever present presidential king. How many truly knew the light of democracy that all sources held on the highest pedestal was being snuffed out. Fuel to the flame being cut by a tyrant who would stop at nothing to consolidate power around himself. Roosevelt’s party switch in the ‘04’ election should have been the wake-up call to the world, yet most remained ignorant. From the Republicans to the newly founded Progressive Party of America. The medias favourite figurehead as the acting chair; old officials sent to replace the ‘corrupt’ surprisingly changing sides to the governing party. The ignorant sang their praise at the man, no longer was America a two-party country, surely liberty and prosperity would follow us into the new century. The naïve and unenlightened will maintain that rhetoric, those paid to believe that it was the ungrateful south that opposed our King who kindly kept us under the federal government’s thumb. I guess we should be grateful to Roosevelt George: he had generously allowed our suffering to continue rather than slaughter the disgruntled southern population entirely, although even his media sources would have a rough time justifying that atrocity.

To me George, this started all the way back in ‘65’ with the end of the civil war. I’ve heard the cries that we are nothing more than a second coming of the Confederacy, succession is the last thing on our minds George. Instead of state and property rights; our cause is against tyranny and for a liberation of our enslavement. Only Lincoln wanted to reintegrate the confederates into the union. When he died so did any hope of unification. They liberated the slaves only to create a new breed to replace what was lost. While the new states in the west would thrive, we were kept in limbo, we were added back to the boarder but treated like foreigners, a conquered population, an enemy. P.O.W’s were sent home branded as traitors, permanently disfigured, or not at all. Their labour was used to rebuild the country they supposedly destroyed. If they refused: beatings would be felt, if they persisted: executed. All vailed as righteous punishment for a war that was spouted to end such treatment. When the work force gradually trickled back to their impoverished states the federal government still needed bodies for their factories, to build their rails, roads, to work for starvation wages. They have been stealing our men since the war’s conclusion, leave it to the Bear to expand upon a profitable idea. The men before him content with only conscripting the innocent for a camp or costly war abroad.

I remember the stories Pa would tell me of his time in the labour camps, whips, a hot iron and chains placed onto the worst offending farmers and militia men, not one rich enough to own a slave. That fact still true when they passed reforms for meager wages to be paid after years of free imprisonment. He’ll never tell us the full story of how he made it back to Texas. Just whispers about riots and hard choices being made. You’ve seen photos of him back when I was a youngling. It’s hard to imagine that moustache wearing the skin of an old gray back bludgeoning a guard for his freedom. He wore the uniform so his sons and daughters could wear suits and dresses. That fantasy gave way to reality when the Bear took the office. We all know now that was the turning point, the final act calm before the storms return.

When that French self-proclaimed Marxist revolutionary tried to rob Roosevelt of his life outside the senate building last September, we all knew there would be no turning back. A final push for greater political power while he was still in the hospital; forced eradication of opposing political parties, arresting any figure suspected of discontent towards the Bear, tightening the reigns on labour camps; all in the name of security and stability. Just short of a throne and crown for the new set appointed Royal and his noblemen. That revolutionary expected to trigger an uprising of the workers of America. Perhaps the French immigrant will be disappointed he mistook the civil discontent for an overthrow of the upper class. Maybe he’s in such a state with the provider answers given to him from outside that cell, upset that the only revolution to come is for the fate of our democracy rather than his ideology.

They call us Confederates, slaver, traitors: we are no such thing George. We didn’t betray the constitution, our foundations of the Republic. Our police forces haven’t arrested innocent diplomats and citizens for imagined crimes. The re-emerging National Unity Party did not crown a king. The Federalists fight for the Progressive Party and their oligarchies own interests. The Union States Of America fight for a greater purpose than self improvement; we fight for our republic, our constitution, our freedom. That is why I went home George, to save my country, not destroy it. The territory of an old enemy along with states tired of Washington’s rule now harbor the government they once opposed.

When we departed from Toronto, I expected the worst, years of training and work in hospitals as a nurse has filled my mind with standards for the dead and injured. All were surpassed when we arrived. Medical tents filled with victims of the Bull Run offensive executed by the federalist along the Virginian boarder. Such audacity does not surprise me: expecting us to falter at a single push into the Tennessee mountain ranges and entrenched divisions. Their hastily assembled army under Pershing has failed to end this war in the one fell swoop that the Bear has promised. As the winter snows began to set in November, we all knew this would be another long war.

However, we are determined to fight until our flag flies over Washington. The problems of the old war are gone. Allies from South America and Europe not blinded by the Tyrants propaganda rally behind us, bringing with them the newest toys of war. Self loading rifles from Mexico, artillery and generals from Germany, raw materials from Chile; manpower from all. I’m curious if it was more surprised to hear the Kaiser’s finest were getting involved rather than the United States got caught in another war. The old guards of Europe stay neutral for the time, I doubt the British will stand idle if an ally to the Germans were to set up south of their biggest dominion, not while world tensions are on the rise. I pray that this war stays contained to a single country. Perhaps with some luck the Germans, Unionists and British can unite against the tyrants of the North.

It must have been a field day for the parliament and press when the German Kaiserliche Marine flying the new flag of free America appeared off the eastern coastline. We don’t always get the best information of their front, rumours of skirmishes between the two fleets at best. It’s ironic: after the Spanish American war the federalist tried to bring their armada into the modern age. Their expensive steel monsters laying at the bottom of the Atlantic or under siege in harbour to another European power; neutralized, useless. Unable to halt the merchants and never-ending convoys bringing supplies into the bastion of freedom that will be their undoing. The southern men they conscripted as canon fodder returning home with knowledge of war. Liberated slave labour taught the craft of large-scale production under the threat of death now building our infrastructure from the rubble it was left in. All in due time George, we will rebuild our homes into a flourish state.

The war was quiet for most of December; everyone was busy drawing lines on maps to lay claim to whatever they could get their hands on. When the dead and wounded came down to what the regulars call “acceptable levels”, the medical staff finally got some rest. I got word from my older brother; he’s been stationed in loyal Missouri as a mechanic. Apparently, he learned a few more tricks with a wrench while interned in Wisconsin last year. He’s still not pleased I moved up to Canada, it’s not my fault there was no work in Texas. He’s a stubborn man, stuck in his own mind most of the time. He really is a spitting image of my Ma at times.

He did tell me something wonderful. Since the actual constitution was re-enacted after our schism the original voting laws have been put in place. Any citizen who owns property has a formal vote in government affairs. My brother wrote to me and informed me that after I left Pa added my name to the family homestead. I was able to vote George; man or woman, gender and race made irrelevant in a single move. Now I know they say a man’s vote is his own business, but I won’t pretend I’m not pleased with President Wilson being sworn in as the true leader American republic. God willing, he’ll be able to see us through these trying times.

In more personal news George, I have an update. I received a promotion of sorts, although I’m sure you would have a less glamorous title for it. Back in January our medical unit got assigned to the 12th Union Division near the Missouri, Illinois boarder. We were near the front providing what we could to soldiers on rotation to reserves when our dressing station was attacked by the federalists. Apparently, they exploited a breach the line and rushed into gain land. We were doctors and nurses being targeted, fresh faced recruits and wounded apparently a grave threat.

Pa always said I had the best shot in the family, hunting rabbits in my youth to avoid starvation has paid off. I managed to organize what soldiers remained and we held the federalists off, long enough for the reserves to come in. I’ll spare you the details George, but shooting an animal isn’t much different than a man. Not here at least.

We managed to push them back to the starting line of trenches before they gave up. In the heat of the moment no one noticed or cared about a nurse with a rifle and ammo pouch along side them. It came to a marksman battle between the two trenches cut short by an artillery barrage. When the explosions and flying dirt came back down to earth the Boots finally noticed the out of place skirt.

I received a medal for my work. “For outstanding bravery in service of the American Republic, her citizens or sons of war in the daunting presence of the enemy.” Words inscribed on the back of a silver wolves head now pinned to my new uniform. The same animal that occupies our flag. The red and white stripes guarded by a ferocious beast.

I expected to be chewed out for stepping out of line. Instead, punishment gave way to practicality and I was given the ability to be more than a subject for propaganda.  I agreed to become a Lance Corporal for the first company in the division. A hybrid of marksman and field medic, whatever the situation calls for. I’m happy to serve my country however I can, even if the task has become more deadly. I will answer the call, even if I maybe one of the only woman on the battlefield of this war. I know I still have to earn the respect of the men around me, citizen soldier or foreign volunteer. I know I can rise to the challenge George. I know I can prove myself to be a model soldier, perhaps an officer if I get lucky. I know I can be the strong woman you believe in. I know that together our united effort from around the globe can crush the tyrants of the North.

I don’t expect you to forgive me for what I’ve sin to you George. I want nothing more than to be back by your side. To be held in your arms that seem to protect me from the horrors of the world. We might be in for a lengthy war, but I have eternal confidence, our armies, our allies, our mission for freedom for all Americans; not just those in the Bears preferred party. Our armies will march north until we reach the Canadian boarder, crushing all resistance in our path. Then George, perhaps we can be together once again.

Lance Corporal y/n Crabtree.

[rasackyousof]

KACAAN | There was no choice.

Half a century ago, on 21st October, 1969, following the death of former Somali president, the Somali National Army took over power filling a political and institutional vacuum brought about by internal turmoil, incompetence and a corrupt government.

The October revolution was the beginning of a new era, which many consider the golden age of the modern Somali nation, the end of which was, nevertheless, disastrous.

The Mastermind

The October revolution (better known as The KACAAN) was engineered and led by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre.

Barre was born in Shiilaabo, in what is now the Somali State of Ethopia, in about 1910. S. Barre travelled to Lugh and Mogadishu in the then Somalia Italiana for what formal schooling he had and later joined the Corpo Zaptie, Polizia Africana Italiana.

After British Commonwealth forces overran the Italian colony early in 1941, S. Barre went on a course run by the King's African Rifles at Kabetti, in Kenya, and thereafter was employed in the special branch of the British Colonial Police, which took control of the Corpo Zaptie. This experience was his introduction to political intrigue, at which he proved adept. He rose to the highest rank then possible for an indigenous Somali.

In 1949, when Italy was granted United Nations Trusteeship over Somalia to prepare for independence after 10 years, S. Barre was awarded a two-year scholarship to the Carabinieri Police College in Italy, and thereafter he attended courses in politics and administration in Mogadishu. He was the first Somali to be commissioned as a full police officer.

When Somalia's own police force was formed, S. Barre had won accelerated promotion to the rank of Brigadier-General of Police. Barre opted for the Somali National Army on its formation in April 1960. He was one of its deputy commanders and was promoted to succeed the Commander-in-Chief when the latter died in 1965.

The Revolution

On 15 October 1969, Somalia's second president, H.E. Abdirashid Ali Sharmake, was assassinated in the town of Las-Anod in northern Somalia by a policeman whilst touring a drought-stricken area.

In a stark breach of the constitution of the newly founded State, several members of the parliament recommended that a candidate belonging to the same sub-clan as the assassinated president should inherit the post. It was agreed that Haji Muse Boqor, a Mogadishu businessman and close relative of the late president, be elected. As a result of the rampant corruption and vote-buying culture prevalent at the time, a bidding war was initiated where corrupt candidates were bidding on the price of the presidency. Not surprisingly, Haji Muse Bogor was leading the group (with a payment approximated at £4,000, according to some). A deal was struck and the parliament was set to vote for the fixed candidate in exchange for promised bribe, promising a continuation of the status quo.

The days following the assassination of the president were a clear demonstration of incompetence and a total chaos, diminishing the support and the trust the public had in the venal government. The ineptitude and endemic corruption practices not only aggravated the majority of the Somali population but the armed forces as well. It became clear that the nation was in a dire need of salvation.

In the early morning of 21 October 1969, the date which was set for the parliament to convene and present the presidency to the agreed candidate, Haji Muse Boqor, Somalia’s military intervened and seized all the strategic points in the capital and the main streets, immediately arresting all the members of parliament, several politicians linked to tribal chiefs or foreign interests and the lobbyists.

On 24 October, in a broadcasted speech, General S. Barre explained the reason behind the take-over:

"I would like to state clearly the reason for the take-over of the country by Armed Forces. I want our people to know that everything is going on as usual and that no problems have arisen as a result of the Revolution. The entire country is in the hands of the National Army and the Police Force. Intervention by Armed Forces was inevitable. It was no longer possible to ignore the evil things like corruption, bribery, nepotism, theft of public funds, injustice and disrespect to our religion and the laws of the country. The laws were thrust aside and people did whatever they wanted. No group or family can live happily if they do not respect their laws and regulations. There will be no development or any sort of progress for a nation if the laws of the country are forgotten. The corruption has culminated in the assassination of prominent leaders of the country. Somalia was on the point of collapse, not economically and politically alone, but disaster threatened historically and nationally as well. If we look back on recent events in the country, we will see how a peaceful land was changing to violence. Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the late president, was assassinated by a simple soldier who did not know him and who had no quarrel with him. We will not give a chance to wrong doers and law breakers.

We will abolish bribery, nepotism and tribalism. Tribalism was the only way in which foreigners got their chance of dividing our people. We will close all roads used by colonialists to enter our country and into our affairs. We will build up a great Somali nation, strongly united and welded together to live in peace. We will make sure the people respect the Islamic religion, if necessary, by all the force and strength we have. We will make Somalia a respected country in its internal and external policies. I would like to ask all Somalis to come out and build their nation, a strong nation, to use all their efforts, energy, wealth and brains in developing their country. At all costs avoid begging. The Imperialists, who always want to see people in hunger, disease and ignorance, will oppose us in order that we may beg them. They will spread many types of lies to try to misinterpret our noble aims and objectives.

They will try to persuade the world, and even other African states, to believe their lies. Apart from these lies, they will call us many evil names. They are, at present, collecting arms, money and many other necessary things for them to work against us. We are very happy and thankful to see the unity of the Armed Forces and the Somali population. The nation has given us true support for which we are very grateful. Nothing will harm us if we go on supporting each other for the sake of our country and nation. Lets us join hands in crushing the enemy of our land." - Barre, 1969

Notable Achievements

The Supreme Revolutionary Council established large-scale public works programs and successfully implemented an urban and rural literacy campaign, which helped dramatically increase the literacy rate. In addition to a nationalization program of industry and land, the new regime's foreign policy placed an emphasis on Somalia's traditional and religious links with the Arab world, eventually joining the Arab League (AL) in 1974. That same year, General Barre also served as chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the African Union (AU).

One of the principal objectives of the revolutionary regime was the adoption of a standard national writing system. Shortly after coming to power, Barre introduced the Somali language (Af Soomaali) as the official language of education, and selected the modified Latin script developed by the Somali linguist Shire Jama Ahmed as the nation's standard orthography. In 1972, all government employees were ordered to learn to read and write Somali within six months. The reason given for this was to decrease a growing rift between those who spoke the colonial languages, and those who didn't.

The Downfall

Part of Barre's time in power was characterized by oppressive dictatorial rule, including persecution, jailing and torture of political opponents and dissidents.

By the mid-1980s, more resistance movements supported by Ethiopia's communist Derg administration had sprung up across the country. Barre responded by ordering punitive measures against the clans he perceived as locally supporting the guerillas, especially in the northern regions. The clampdown included bombing of cities, with the northwestern administrative center of Hargeisa, a Somali National Movement (SNM) stronghold, among the targeted areas in 1988. The bombardment was led by General Mohammed Said Hersi Morgan, Barre's son-in-law, and resulted in the deaths of many civillians in the north.

Other Ethiopian-backed rebels who fought Barre's regime include; SSDF, USC and SPM, all of which were clan-based rebellion.

Eventually, the rebels, who lacked a shared post-Barre vision for the country, succeeded in ousting Barre and forced him out of the capital, throwing the country into chaos and civil war.

Barre's regime came to an end on 26th January, 1991.

My Note

Even though the Somali people have grown widely apart and portions of our history may be considered as contentious, and sometimes polarising, we should preserve every bit of our history, celebrate the positive, learn from the negative and use it to build a better future for the generations to come.

[newstfionline]

Thursday, September 23, 2021

Racism, climate and divisions top UN agenda as leaders meet (AP) Racism, the climate crisis and the world’s worsening divisions will take center stage at the United Nations on Wednesday. China’s President Xi Jinping warned that “the world has entered a period of new turbulence and transformation.” Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö said: “We are indeed at a critical juncture.” And Costa Rica’s President Carlos Alvarado Quesada declared: “The future is raising its voice at us: Less military weaponry, more investment in peace!” Speaker after speaker at Tuesday’s opening of the nearly week-long meeting decried the inequalities and deep divisions that have prevented united global action to end the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed nearly 4.6 million lives and is still raging, and the failure to sufficiently tackle the climate crisis threatening the planet. Perhaps the harshest assessment of the current global crisis came from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who opened his state of the world address sounding an “alarm” that “the world must wake up.” “Our world has never been more threatened or more divided,” he said. “We face the greatest cascade of crises in our lifetimes.” “We are on the edge of an abyss—and moving in the wrong direction,” the secretary-general warned.

Shutdowns and Showdowns (1440) Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are gearing up for a pair of legislative showdowns over the next week and a half, set in motion by two decisions over the past two days. The first focuses on government funding and the debt ceiling. If Congress does not provide funding for fiscal year 2022 by midnight Sept. 30, the federal government will face a shutdown. Similarly, the Treasury Department has said Congress must raise the debt ceiling by mid-October to avoid default. House Democrats passed yesterday a bill pairing short-term funding through Dec. 3 with a debt ceiling increase—a move requiring the support of at least 10 Republican senators. Separately, House Democrats said they planned to bring a $1.2T bipartisan infrastructure deal up for a vote, separate from a $3.5T social spending budget bill. The move pits moderates against progressives, with the latter previously saying they would only support the infrastructure deal if a vote on the budget bill came at the same time. It’s unclear how many House Republicans will support the $1.2T bill.

Haiti Deportations (Foreign Policy) The United States will continue deportation flights to Haiti today as it seeks to repatriate nearly 15,000 migrants who have crossed into U.S. territory in recent days. Videos of federal authorities mistreating the mostly Haitian migrants at a camp in Del Rio, Texas—a town on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border—has led to fierce criticism from Democratic lawmakers and adds to a warning from the head of the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR that the deportations may violate international law. The move could also be seen as hypocritical; just over 7 weeks ago, on Aug. 3, the Biden administration extended protected status to Haitian migrants in the United States, in light of what the Department of Homeland Security called a “deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses” in their home country. The legal authority under which Biden has carried out the expulsion has also been called into question. Title 42, a Trump-era authorization implemented at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic to expel asylum seekers immediately on the grounds that they could spread disease, has been maintained by the Biden administration. Last week, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from enforcing the policy, a decision that is now being appealed by the U.S. government. Amid a surge of migrants crossing into the United States this year, Title 42 has been applied regularly; figures from U.S. customs authorities show roughly 700,000 expulsions took place under the Biden administration to date, nearly twice the amount that took place under President Donald Trump.

Lithuania says throw away Chinese phones due to censorship concerns (Reuters) Lithuania’s Defense Ministry recommended that consumers avoid buying Chinese mobile phones and advised people to throw away the ones they have now after a government report found the devices had built-in censorship capabilities. Flagship phones sold in Europe by China’s smartphone giant Xiaomi have a built-in ability to detect and censor terms such as “Free Tibet”, “Long live Taiwan independence” or “democracy movement”, Lithuania’s state-run cybersecurity body said on Tuesday. The capability in Xiaomi’s Mi 10T 5G phone software had been turned off for the “European Union region”, but can be turned on remotely at any time, the Defence Ministry’s National Cyber Security Centre said in the report.

Toxic gas, new rivers of molten lava endanger Spanish island (AP) As a new volcanic vent blew open and unstoppable rivers of molten rock flowed toward the sea, authorities on a Spanish island warned Tuesday that more dangers lie ahead for residents, including earthquakes, lava flows, toxic gases, volcanic ash and acid rain. Several small earthquakes shook the island of La Palma in the Atlantic Ocean off northwest Africa on Tuesday, keeping nerves on edge after a volcanic eruption on Sunday. The rivers of lava, up to six meters (nearly 20 feet) high, rolled down hillsides, burning and crushing everything in their path, as they gradually closed in on the island’s more densely populated coast. Canary Islands government chief Ángel Víctor Torres said “when (the lava) reaches the sea, it will be a critical moment.” The meeting of the lava, whose temperature exceeds 1,000 degrees Celsius (more than 1,800 F), with a body of water could cause explosions and produce clouds of toxic gas. A change in the wind direction blew the ashes from the volcano across a vast area on the western side of the island, with the black particles blanketing everything. Volcanic ash is an irritant for the eyes and lungs. The volcano has also been spewing out between 8,000 and 10,500 tons of sulfur dioxide—which also affects the lungs—every day, the Volcanology Institute said.

Germany’s diversity shows as immigrants run for parliament (AP) Ana-Maria Trasnea was 13 when she emigrated from Romania because her single, working mother believed she would have a better future in Germany. Now 27, she is running for a seat in parliament. “It was hard in Germany in the beginning,” Trasnea said in an interview with The Associated Press. “But I was ambitious and realized that this was an opportunity for me, so I decided to do whatever I can to get respect and integrate.” Trasnea, who is running for the center-left Social Democrats in Sunday’s election, is one of hundreds of candidates with immigrant roots who are seeking a seat in Germany’s lower house of parliament, or Bundestag. While the number in office still doesn’t reflect their overall percentage of the population, the country’s growing ethnic diversity is increasingly visible in politics. There are about 21.3 million people with migrant backgrounds in Germany, or about 26% of the population of 83 million.

Europe’s defense (Foreign Policy) EU leaders will discuss plans for a more coordinated defense posture in an upcoming summit in October, European Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic told reporters on Tuesday. “I think that after Kabul, after AUKUS, this was, I would say the natural conclusion, that we need to focus more on the strategic autonomy,” Sefcovic said, referring to the recent trilateral defense pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Kremlin’s party gets 324 of 450 seats in Russian parliament (AP) Russia’s ruling party will get 324 of the 450 seats in the next national parliament, election authorities announced Tuesday. The number is less than the pro-Kremlin party, United Russia, won in the previous election but still an overwhelming majority. Retaining the party’s dominance in the State Duma was widely seen as crucial for the Kremlin ahead of Russia’s presidential election in 2024. President Vladimir Putin’s current term expires that year, and he is expected either to seek reelection or to choose another strategy to stay in power. A parliament the Kremlin can control could be key to both scenarios, analysts and Kremlin critics say. Most opposition politicians were excluded from the parliamentary election that concluded Sunday, which was tainted by numerous reports of violations and voter fraud.

Queued (WSJ) As of Sunday, there were 73 ships waiting to unload cargo at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, a brutal logjam just as holiday cargo hits U.S. shores. There are few options around it, given that last year the ports handled 8.8 million containers, more than double the runner-up port of New York and New Jersey which handled 3.9 million. Oakland and Seattle aren’t big enough to handle the hundreds of thousands of boxes handled in L.A. and Long Beach every week, and while some shippers had been heading to East Coast ports for a while, word about that hack got around rather quickly, and so it’s getting just as bad on the Atlantic, with 20 ships queued at Savannah.

Wednesday’s autumnal equinox (Washington Post) Summer often seems to last deep into September these days. However, the autumnal equinox—which arrives Wednesday at 3:21 p.m. Eastern time—is a reminder from Mother Nature that fall is finally on our doorstep. We are now seeing just over 12 hours of daylight, having reached the halfway point between our longest and shortest days of the year. The autumnal (or fall) equinox, which usually falls on Sept. 22 or 23, is technically not a day-long astronomical event. It’s a brief moment in time when the sun appears directly over the Earth’s equator before crossing into the Southern Hemisphere. Like the spring equinox in March, the fall equinox is one of only two days each year when most of the Earth experiences about 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. Day and night are nearly equal because we are at a point in our orbit when neither hemisphere is tilted away from or toward the sun. In the Northern Hemisphere, the autumnal equinox means we are entering the dark season and inching closer toward winter.

[tanzmitmirsblog]

TUDORS

The Tudor dynasty has earned the title of the most brilliant period while adding strong monarchy foundations to the British state. There were members of the dynasty who contributed to this brilliant period: Henry VII, his son Henry VIII, Mary and Elizabeth.  Henry VII knew how to get along with neighboring countries. Also, his son Henry VIII was more ambitious than his father and he aimed to play an important role in European politics.  Mary united Spain and England by marriage. Elizabeth I defeated the powerful navy of Spain and she said officials posts to avoid asking Parliament for money. Elizabeth and her advisers considered trade the most important foreign policy matter. Whichever country was England’s greatest trade rival was also its greatest enemy. A fleet of merchant ships was started by Henry VII. Henry VIII traded guns. There was a merchant expansion in the time of Elizabeth. Although foreign trade progressed, there was a conflict between England and Spain. England sided with the Dutch rebels, the Protestants in their battle against Spain. English ships had already been attacking Spanish ships ad they returned from America loaded with silver and gold. This was the result of Spain’s refusal to allow England to trade freely with Spanish American colonies. The treasure was shared with the queen. Elizabeth apologized to Spain but kept her share of what had been taken from Spanish ships. Philip built a great fleet of ships, an “Armada”, to move his army across the English Channel from the Netherlands. However, in 1587 Francis Drake attacked and destroyed part of this fleet in Cadiz harbor. Philip started again and built the largest fleet that had ever gone to sea. But most ships were designed to carry soldiers, and the few fighting ships were not as good as the English ones. English ships were longer and narrower so that they were faster, and their guns could also shoot further than the Spanish ones. The Spanish Armada was defeated by bad weather. For England, it was a glorious moment, yet it did not lead to an end of the war with Spain, and England found itself having to spend more than ever on England’s defence. Peace was only made with Spain once Elizabeth was dead. Both before and after the Armada, Elizabeth followed two policies. She encouraged English sailors like John Hawkins and Francis Drake to continue to attack and destroy Spanish ships bringing gold, silver, and other treasures back from the newly discovered continent of America. She also encouraged English traders to settle abroad and to create colonies. Sir Walter Raleigh, one of the first English colonies, brought tobacco back to England. The settlers tried without success to start profitable colonies in Virginia, which was named after Elizabeth. England also began selling West African slaves to work for the Spanish in America. John Hawkins carried his first slave cargo in 1562. By 1650 slavery had become an important trade, bringing wealth particularly to Bristol in southwest England. It took until the end of the eighteenth century for this trade to be ended. Chartered companies were as common as slavery was. A charter gave a company the right to all the business in its particular trade or region. In return for this significant advantage, the chartered company gave some of its profits to the Crown. There was the Eastland company to trade with Scandinavia and the Baltic, the Levant company to trade with the Ottoman Empire, the Africa company to trade in slaves and the East India Company to trade with India. The Tudor dynasty ruled not only in England but also in some countries. For instance, closer to home, the Tudors did their best to bring Wales, Ireland, and Scotland under English control. Henry VII was half Welsh and he loves the Welsh. In contrast to his father, Henry VIII’s interest was in power and authority, through direct control. He wanted the Welsh to become English. Between 1536 and 1543 Wales became joined England under one administration. The Welsh gentry became part of the ruling English establishment. Welshmen entered the English parliament. English became the only official language, and Welsh was soon only spoken in the hills. Although Welsh was not allowed as an official language, Henry VIII permitted a Welsh bible to be printed, which became the basis on which the Welsh language survived. Henry VIII wanted to bring Ireland under his authority. He persuaded the Irish parliament to recognize him as king of Ireland. Henry also tried to make the Irish accept his English church reformation. Henry VIII failed to get what he wanted in Ireland. He made things worse by bringing Irish nationalism and Catholicism together against English rule. Ireland became England’s first important colony. The Protestant settlers took most of the good land in Ulster. This colonization did not make England richer, but it destroyed much of Ireland’s society and economy. Scottish rulers sought to promote the same kind of centralized monarchy that the Tudors had so successfully developed in England. Knowing how weak they were, the Scottish kings usually avoided war with England. By the time Mary returned as queen to Scotland from France, Scotland had become officially, and popularly protestant. The Scottish nobles who supported the friendship of England had welcomed Protestantism for both political and economic reasons. Unlike the English, the Scots were careful not to give monarch authority over the kirk. The reformation took place while the queen, Mary was not in Scotland and unable to interfere. Protestantism had spread quickly through the Scottish universities. The new kirk in Scotland disliked Mary and her French Catholicism. Mary was careful not to give the kirk any reason for actually opposing her. She made it clear she would try to bring back Catholicism. In addition to her Catholicism and her strong French culture, she had shown very poor judgment. When James VI who was Mary’s son was the Scottish king, he brought the Catholic and Protestant nobles and also the kirk more or less under royal control. Like the Tudors, he was a firm believer in the authority of the crown. He worked with small councils of ministers, rather than a parliament. James VI’s greatest success was in gaining the English throne when Elizabeth died in 1603 at the unusually old age of 70. The Tudor monarchs did not like governing through parliament. Henry VII had used parliament only for making law. Henry VIII had used it first to use the money for his military adventures. Tudor monarchs were certainly not more democratic than earlier kings, but they increased parliament’s authority while using parliament to strengthen their policy. During the century, power moved from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. The idea of getting rid of the House of Lords, still a real question in British politics, was first suggested in the sixteenth century. Parliament did not really represent the people. Few members of parliament followed the rule of living in the area they represented, and the monarchy used its influence to make sure that many MPS would support royal policy rather than the wishes of their electors. To control discussion in parliament, the Crown appointed a speaker. Even today the speaker is responsible for good behavior during debates in the House of Commons. Until the end of the Tudor period, parliament was supposed to some things such as agreeing to the taxes needed, making the laws which the Crown suggested, and advising the Crown but only when asked to do. In order for parliament to be able to do these things, members of parliament were given important rights. These were freedom from fear of arrest and freedom to meet and speak to the monarch. The Tudor monarchs realized that while asking parliament for money they were giving it power in the running of the kingdom. All the Tudor monarchs tried to get money in other ways. For example, Elizabeth sold monopolies that gave a particular person or company to take control over trade, and also, she sold official positions in government. During the sixteenth century, Tudors asked parliament to discuss, law-make, and advise on almost every subject. Parliament naturally began to think it had a right to discuss these questions. In the seventeenth century, when the gentry and merchant classes were far more aware of their own strength, it was obvious that parliament would challenge the Crown. Eventually, this resulted in war. If we look at the Tudors from a social and economic perspective, we can say there are many changes. The population increased. The unused land was cleared for sheep and large areas of forest were cut down to provide wood for the growing shipbuilding industry. England was beginning to experience greater social and economic problems than ever before. The price of food and other goods rose steeply during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. This inflation was without equal until the twentieth century. A greater problem was the sudden increase in population. Twice the number of people needed twice the amount of food. It was not produced. Living conditions got worse as the population rose. In the countryside, the people who did best in this situation were the yeoman farmers. They produced food to sell and employed men to work in their area. They worked as farmers during the week but they were gentlemen on Sundays. Most people had to pay rent for the land because of the growing population, it was harder for a man to find work or to produce enough food for his family. Many landowners found they could make more money from sheep farming than from growing crops. In order to keep sheep, they fenced off land that had always belonged to the whole village. Enclosing land in this way was often against the law since JPS were themselves landlords and few peasants could prevent it. As a result, many poor people lost the land they farmed as well as the common land where they kept animals and the total amount of land used for growing food was reduced. All through the century the government tried to control enclosures but without much success. Many people became unemployed. The pilgrimage of Grace was cruelly put down and its leaders were executed. Without work to do, many people stole food in order to eat. It is thought that about 7,000 thieves were hanged during Henry VIII’s reign. In 1601, parliament passed the first poor law. This made local people responsible for the poor in their own area. It gave power to JPS to raise money in the parish to provide food housing and work for the poor and homeless of the same parish. The production of finished cloth, the most important of England’s products, reached its greatest importance during the sixteenth century. The successful men of this new capitalist class showed off their success while building magnificent houses and churches in the villages where they worked. By using cool instead of wood fires, Tudor England learned how to make greatly improved steel, necessary for modern weapons. Improved steel was used for making knives and forks, clocks, waters, nails, and pins. Birmingham, while using coal fires to make steel, grew in the sixteenth century from a village into an important industrial city. Speaking of economics so much, let's take a little bit of social life. Women in England had greater freedom than anywhere else in Europe. They were allowed free and easy ways with strangers. There was a dark side to married life. Most women bore between eight and fifteen children and many women died in childbirth. Deep emotional ties often seem to have been absent due to the fact that marriage was often an economic arrangement. When a wife died, a husband looked for another. Both rich and poor lived in small family groups. In spite of the hard conditions of life, most people had a larger and better home to live in than ever before. Chimneys that had only been found in the homes of the rich were now built-in every house. For the first time, more than one room could be used in winter. One group of people suffered badly during the Tudor period. These were unmarried women. This is a direct result of the dissolution of monasteries. Before the reformation, many of these women could become nuns and be assured that they would be safe and respected in religious life. After the dissolution of monasteries, thousands became beggars on the roads of England. In the future, an unmarried woman could only hope to be a servant in someone else’s house or to be kept by her own family. She had little choice in her life. Finally, I would like to mention the culture and language of the Tudor era. People started to think of London pronunciation as correct pronunciation. Until Tudor times the local forms of speech had been spoken by lord and peasant alike. From Tudor times, onwards the way people spoke begin to show the difference between them. Educated people began to speak correct English and uneducated people continued to speak the local dialect. Literacy increased greatly during the mid-sixteenth century. In the early years of the sixteenth century, English thinkers had become interested in the work of the Dutch, philosopher Erasmus is one of them, Thomas More wrote a study of the ideal nation called Utopia, which became extremely popular throughout Europe. The renaissance also influenced religion, encouraging the Protestant reformation as well as a freer approach to ways of thinking within the catholic church. Literature was England’s greatest art form. Playwrights like Christopher Marlowe, Ben Johnson, and William Shakespeare filled the theatres with their exciting new plays. Nothing shows the adventurous spirit of the age better than the soldier poets. These were true renaissance men who were both brave and cruel in the war, but also highly educated. Sir Edmund Spenser, who fought with the army in Ireland, was one. Sir Philip Sidney killed fighting the Spanish in the Netherlands, was another. A third was Sir Walter Raleigh, adventurer, and poet. They are founders of English nationalism in literature. To sum up, the Tudor dynasty, which has both bright and dark times, is one of the powerful dynasties that have survived for a long time.   -Tanzmitmirsblog                                                

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Comparison Of Different Models Of Democracy

By Ryan Reeves, East Carolina University Class of 2022

March 9, 2021

Comparative politics is one of the vaguer aspects of political science and gives perspective to a variety of subjects. One of those subjects is the comparison between government structures and how they have developed over the years. We begin by comparing the United Kingdom and United States’ governmental structure and give key points on the commonalities and differences. The United States overcame the strict executive power of the British regime and founded a system of checks and balances with two congressional chambers and three branches.

“The United Kingdom is what you would call a monarchy with republic influences whereas the United States is a republic with monarchial influences” (“The difference between UK and US governments: a brief guide”). This has been true since the time of the revolution. However, the chief executive of the United States (president) who combines being head of state and government but has to have approval from congress. The president has similar functions as a pre-18th century English king. They needed approval from parliament to raise taxes or do anything at a national level. The president of the United States has up to eight years (two four-year terms) they can serve and is elected by its people through an electoral college system. The United Kingdom has a split executive, they do not elect the queen who has no political power, but they do elect their prime minister, who is their head of government.

The separation of powers is a major building block the United States built their system on. This means that the three branches of government have checks and balances which ensure that they do not intrude upon one another. In the United Kingdom’s checks and balances are interdependent. The Prime Minister and members of parliament, either House of Commons or of House of Lords, have to be appointed from the upper house. A common question is, “How much power does the queen actually hold?” “Up until the 19th century, monarchs played an active role in the choice of a prime minister, cabinet members, and various other executive members.” (The difference between UK and US governments: a brief guide) Currently, the queen holds no political power and has no choice but to invite whoever can command majority in parliament. Historically it has been known that if the House of Commons and Lords loses confidence in the Prime Minister, they will invite the Queen to have an election or appoint someone else.

“The United Kingdom is among a constitutional crisis that was first seen during the Edwardian period.”(The difference between UK and US governments: a brief guide”) The constitutional system seems to be weakened because there is no clear line between the Prime Minister and the Legislator. On the topic of Brexit, you see that there is no clear line between the prime minister and legislation. Since May’s resignation was sudden, the House of Commons didn’t have time to deliver a vote of confidence which is an affidavit given by parliament that they believe in their current leader. The problem is, since Brexit requires both houses to agree and power is incredibly mismanaged among parliament, it seems as though neither side can formally agree on the right thing to do. In context of this happening within the United States, the plaintiff would take it to the judicial system. There are judicial jurisdictions that would all hear the case separately and if said party didn’t like the outcome, they can appeal to a higher court if the case has standing and merit.

Comparing this to congressional legislation, the United States moved to a bicameral system to eliminate the problem that Britain is currently facing. However, US executive power has grown drastically over the last few decades. “The president is also immune to prosecution while in office and some theorists have said that the United States president should use even more power.”(The difference between UK and US governments: a brief guide) The United States practices their style of legislation because they were against the rule of the 17th century Britain which caused them to revolt and succeed. The purpose behind a bicameral government structure is to keep power vested among the branches. The reason the United Kingdom is having problems distributing power and ratifying laws is because they do not have branches in which they can vest rights and powers to. That’s why comparative politics is essential to the research and understanding of global politics, analyzing two government structures allows more perspective various government tendencies and procedures. To the contrary, the United States legislative body has an issue with reaching a common agreement. The Democrats or Republicans can hold the majority or minority in either chamber which gives the opposing party the advantage. This can make it difficult to ratify a bill due to the progressive change of each party and mandatory voting. The United Kingdom votes through the House of Commons and if the case needs to be reviewed, it is sent to the House of Lords who determine its constitutionality and ripeness.

How do we put this into context? The unicameral system has a sovereign monarch which is Queen Elizabeth II and a sovereign leader of the state, Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister. The monarch gives consent to the Prime Minister to execute executive power and it is up to the House of Commons to legislate. If there is a ruling that infringes upon their constitutional ability, the House of Lords hears the case. The United Kingdom has the Conservative Party and the Labor party which encourages the same political polarization as the Republicans and Democrats do in the United States. The United States is a democratic republic, has two chambers of congress, and three branches of government. The President can enact executive orders, but most all legislative acts has to be approved by the House of Representatives and Senate. This style of government grants authority to three branches which creates a system of checks and balances thereby preventing authoritarianism. Both of these governmental structures have their advantages and disadvantages but they’re both constantly evolving which is one of the main reasons so many countries strive for democracy.

______________________________________________________________

(1)   “The Differences between UK and US Governments: a Brief Guide.” HistoryExtra, 26 Nov. 2020, www.historyextra.com/period/modern/us-uk-government-consitution-differences-parliament-house-commons-republic-president-prime-minister/.

[autodidact-adventures]

World War I (Part 47): Deaths and Changes

Emperor Franz Joseph

The Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph died on November 21st, 1916.  He was a very pious and hard-working man, but also rigid and anti-modernity – for example, he refused to use the phone or ride in automobiles. He knelt to say his prayers beside his bed every morning and night, and was completely dedicated to his duty as ruler and to his country's war effort.

Emperor Franz Joseph.

He had developed a cough and fever, but still worked as hard as ever.  He was woken every morning at 3:30am, was at his desk to begin work long before sunrise, and would work until past nightfall, with brief interruptions.  As he got sicker, he still refused to rest.  He would put his head down on his desk, letting his pen fall to the floor, but would always force himself to recover and return to work.

When he was put to bed on the night of his death, he was carried there against his will, saying, “I still have work to do.  Wake me tomorrow at half past three.”  That night he was given the last rites, and died.  The cause of death was pneumonia of the right lung, which he'd developed several days after catching a cold while walking in Schönbrunn Park with King Ludwig III of Bavaria.  He was the third longest-reigning European monarch in history (after Louis XIV, and Prince Johann II of Lichtenstein, who would die in 1929).

Horatio Herbert Kitchener

Herbert Kitchener died on June 5th, 1916, when the cruiser he was travelling on hit a mine near the Scottish coast.  He had been a failure as Minister of War, and only managed to keep the job because he was a public hero – his autocratic manner was counterproductive for working in the cabinet government.  He'd been able to accept the tsar's invitation to Russia because no-one really wanted him in London.

Herbert Kitchener.

Grigori Rasputin

Princess Irina Alexandrovna Romanova was the tsar's only niece, and she was married to Prince Felix Yusupov.  In 1915, Yusupov began obssessed with the belief that Rasputin was a threat to the Romanov regime, and he decided that he must be killed.  He slowly gathered a group of conspirators, including the tsar's cousin Grand Duke Dmitri Romanov.

Felix Yusupov.

On December 29th, Rasputin made a visit to Yusupov's palace.  It has been alleged that Yusupov hinted that his wife might be “made available” to him, but this is not certain.  At any rate, Rasputin arrived wearing a new silk blouse and polished boots, and heavily perfumed – unusual for him, as his hygiene was usually terrible.

Grigori Rasputin.

The details of the first murder attempt are murky.  It's said that he was given wine & candies that were poisoned with a great deal of potassium cyanide, but other accounts say that the person responsible for providing the poison got scared and used cooking powder instead.  There were no effects similar to poison on Rasputin – he got very drunk during the night, but that was all.

There was a great deal of music and dancing, and still Rasputin didn't fall down dead. He even suggested visiting Petrograd's brothels.  Yusupov changed tactics, and drew Rasputin's attention to a silver & crystal crucifix on a nearby cabinet.  When Rasputin went to look at it, Yusupov drew a revolver and shot him in the back; Rasputin collapsed, apparently dead.

The other conspirators had been waiting upstairs, and now they came down to join him in nervous celebration.  But after a while, Rasputin opened his eyes, climbed to his feet, and lunged at Yusupov.  Yusupov broke away and ran up the stairs, with Rasputin following him close behind. He escaped through a door and locked it behind him.

Rasputin left the palace, but on his way to the gate, one of the conspirators began firing a pistol at him.  The first two shots missed, but the third hit him, and again he collapsed.  The shooter came closer and fired again, believing that this time he'd shot him in the head.  Yusupov ran out of the palace with a club, and whacked Rasputin with it several times.  Rasputin sank back – yet again apparently dead.

They wrapped his body in a curtain, tied it up with rope, and threw him into the ice-cold canal outside the gates.  When his body was eventually recovered, the police investigators found that Rasputin had still been alive when he was thrown in, as he'd managed to work his way out of his bindings.  An autopsy showed that the cause of death was drowning.

A letter was found in his belongings, written a few days before his death.  Rasputin had addressed it to, “the Russian people, to Papa [the tsar], to the Russian Mother and to the Children, to the land of Russia.”  He predicted that he wouldn't see the new year, and warned, “Tsar of the land of Russia, if you hear the sound of the bell which will tell you that Grigori has been killed, you must know this: if it was your relations who have wrought my death then no-one of your family, that is to say none of your children or relations, will remain alive for more than two years.  They will all be killed by the Russian people.”

The public were delighted that Rasputin was dead, and although Yusupov & his conspirators denied having done it, they were hailed as heroes. Rasputin was buried in Romanov parkland in a secret funeral that was attended by only a few people, including the tsar, tsarina & their children.

Herbert Henry Asquith & David Lloyd George

Henry Asquith was the British Prime Minister; he'd been a skilled leader of the Liberal government, and then of the coalition government that replaced it. But David Lloyd George (currently in charge of munitions) was demanding an increasingly bigger role in managing the war, and his demands got to a point that Asquith felt he couldn't fulfil them without becoming a figurehead himself.  When Asquith got the news that his son had died at the Battle of the Somme, he was unable to keep himself focused, and when he “misplayed his hand”, Lloyd George seized his opportunity and replaced him.

Henry Asquith.

David Lloyd George.

Lloyd had been orphaned very young, and his shoemaker uncle raised him in Wales.  He began working as a law clerk, tried to gain admission to the bar, married a farmer's daughter, and at 27yrs old was elected to Parliament as a member of the Liberal Party.  He was a “firebrand reformer”, pushed for progressive legislation, and supported agricultural & industrial workers.

At 1908, when he was 45yrs old, he became chancellor of the exchequer.  Prior to the war, he opposed military & overseas spending, preferring to focus on domestic programmes.  However, this hurt him politically, and he learned that he had to be careful not to alienate the Conservatives too much.

In July 1914, Lloyd George was one of the main Liberal ministers who resisted war. But when Germany invaded Belgium and public opinion shifted towards war, he quickly changed his stance.  During the war, he was a great supporter of it, and pushed for total British commitment.  He rejected any settlement that wasn't total victory, and this was controversial at times.  He was the force that got the conscription laws pushed through in 1915.  Also during that year, he gave up his position at the treasury to become Minister of Munitions, in response to that year's shell crisis.

After Kitchener died in June, Lloyd George pushed and maneouvred, and bullied when necessary, to get himself to the position of Secretary of State for War.  He was more powerful & effective than Kitchener had been. On December 6th, 1916, he became Prime Minister, and he would be a strong leader for the country.  However, he would often be at bitter odds with the leading British generals – Chief of the Imperial General Staff William Robertson, and Douglas Haig in the BEF.

[omgstupendousbouquetbasement]

Return of Street Protests Pose Little Threat to Thai Government for Now 

Thailand's pro-military government has little to fear for now from the sharp shift in tactics by a leading opposition party that called thousands of its supporters into the streets over the weekend to demand democratic reforms, analysts say. 

That could change, though, if the government's crackdown on critics picks up and the economy continues to stutter, some of them warned. The Bank of Thailand clipped its growth forecast in gross domestic product for 2020 from 3.3% to 2.8% earlier this week.    Saturday saw a rally in the heart of Bangkok's shopping district estimated by some participants to have attracted a crowd of at least 5,000. The Future Forward party, which called for the rally the day before, claims the turnout was twice that. Either way, it was the largest protest Thailand has seen since a military coup in 2014.  

Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit told a cheering crowd that the gathering was "just the beginning," a "test run" for bigger protests to come starting next month. 

FILE - Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit of Thailand's progressive Future Forward party talks to his supporters during an unauthorized flash mob rally in Bangkok, Thailand, Dec. 14, 2019.

"Protesters are unlikely to follow past patterns of staying in the streets for days and weeks but will be more amorphous," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, who lectures on Thai politics at Chulalongkorn University.    "The government, with military backing and help from other agencies, can withstand. But what undermines government longevity are economic doldrums in conjunction with general disenchantment with abuse of power," he said.    Return to the junta    Critics see the government, installed in a tainted general election in March that ended five years of military rule, as little more than a rerun of the junta it replaced.  

However, given the military's continued popularity among older Thais, a government at the helm of a powerful state propaganda machine, and the threat of arrest for joining unsanctioned rallies like Saturday's, the opposition will struggle to muster crowds much larger than the weekend's, said Wanwichit Boonprong, an assistant professor of political science at Rangsit University.    "It's not the right time to expand [to] bigger protest," he said.    Future Forward is already under a barrage of legal challenges the party and its supporters believe to be politically motivated. Last month, the Constitutional Court disqualified Thanathorn from the National Assembly, Thailand's parliament, for owning shares in a media company while running for office. Future Forward itself is facing dissolution over a loan Thanathorn, an auto parts billionaire, extended his young party to see it through the campaign.    Pandit Chanrochanakit, an assistant professor of political science at Chulalongkorn, said he also saw the new push for protests posing little threat to the government for the time being.    He said, though, that they could snowball if the government reacted to the challenge with an increasingly heavy hand.    "It depends on the situation," he said. "If the government responds in a way that cannot satisfy the public, that all the cases will be conducted with fair[ness] and justice ... people would come out more," he said.    He said the lawsuits police have filed against Thanathorn for organizing Saturday's rally without official permission proved that the government was already nervous.    Limiting the military’s influence    Thanathorn hinted at the protests months ago. He told VOA in July that he saw no way to pressure the government into constitutional amendments that would limit the military's influence — a core goal of the party — without them.    "Maybe not now, but one way or another. Eventually, if you want to amend the Constitution, if we are going to change it, partly or wholly, there must be rallies," he said at the time.  

FILE - Supporters of the Pheu Thai party react to unofficial results of the general election in Bangkok, Thailand, March 24, 2019. Pheu Thai emerged as the largest party and formed alliances yet was unable to form a government.

The upstart opposition Future Forward finished a strong third in the March polls on a platform of driving Thailand's powerful military out of politics, and Peter Mumford, head of Southeast Asia coverage for the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, believes the opposition is playing the long game, hoping to best the military's proxy parties in future votes.    "I think the opposition parties, including [Future Forward], are not looking to instigate mass social unrest. They recognize disruptive protests would be counterproductive to their long-term goals as they would most likely trigger a harsh crackdown or another coup," he said.    "The risk, though, is whether events get out of control." 

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Q4oGYb via IFTTT

[xxbalamazxx]

It's Time To Let The Party System Die!

Political parties are the core of most governments. Many who vote all over the world in Democracies belong to a party. In the United States, the Democrats and Republicans rule. In the United Kingdom, it is the Tories and Labour. In Canada, it is the Liberal Party and the Conservative parties…. Seeing a trend here? Most countries are being ruled by a two-party system, while there may be dozens of smaller parties present, none of them really hold sway. The reality is that when election time comes it is a choice of the Red or the Blue. While in history the Red and Blue have been opposing views, today it is really just the same groups of Elites putting on different ties. Regardless of whom you vote for, you get screwed. So why the hell are we tolerating it? Our democracies were not designed to run off a two-party system. They were not even designed to run off a party system. Well, most outside the UK and that is a completely different problem as a whole, but we will get to that in a moment. There is evidence that the party system is being rigged, internal deals are being made on both sides of the Isle. What used to be a game of equal politics to keep our systems in solid checks and balance is now being funded by the same sources, regardless of whom you chose. Both sides hold similar policies and views, and both sides are betraying their voters… They no longer care what you have to say... If you don’t vote one candidate into office, those behind them will still get their way with the other.

Congress in Session consisting primarily of Democrats and Republicans A Prime Example: In the last USA election, the people ultimately had a choice of Hillary, who was going to raise taxes anyway, increase the Draft pool by 100% and underlying, had the same policies as trump. The Only thing that made them stand apart was that Hillary was a woman and Donald Trump was a male ( I refuse to call him a man.) If you don’t believe this statement look at the following. President Trump was known for holding his rallies in which he became famous for shouting or having his audience should “ Lock Her Up!” a statement made due to Hillary Clinton's Treason of releasing classified documents. Yet in Opposition Hillary was screaming lock him up! Over his sexual use of Porn stars. On the Trump End, he wanted to abolish Obama care as it was creating Destitution and wanted to increase military spending. Hillary wanted to Fix Obama care as it was not working and increase the Military pool by forcing women, the bearer of our children into the drafting pool. Both had the same agenda, they just worded it differently. They both had the goal of destroying democracy and enslaving our population even more.

British Parliament In Session Consisting Primarily of Tories & Labor In the United Kingdom, the same heinous treason is also occurring. To one side we have the labor party creating riots, screaming in parliament and blockading every bill that comes before the vote. Yet it is becoming commonly known that the Labour party now houses a shared interest that the Tories do. Both want to kill Brexit, Both want to raise taxes. Both want to slash benefits, hell outside the Red and Blue ties the two parties have become the same. Or as I would like to say it, you have the choice of Shit flavored chocolate or chocolate-flavored Shit. Either way, it is the same… In truth, it does not matter where you look, or what you do. You cannot find true representation in your governments any longer, the parties are filled with the same Elites, backed by the same money. After election day they will all break their campaign promises and move into action for those who had financed them… So what can we do? You can unregister from your party, you refuse to vote for a party candidate. Our great system of democracy only works when we vote for independent candidates. Most of the time these candidates hold no affiliation with corporations, or large money such as lobbyists or big pharmaceutical companies, or even oil giants…

Money Changes hands all the time. A Lie has been told that if you vote for an independent politician that you're wasting your vote. Yet in the USA alone only 48% to 51% of all citizens of voting age vote. This disparity in voting is occurring because they see no point in voting. They don’t believe it will change a thing. But what if instead, we stop buying into the lie of “ Your vote will be wasted.” We look at the truth unless the parties were openly willing to rig an election on large degrees ( ground for open civil war.). Any mass vote for a non-affiliated president, congressmen or senator would begin to shift the balance and dynamic of power. For those who would reiterate that an independent politician cannot be trusted... I would like to point out that most of America’s great presidents have All been Independent politicians, separate and standing apart from any party and thus any big lobby. What Happens If We Don’t Force A Change? The answer is simple. Nothing will change, your taxes will continue to go up, your rights will be stripped even more. Actions that NEED to occur that stand against Corporate profit will never happen. Right now we are facing the world's worse crisis of pollution that is wiping out entire species. It does not matter if you want to call it Climate change or global warming. One this is certain if extinction levels continue at the rate it is, we won't be long behind them.

Our Beaches under the new Corrupt Leadership At the risk of causing the oil companies to collapse in a change to Electric, hydrogen and wind-powered power grids, cars, and other major changeovers, it will take decades, decades we don’t have. Already the Big corporate giants have blocked for decades the development of next generational batteries, electric cars and everything we need to progress our society. Patents have been intentionally bought out so they can never be implemented. Inventors have been openly assassinated because it may hurt the bottom line of some big firm. Yet for the sake of the paper Dollar now entire species are dying out.

This was Deemed Not Pollution, resulting in the deaths of many from Mercury Poisoning. If that is not bad enough, in the USA, Canada and the UK, acquisition of wealth is being intentionally herded. The middle class is smaller than it has ever been before. Taxes are being raised in the middle until they break into poverty. Finance is being given to the poor keeping them poor. The Rich are just becoming richer, and soon there will be no way out. Once more the west will be driven into a state of absolute poverty and destitution, or grotesque wealth, nothing in between. Either way, we look at it if something does not change. If the voting population does not wake the hell up and stop falling for these games, your children will be the ones to SUFFER. After all your party is not loyal to you. They are no longer even loyal to the country they are meant to serve. Brexit should have shown the world this when politicians are loyal to the EU and not those who have voted them into power… Or The People of the Great British Nation. Read the full article

[pope-francis-quotes]

24th March >> Pope Francis' Full Address to the European Union leaders gathered together in Vatican City.

Below, please find the full text of Pope Francis' Speech: Distinguished Guests, I thank you for your presence here tonight, on the eve of the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaties instituting the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. I convey to each of you the affection of the Holy See for your respective countries and for Europe itself, to whose future it is, in God’s providence, inseparably linked. I am particularly grateful to the Honourable Paolo Gentiloni, President of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Italy, for his respectful words of greeting in your name and for the efforts that Italy has made in preparing for this meeting. I also thank the Honourable Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, who has voiced the aspirations of the peoples of the Union on this anniversary. Returning to Rome, sixty years later, must not simply be a remembrance of things past, but the expression of a desire to relive that event in order to appreciate its significance for the present. We need to immerse ourselves in the challenges of that time, so as to face those of today and tomorrow. The Bible, with its rich historical narratives, can teach us a basic lesson. We cannot understand our own times apart from the past, seen not as an assemblage of distant facts, but as the lymph that gives life to the present. Without such an awareness, reality loses its unity, history loses its logical thread, and humanity loses a sense of the meaning of its activity and its progress towards the future. 25 March 1957 was a day full of hope and expectation, enthusiasm and apprehension. Only an event of exceptional significance and historical consequences could make it unique in history. The memory of that day is linked to today’s hopes and the expectations of the people of Europe, who call for discernment in the present, so that the journey that has begun can continue with renewed enthusiasm and confidence. This was very clear to the founding fathers and the leaders who, by signing the two Treaties, gave life to that political, economic, cultural and primarily human reality which today we call the European Union. As P.H. Spaak, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, it was a matter "indeed, of the material prosperity of our peoples, the expansion of our economies, social progress and completely new industrial and commercial possibilities, but above all... a particular conception of life that is humane, fraternal and just”. [1] After the dark years and the bloodshed of the Second World War, the leaders of the time had faith in the possibility of a better future. "They did not lack boldness, nor did they act too late. The memory of recent tragedies and failures seems to have inspired them and given them the courage needed to leave behind their old disputes and to think and act in a truly new way, in order to bring about the greatest transformation... of Europe”. [2] The founding fathers remind us that Europe is not a conglomeration of rules to obey, or a manual of protocols and procedures to follow. It is a way of life, a way of understanding man based on his transcendent and inalienable dignity, as something more than simply a sum of rights to defend or claims to advance. At the origin of the idea of Europe, we find "the nature and the responsibility of the human person, with his ferment of evangelical fraternity..., with his desire for truth and justice, honed by a thousand-year-old experience”. [3] Rome, with its vocation to universality, [4] symbolizes that experience and was thus chosen as the place for the signing of the Treaties. For here – as the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, J. Luns, observed – "were laid the political, juridical and social foundations of our civilization”. [5] It was clear, then, from the outset, that the heart of the European political project could only be man himself. It was also clear that the Treaties could remain a dead letter; they needed to take on spirit and life. The first element of European vitality must be solidarity. As the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, J. Bech stated, "the European economic community will prove lasting and successful only if it remains constantly faithful to the spirit of European solidarity that created it, and if the common will of the Europe now being born proves more powerful than the will of individual nations”. [6] That spirit remains as necessary as ever today, in the face of centrifugal impulses and the temptation to reduce the founding ideals of the Union to productive, economic and financial needs. Solidarity gives rise to openness towards others. "Our plans are not inspired by self-interest”, [7] said the German Chancellor, K. Adenauer. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, C. Pineau, echoed this sentiment: "Surely the countries about to unite... do not have the intention of isolating themselves from the rest of the world and surrounding themselves with insurmountable barriers”. [8] In a world that was all too familiar with the tragedy of walls and divisions, it was clearly important to work for a united and open Europe, and for the removal of the unnatural barrier that divided the continent from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic. What efforts were made to tear down that wall! Yet today the memory of those efforts has been lost. Forgotten too is the tragedy of separated families, poverty and destitution born of that division. Where generations longed to see the fall of those signs of forced hostility, these days we debate how to keep out the "dangers” of our time: beginning with the long file of women, men and children fleeing war and poverty, seeking only a future for themselves and their loved ones. In today’s lapse of memory, we often forget another great achievement of the solidarity ratified on 25 March 1957: the longest period of peace experienced in recent centuries. "Peoples who over time often found themselves in opposed camps, fighting with one another... now find themselves united and enriched by their distinctive national identities”. [9] Peace is always the fruit of a free and conscious contribution by all. Nonetheless, "for many people today, peace appears as a blessing to be taken for granted”, [10] one that can then easily come to be regarded as superfluous. On the contrary, peace is a precious and essential good, for without it, we cannot build a future for anyone, and we end up "living from day to day”. United Europe was born of a clear, well-defined and carefully pondered project, however embryonic at first. Every worthy project looks to the future, and the future are the young, who are called to realize its hopes and promises. [11] The founding fathers had a clear sense of being part of a common effort that not only crossed national borders, but also the borders of time, so as to bind generations among themselves, all sharing equally in the building of the common home. Distinguished Guests, I have devoted this first part of my talk to the founding fathers of Europe, so that we can be challenged by their words, the timeliness of their thinking, their impassioned pursuit of the common good, their certainty of sharing in a work greater than themselves, and the breadth of the ideals that inspired them. Their common denominator was the spirit of service, joined to passion for politics and the consciousness that "at the origin of European civilization there is Christianity”, [12] without which the Western values of dignity, freedom and justice would prove largely incomprehensible. As Saint John Paul II affirmed: "Today too, the soul of Europe remains united, because, in addition to its common origins, those same Christian and human values are still alive. Respect for the dignity of the human person, a profound sense of justice, freedom, industriousness, the spirit of initiative, love of family, respect for life, tolerance, the desire for cooperation and peace: all these are its distinctive marks”. [13] In our multicultural world, these values will continue to have their rightful place provided they maintain a vital connection to their deepest roots. The fruitfulness of that connection will make it possible to build authentically "lay” societies, free of ideological conflicts, with equal room for the native and the immigrant, for believers and nonbelievers. The world has changed greatly in the last sixty years. If the founding fathers, after surviving a devastating conflict, were inspired by the hope of a better future and were determined to pursue it by avoiding the rise of new conflicts, our time is dominated more by the concept of crisis. There is the economic crisis that has marked the past decade; there is the crisis of the family and of established social models; there is a widespread "crisis of institutions” and the migration crisis. So many crises that engender fear and profound confusion in our contemporaries, who look for a new way of envisioning the future. Yet the term "crisis” is not necessarily negative. It does not simply indicate a painful moment to be endured. The word "crisis” has its origin in the Greek verb kríno, which means to discern, to weigh, to assess. Ours is a time of discernment, one that invites us to determine what is essential and to build on it. It is a time of challenge and opportunity. So what is the interpretative key for reading the difficulties of the present and finding answers for the future? Returning to the thinking of the founding Fathers would be fruitless unless it could help to point out a path and provide an incentive for facing the future and a source of hope. When a body loses its sense of direction and is no longer able to look ahead, it experiences a regression and, in the long run, risks dying. What, then, is the legacy of the founding fathers? What prospects do they indicate for surmounting the challenges that lie before us? What hope do they offer for the Europe of today and of tomorrow? Their answers are to be found precisely in the pillars on which they determined to build the European economic community. I have already mentioned these: the centrality of man, effective solidarity, openness to the world, the pursuit of peace and development, openness to the future. Those who govern are charged with discerning the paths of hope, identifying specific ways forward to ensure that the significant steps taken thus far have not been wasted, but serve as the pledge of a long and fruitful journey. Europe finds new hope when man is the centre and the heart of her institutions. I am convinced that this entails an attentive and trust-filled readiness to hear the expectations voiced by individuals, society and the peoples who make up the Union. Sadly, one frequently has the sense that there is a growing "split” between the citizenry and the European institutions, which are often perceived as distant and inattentive to the different sensibilities present in the Union. Affirming the centrality of man also means recovering the spirit of family, whereby each contributes freely to the common home in accordance with his or her own abilities and gifts. It helps to keep in mind that Europe is a family of peoples [14] and that – as in every good family – there are different sensitivities, yet all can grow to the extent that all are united. The European Union was born as a unity of differences and a unity in differences. What is distinctive should not be a reason for fear, nor should it be thought that unity is preserved by uniformity. Unity is instead harmony within a community. The founding fathers chose that very term as the hallmark of the agencies born of the Treaties and they stressed that the resources and talents of each were now being pooled. Today the European Union needs to recover the sense of being primarily a "community” of persons and peoples, to realize that "the whole is greater than the part, but it is also greater than the sum of its parts”, [15] and that therefore "we constantly have to broaden our horizons and see the greater good which will benefit us all”. [16] The founding fathers sought that harmony in which the whole is present in every one of the parts, and the parts are – each in its own unique way – present in the whole. Europe finds new hope in solidarity, which is also the most effective antidote to modern forms of populism. Solidarity entails the awareness of being part of a single body, while at the same time involving a capacity on the part of each member to "sympathize” with others and with the whole. When one suffers, all suffer (cf. 1 Cor 12:26). Today, with the United Kingdom, we mourn the victims of the attack that took place in London two days ago. For solidarity is no mere ideal; it is expressed in concrete actions and steps that draw us closer to our neighbours, in whatever situation they find themselves. Forms of populism are instead the fruit of an egotism that hems people in and prevents them from overcoming and "looking beyond” their own narrow vision. There is a need to start thinking once again as Europeans, so as to avert the opposite dangers of a dreary uniformity or the triumph of particularisms. Politics needs this kind of leadership, which avoids appealing to emotions to gain consent, but instead, in a spirit of solidarity and subsidiarity, devises policies that can make the Union as a whole develop harmoniously. As a result, those who run faster can offer a hand to those who are slower, and those who find the going harder can aim at catching up to those at the head of the line. Europe finds new hope when she refuses to yield to fear or close herself off in false forms of security. Quite the contrary, her history has been greatly determined by encounters with other peoples and cultures; hers "is, and always has been, a dynamic and multicultural identity”. [17] The world looks to the European project with great interest. This was the case from the first day, when crowds gathered in Rome’s Capitol Square and messages of congratulation poured in from other states. It is even more the case today, if we think of those countries that have asked to become part of the Union and those states that receive the aid so generously offered them for battling the effects of poverty, disease and war. Openness to the world implies the capacity for "dialogue as a form of encounter” [18] on all levels, beginning with dialogue between member states, between institutions and citizens, and with the numerous immigrants landing on the shores of the Union. It is not enough to handle the grave crisis of immigration of recent years as if it were a mere numerical or economic problem, or a question of security. The immigration issue poses a deeper question, one that is primarily cultural. What kind of culture does Europe propose today? The fearfulness that is becoming more and more evident has its root cause in the loss of ideals. Without an approach inspired by those ideals, we end up dominated by the fear that others will wrench us from our usual habits, deprive us of familiar comforts, and somehow call into question a lifestyle that all too often consists of material prosperity alone. Yet the richness of Europe has always been her spiritual openness and her capacity to raise basic questions about the meaning of life. Openness to the sense of the eternal has also gone hand in hand, albeit not without tensions and errors, with a positive openness to this world. Yet today’s prosperity seems to have clipped the continent’s wings and lowered its gaze. Europe has a patrimony of ideals and spiritual values unique in the world, one that deserves to be proposed once more with passion and renewed vigour, for it is the best antidote against the vacuum of values of our time, which provides a fertile terrain for every form of extremism. These are the ideals that shaped Europe, that "Peninsula of Asia” which stretches from the Urals to the Atlantic. Europe finds new hope when she invests in development and in peace. Development is not the result of a combination of various systems of production. It has to do with the whole human being: the dignity of labour, decent living conditions, access to education and necessary medical care. "Development is the new name of peace”, [19] said Pope Paul VI, for there is no true peace whenever people are cast aside or forced to live in dire poverty. There is no peace without employment and the prospect of earning a dignified wage. There is no peace in the peripheries of our cities, with their rampant drug abuse and violence. Europe finds new hope when she is open to the future. When she is open to young people, offering them serious prospects for education and real possibilities for entering the work force.When she invests in the family, which is the first and fundamental cell of society. When she respects the consciences and the ideals of her citizens. When she makes it possible to have children without the fear of being unable to support them. When she defends life in all its sacredness. Distinguished Guests, Nowadays, with the general increase in people’s life span, sixty is considered the age of full maturity, a critical time when we are once again called to self-examination. The European Union, too, is called today to examine itself, to care for the ailments that inevitably come with age, and to find new ways to steer its course. Yet unlike human beings, the European Union does not face an inevitable old age, but the possibility of a new youthfulness. Its success will depend on its readiness to work together once again, and by its willingness to wager on the future. As leaders, you are called to blaze the path of a "new European humanism” [20] made up of ideals and concrete actions. This will mean being unafraid to take practical decisions capable of meeting people’s real problems and of standing the test of time. For my part, I readily assure you of the closeness of the Holy See and the Church to Europe as a whole, to whose growth she has, and always will, continue to contribute. Invoking upon Europe the Lord’s blessings, I ask him to protect her and grant her peace and progress. I make my own the words that Joseph Bech proclaimed on Rome’s Capitoline Hill: Ceterum censeo Europam esse aedificandam – furthermore, I believe that Europe ought to be built. Thank you.

[brajeshupadhyay]

Behind Pakistan’s cartographic hallucination on Kashmir lies Imran’s domestic woes, China’s invisible hand

Imran Khan is in trouble, to put it mildly. The Pakistan prime minister initially dismissed COVID-19 as common flu and had advised citizens to stay at home even if showing symptoms. When the pandemic raged beyond control, Imran’s answer was to implement a ‘Corona tiger force’, a youth recruitment program to “wage jihad” against the virus.

The virus was unmoved by such gimmicks. As the crisis deepened, an alarmed World Health Organisation shot off a letter in June slamming hasty lifting of lockdown in provinces without meeting any of the requisite conditions and expressed concern over Pakistan’s high positivity rate and lack of testing.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s already fragile, debt-burdened economy is collapsing. According to World Bank estimates, Pakistan is heading towards “major recession”. The New York Times quoted Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, an independent research firm, to report that “up to 18 million of Pakistan’s 74 million jobs could be lost.”

A broke Pakistan is set to become the first large developing country to apply for a debt repayment relief under a G-20 initiative.

Alongside and unsurprisingly, Pakistan’s rickety public health infrastructure is also in a coma. Doctors and caregivers are functioning without basic protective gear and risking public ire to boot.

This is Karachi Civil Hospital. Doctors say over 70 persons attacked it's ER tonight at around 11am. Docs & staff remained unhurt. They say the attackers had iron rods, knives. "KOI CORONA NAHEN HAI. YE SAB DOCTORS KA DRAMA HAI," they shouted. pic.twitter.com/MZsHllxbJ7

— Sameer Mandhro (@smendhro) May 29, 2020

Amid the healthcare disaster, Pakistan is also staring at a food security crisis. Mishandling of the pandemic, lack of government planning, supply chain disruption, unseasonal rains and pestilence may result in a 3.5 million-ton shortfall of wheat, Pakistan’s staple, raising fears that the country is limping towards a famine. It is worth noting that Imran’s popularity was nosediving even before the pandemic. Last year, hardline Islamists hit the streets demanding his ouster. Forced to take a $6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund in last May  — Pakistan’s 13th such bailout since 1980s — Imran had no option but to cut subsidies, devalue further the rupee and raise taxes — all unpopular moves in a struggling economy. While the interventions didn’t work, all that Imran managed to do was to trigger more inflation, slash consumption and witness mass layoffs in private sector. To quote Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) who led the protests against Imran last year, “Khan was ‘selected’ earlier but he has now been rejected.” Imran’s ascension to power was widely believed to have been engineered by Pakistan’s all-powerful military, and Rawalpindi was growing increasingly impatient with Imran’s hubris, inefficiency and incompetence. Imran’s botched  response to coronavirus, falling popularity and waning influence saw Pakistan Army tighten its grip on the civilian government and squeeze further the space for democracy. At the best of times, Imran was a military puppet. His masters have now clipped his wings and taken full control. All major policy decisions on the pandemic are now being taken either by Rawalpindi or army-backed political appointees. Since March, the military has been overruling Imran and releasing public advisories on army letterheads. Imran is aware and unhappy, threatening abruptly to leave press conferences when questioned on his authority. Scholar Madiha Afzal, fellow of Center for Middle East Policy writes in Brookings, “For a time after his election, it seemed that Khan’s closeness with the military might give him the space to implement the domestic policies that he wanted. It seems that period is over. Khan is now clearly constrained by a military whose role has grown progressively through Khan’s term in office and has expanded to the ambit of domestic policy during the pandemic.” The picture that emerges is of a politician rapidly losing popularity, power, influence and control and increasingly given to ranting in Parliament. To add to his pressure, terror financing watchdog Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has kept up the squeeze. Last October, Pakistan received a “clear warning” from the FATF for addressing only five out of 27 action items to tackle terror financing. The FATF had threatened to blacklist Islamabad unless it does more and does so quickly. Pakistan has managed to get one more extension from FATF until October 2020 owing to the pandemic, but it received more setbacks on this front with the US state department bringing out a report on terrorism in June that continues to designate Pakistan as a “safe harbour for regionally focused terrorist groups.” Then there is Kashmir. India’s decision last year to remove Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and bring the erstwhile state under New Delhi’s direct control effectively buried Pakistan’s dreams of seizing the prized real estate for which it has launched multiple wars against India and used terrorism as a State policy since the 1990s to carry out a relentless proxy war and stoke militancy within Indian borders. Kashmir is not only Pakistan’s “jugular vein” or an article of faith, it is central to Pakistan’s national and ideological frontiers. Pakistan never had operation control over Kashmir that acceded to India during Partition except the portion that it had invaded, but a never-ending battle against India to grab Muslim-majority Kashmir remains the fulcrum of Pakistan’s existence as a nation-state. It also makes space for Pakistan military’s outsized role in its polity since it is deemed to be the only institution that can turn that improbability into a reality. As C Christine Fair, author and scholar of South Asian political and military affairs, noted in her book Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War, for the Pakistan Army, failure lies not in unsuccessful attempts to wrest Kashmir from India but in abandoning the effort. In perpetual struggle lies victory. New Delhi’s move to abrogate Article 370 and turn Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory made it even more difficult for the Pakistan to sell its revisionist agenda back home — a despondency best expressed by Opposition leader Sherry Rehman.

Its not only about inappropriate speeches in parliament. Who will stop your PM from destroying Pakistan? Three more years and nothing may be left. Economy is worse, debts r higher,mafias on the rampage, PIA being cannibalised, Kashmir gone, what’s left ?https://t.co/6LTPk8BfWc — SenatorSherryRehman (@sherryrehman) July 2, 2020

In its latest edition of the Green Book, an internal confidential publication of the Pakistan military containing essays by serving officers and others (mostly for in-house consumption), Pakistan’s chief of army staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa admitted that Balakot airstrikes and abrogation of Article 370 have transformed the geopolitics of the region and restricted Pakistan’s options.

The battle for Kashmir isn’t just an existential totem, it is also the silver bullet to paper over all the cracks of a failing State. Stunned by India’s decision, and hamstrung by lack of options, an unprepared Imran launched a vitriolic campaign against India and threatened nuclear holocaust in a column for The New York Times and even from the podium of United Nations last year, but he had little to show for his efforts.

Not just the international community, Khan failed to gain sympathy for his anti-India campaign even in the Arab world.

Imran’s frustration was palpable. At the UN last year, the Pakistan prime minister admitted that he has failed to find any buyers for his apocalyptic narrative on Kashmir, and there was “no pressure on Narendra Modi”.

The reasons behind Pakistan’s failure to corner India on Kashmir have been explained well by Ashley Tellis, former top US government official and now a senior fellow at Carnegie in a report by London-based Financial Times: “India is seen as a great power in waiting, and nobody messes around with the claims of a great power… The Pakistanis have discredited themselves with their use of jihadi terrorism as a means to change the status quo.”

Imran had not only run out of options, but his inefficacy on Kashmir also had a bearing on Pakistan military’s domestic stature. The people in Pakistan were beginning to see that not only will they never get control over their promised land, their ‘infallible’ army actually had a very weak hand. What damaged Pakistan the most was that India’s move went a long way towards decoupling the adjective ‘disputed’ from Kashmir and made it an issue ‘internal’ to India.

Something had to give. And it did. On the first anniversary of India’s abrogation of Article 370, Pakistan released a “new political map” claiming the entire Kashmir and Ladakh, along with Sir Creek and Junagadh in Gujarat.

Among other oddities, the so-called map also has an “undefined frontier” to let China draw its own line while keeping Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin out of its parameters. There has also been another change in nomenclature. ‘Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir’ is now ‘Indian Illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir’ — the extra ‘i’ apparently loosens India’s and fortifies Pakistan’s claim.

The political map of Pakistan unveiled by PM @ImranKhanPTI earlier today. pic.twitter.com/q4jyMTNmlB

— Prime Minister's Office, Pakistan (@PakPMO) August 4, 2020

The “undefined frontier” apart — which indicates that Pakistan is petrified of China and has no clue what Beijing will claim tomorrow — the so-called map evidently is Pakistan’s answer to India’s move on Kashmir.

While India has revoked Kashmir’s ‘semi-autonomous’ status — a temporary constitutional measure — abrogated Article 370 and 35-A, bifurcated the state into two union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and brought Kashmir under the ambit of Indian Constitution, Imran and his cabinet waited for a year to finally take some coloured pencils and redraw the map to snatch Kashmir away from India.

Depending on how one looks at it, Pakistan’s act was a strategic masterstroke or a fool’s errand. Imran will certainly hope that his countrymen believes the former. Not just ‘one mapmanship’, Imran had more aces up his sleeve to reclaim Kashmir — such as renaming Kashmir Highway in Islamabad as Srinagar Highway.

The claim on Junagadh (that voted to join India in 1947 in a plebiscite when Pakistan received 91 votes) isn’t new. Pakistan’s survey maps have included it on earlier instances unlike Sir Creek but in both of these cases as in Kashmir, Islamabad’s reliance on cartography reflects its helplessness on Kashmir and desperation at home.

At this point, Imran is less worried about his strategic and diplomatic options on Kashmir than in placating the Pakistani public and showing that within a span of a year, he has made some progress in wresting back the prized land. What better way than to redraw a map?

Imran was perhaps inspired by Nepal prime minister KP Sharma Oli, who recently pushed through a new map claiming sovereignty over Indian territories of Limpiyadhura, Lipu Lekh and Kalapani. Oli’s cynical plan had a political motive. Nepal’s beleaguered prime minister is battling to save his seat and political future and saw in the cartographic misadventure a chance to whip up nationalism to sail through the polls.

However, in Pakistan’s cartographic hallucination — that India has dismissed as “ridiculous”, “untenable” and a “political absurdity” lacking in “legal or international credibility” — lies a blunder and a self-inflicted wound.

By claiming the entire Valley, Pakistan has ended up exposing its own lies on Kashmir’s “self-determination” and UN-monitored plebiscite. In one stroke, Pakistan has also invalidated the so-called ‘self-determination’ movement by ‘separatists’ and revealed it for what it is — an asymmetric war planned and executed for decades by Pakistan through ‘non-State actors’ and jihadist forces to create unrest within India’s borders and seize Kashmir.

All Imran and his ‘crayon cabinet’ has managed to do is to bust its own lie and remove the fig leaf of legitimacy.

The dragon’s invisible hand

In dismissing Pakistan’s cartographic aggression, however, India has no reasons to be smug. A coordination on the Kashmir issue between Pakistan and its patron China is evident and increasingly intensifying.

China has never been a disinterested party in Kashmir, and its interventions are getting more frequent in tune with Beijing’s hold over its client State. The strategic importance of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Beijing’s holding of considerable real estate in Kashmir make China a crucial and influential third party in the Kashmir issue.

There’s one more good reason for China to get involved. Beijing uses Islamabad as a cat’s paw against India, and it is in China’s interest to stabilize Pakistan so that it may play the role Beijing wants it to play.

The client-patron relationship is evident from the fact that China — as ORF’s Sushant Sareen points out — “is not just emerging as the largest debtor to Pakistan but is also the largest investor. What is more, China is Pakistan’s largest trading partner and the lender of last resort to bail out Pakistan from its chronic deficit on the external account. In short, China is virtually the only game in town as far as the tottering Pakistan economy is concerned.”

The Sino-Pakistan coordination on Kashmir since India’s move to abrogate Article 370 has played out in interesting ways. Security Council member China has initiated the issue three times at the United Nations — ostensibly to ‘internationalise’ the dispute at the behest of its iron brother — and while each of these attempts have proven unsuccessful, the calibrated steps leading to the first anniversary is worth noting.

On 27 July, China held a virtual foreign ministers’ meeting with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nepal — an alternative quadrilateral mechanism bang in India’s immediate neighbourhood — and Wang Yi urged his counterparts from Afghanistan and Nepal to follow Pakistan’s footsteps to promote CPEC and tighten interconnectivity. Chinese economic imperialism in India’s backyard raises New Delhi’s security and strategic concerns.

In addition, as ORF senior fellow Sareen points out in “Alt Quad+ with Chinese characteristics”, China has been openly interfering in Nepal’s political process to ensure Oli’s survival, debt-trapping Nepal with white elephant projects, offering trade deals to Bangladesh that Dhaka can’t refuse end up being dependent on Chinese market and “encouraging Imran Khan to reach out to Bangladesh and move towards normalisation of ties.”

Interestingly, just a few days before the ‘Alt Quad’ meeting was held, Imran made a rare phone call to Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina and ostensibly discussed Kashmir.

A day after Pakistan released its ‘new map’, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson on 5 August called India’s Kashmir move “unilateral, illegal and invalid” and glossed over a question on Pakistan’s cartographic aggression. On that very day, China initiated the third attempt to stir the Kashmir pot at UN.

These attempts have all been thwarted but, as Syed Akbaruddin, who served as India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations points out in Hindustan Times, India should be ready for a diplomatic two-front war at the UN.

A short-on-options Pakistan may be blundering its way even more on Kashmir, but the real joker in this pack is China.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/3a4lzt1

[thandisizwemgudlwa]

Thabo Mbeki ‘Brilliant’ Speech: “We Must Act Now & Do the Right Thing”

 By SAPeople

- Nov 8, 2016                                                                     

South Africans have been celebrating the ‘brilliance’ of former President Thabo Mbeki’s speech Tuesday night, delivered at the Sunday Times Business Top 100 Companies Awards (where Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan was named Business Leader of the Year).

In a speech in which Mbeki recalled his speeches from 1999 and 2006, he said South Africa has moved from the Age of Hope to the Age of Despair, but was not yet at its tipping point… however time is not on the country’s side.

In what many are calling a well-balanced speech, Mbeki attacked both the business and political camps and said it’s time to truly work together for the common socio-economic good of all the people of South Africa, and not for selfish gains.

In perhaps a thinly veiled attempt to urge ANC MPs to impeach President Jacob Zuma on Thursday in Parliament, Mbeki recalled Nkandla and observations made by the Constitutional Court which were not addressed at the time on “what it means to govern a constitutional democracy”, and ended saying: “We must act now and do the right thing because time is not on our side.”

He said he strongly suggests all South Africans should support the National Conversation Initiative… “to engage one another in an open, inclusive and comprehensive process out of which should emerge a national consensus about what we should do together to address all the challenges our country faces.”

Former President Thabo Mbeki’s Speech in Full:

I trust that you will bear with me as I begin my comments today by referring to elements of our past.

When I delivered the State of the Nation Address in 1999 I said, among other things:

“Steadily, the dark clouds of despair are lifting, giving way to our season of hope.

“Our country which, for centuries, has bled from a thousand wounds is progressing towards its healing.

“The continuing process of social and national emancipation, to which we are all subject, constitutes an evolving act of self-definition.

“At the dawn of a new life, our practical actions must ensure that none can challenge us when we say – we are a nation at work to build a better life!

“When the millions of our people went to vote three weeks ago in peaceful elections that were free and fair, they guaranteed the permanence of the foundations from which we will advance to meet this objective…

“The challenge of the reconstruction and development of our society into one which guarantees human dignity faces the entirety of our people.

“It is a national task that calls for the mobilisation of the whole nation into united people’s action, into a partnership with government for progressive change and a better life for all, for a common effort to build a winning nation…

“The Government therefore commits itself to work in a close partnership with all our people, inspired by the call – Faranani! – to ensure that we draw on the energy and genius of the nation to give birth to something that will surely be new, good and beautiful…

“If, by word and deed, we take our places among the ordinary people who position themselves among a nation that is at work to build a better life for all within a caring society, then should we expect that the poor of our world will set a garland of grace on our heads and present each and everyone of us with a crown of splendour.”

Ten years ago, in 2006, I delivered yet another State of the Nation Address.

This time I said that though it would take time to eradicate the legacy of colonialism and apartheid, we dare not think our progress fits the description captured in these words in Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death…

I went on to say:

“We have known that it would take considerable time before we could say we have eradicated the legacy of the past. We have expected that the circumstances handed down to us by our history would indeed condemn us to a ‘petty pace’ of progress towards the achievement of the goal of a better life for all…

“(Yet) I feel emboldened to appropriate for our people the promise contained in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, when God said:

For you shall go out with joy, And be led out in peace; The mountains and the hills Shall break forth into singing before you, And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress tree And instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree…

To explain this I said:

“This year opened with the inspiring news that our people were highly optimistic about their future and the future of our country, ranking 8th in the world on the optimism index. Gallup International, which issued this report, said we have three times more optimists than pessimists, and that the optimism figure had doubled even since 2002…

“The results obtained by Gallup International have been confirmed by a recent domestic poll conducted by Markinor. According to this poll, 65% of our people believe that the country is going in the right direction. 84% think that our country holds out a happy future for all racial groups. 71% believe that government is performing well.

“With regard to the economy, late last month the Grant Thornton International Business Owners Survey reported that 84% of South Africa’s business owners are optimistic about the year ahead, making them the third most optimistic internationally. Again last month, the First National Bank and the Bureau for Economic Research reported that the consumer confidence index is at its highest in 25 years.

“What all these figures signify is that our people are firmly convinced that our country has entered its Age of Hope. They are convinced that we have created the conditions to achieve more rapid progress towards the realisation of their dreams. They are certain that we are indeed a winning nation.”

As you have seen, I have quoted statements I made seventeen (17) and ten (10) years ago, respectively.

Again as you will have heard, these statements spoke of an Age of Hope, of high levels of optimism about the future among all sectors of our population, of a time when ‘the mountains and the hills shall break forth into singing before us’, and of a new period in our national reality when our yesterdays would no longer light fools the way to dusty death.

However the hard reality we face today is that our country is trapped in a general and deepening political, economic and social crisis which has, for many, begun to turn what was an Age of Hope into an Age of Despair.

It would be understandable if the critics were to ask us the question – when you spoke of an Age of Hope were you not living in a fool’s paradise?

Was it not the case that what you said then amounted to nothing more than the wish being father to the thought!

Given the seriousness of our situation of the general crisis I have mentioned, I believe that these queries require an honest answer to assist in responding to the question – what is to be done!

Surely, that honest answer must address the matters of:

(i) whether the political leadership mandated through democratic elections with the task of governing our country has lived up to its systemic responsibilities;

(ii) whether the major owners of capital in our country, including you, the 100 Top Companies present here, have discharged their own social responsibilities as such owners of capital;

(iii) whether enough has been done to achieve concerted action by all relevant stakeholders to address our socio-economic challenges, these having been collectively identified as being important elements of shared national interest; and,

(iv) whether more could have been done to generate the resources to meet the demands for both sustained economic growth and development in a mixed economy, and therefore the creation of greater national wealth, as well as more equitable sharing of that greater wealth.

To state my response to some of these questions directly, I would like to say that my answer to these is Yes and No!

I must therefore explain myself in this regard.

First, it is obvious that over the years, progressively since 1994, therefore including the years when we were in Government, some negative features have emerged in our governing party, the ANC, which the organisation itself has recognised, including disease of the abuse of political power for personal enrichment.

Confronted by this reality, the leadership of the movement could not avoid speaking out against:

(v) the scourge of endemic corruption;

(vi) the looting of public resources through what it described as ‘tenderpreneurship’, and other forms of theft of public resources;

(vii) the so-called state capture which speaks to the disease of direct control of people in responsible positions in the public sector by particular business interests; and,

(viii) the drift of the ANC away from the ordinary working people and its historic task and raison d’etre, established over an entire century, of existing solely for the purpose to serve the interests of the people of our country.

The ANC has also spoken out about such negative features within its own ranks as the use of cash to buy members, as well as the abuse of supposedly independent State institutions to advance individual interests.

What this means is that all this serves to undermine and weaken the capacity and possibility for the governing political authority to discharge its responsibilities:

(ix) to ensure national respect for the Constitutional and statutory prescripts;

(x) to unite the people to act together to address the objectives stated in our Constitution as our fundamental law;

(xi) to ensure that the State machinery works to serve the interests of the people as a whole, consistent with the Constitution; and,

(xii) seriously to provide leadership with regard to addressing the evolving social challenges relating to (a) the entrenchment and development of democracy and human rights; and (b) meeting the needs of the people as exposed by concrete reality and as required in terms of the Bill of Rights.

The challenge, therefore, is that one of the features which defines the general crisis I have mentioned is that certainly in the minds of many in our country our governing authorities are not adequately discharging their responsibility to provide answers about what should be done to achieve the objective of a better life for all and the creation of a people centred society, and a winning nation.

A deeply disturbing result of the accumulated negative tendencies I have mentioned is the gradual loss of respect for ad the erosion of the authority of the State and Government which are vitally important in terms of leading our nation a whole. This cannot but lead to social disorder and instability.

Beyond the directly political, it is a matter of common cause among all of us that our economy is experiencing great difficulties.

In this regard, all of us share a common concern that:

(i) the economic growth rates are far too low;

(ii) the levels of unemployment are too high; and,

(iii) similarly, the level of inequality is also too high.

The First Deputy Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, Mr David Lipton, was in our country earlier this year. Regarding all these matters, this last July he made some comments with which I agree and said:

“South Africa is grappling with growth that is too slow to raise average living standards, which is deeply problematic when one-third of the working population is effectively excluded from the economy. So far, there has been only limited progress on reforms to remedy that situation.

“What does this mean? The prospect of falling per capita income and increases in a jobless rate already among the world’s highest. That would spell tough times ahead, particularly given the difficulties facing the global economy.

“Inclusion of the excluded one-third of South Africans could and should be a source of growth and dynamism for the generation to come.

“But now, the cost of insufficient action has reached the critical point. The present trajectory is simply not good enough. What is needed is a fresh and energetic review of South Africa’s policies—followed by action.”

Naturally, the question arises – what is to be done to respond to all this?

In this regard the National Development Plan says:

“The key measures of economic success identified in the Plan are that South Africa achieves average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of over 5 percent, and that by 2030 GDP per capita is more than twice the present level, export growth has accelerated, income levels have risen above the poverty line for all, inequality has been substantially reduced, and unemployment has been reduced from 25 percent to 6 percent.”

I would like to believe that all of us agree with these objectives.

The challenge we face is to elaborate the necessary plan and programme to realise these goals.

In this context I must make the observation that, despite all its nationally accepted commendable strengths, the National Development Plan will remain merely a correct Vision until a detailed Plan is elaborated, accepted by all relevant role players, and actually implemented to accomplish the excellent outcomes indicated in the Vision eloquently presented in the NDP.

I say this to make the vitally important point that to extricate ourselves from the general crisis I have mentioned, we are faced with the strategic task to agree on and actually carry out an Implementation Plan to achieve the objectives mentioned in the NDP.

In this context a challenging question arises. This is – have we achieved such a level of national cohesion, informed by the pursuit of matters we agree are in the shared national interest, that we can in fact agree on and carry out implement an NDP Implementation Plan?

In this context, speaking in July last year, Mr Mark Cutifani, CEO of Anglo American PLC, said:

“To create a competitive South Africa, government, business and labour must work together. There is no other way. Government has a vital role to play in leading, facilitating and encouraging dialogue to accelerate the National Development Plan’s implementation. We must build bridges and find common ground, and do so on the basis of respect and trust. The time is right for a national conversation to map out the way forward for SA and to provide its people with greater opportunity for a better life by becoming a more mature, modern, competitive, just and prosperous democracy…

“Our current deep suspicion of each other is simply not sustainable and is evidence to the world that the miracle of the Rainbow Nation is floundering, as it cannot get past self-interest and out-dated ideological mantras.”

Mr Cutifani made these comments correctly to reflect on a real challenge we face.

In this regard I agree completely with him that without genuine cooperation between Government, business and labour, we are condemned to fail in our efforts to extricate ourselves from the general crisis I have mentioned.

We are therefore faced with the task to answer such questions honesty and practically:

• what should be done to ensure that our Government leads the process of achieving agreement by all stakeholders on a realistic NDP Implementation Plan;

• what should be done to build bridges and find common ground among these stakeholders, on the basis of mutual respect and trust, overcoming the tendency towards exclusive focus on self-interest and attachment to particular ideological dogmas, thus to act in unity on agreed matters of national interest; and,

• what steps should be taken to convene the processes which would result in a national conversation to map out the way forward for South Africa?

Obviously the business community represented here this evening would and must be one of the central players in the ‘national conversation’ to which Mark Cutifani referred.

In that context, including with regard to overcoming the ‘deep suspicion of each other’ mentioned by Mark Cutifani, I must mention some matters relevant to the perception by at least some among our people relevant to your conduct, our business community.

I am certain that you are aware that some in our country have argued for some time now that our private sector is on what has been called “an investment strike”.

In this context, in August last year the City Press newspaper carried an article entitled “SA’s economic outlook: Bad news and really bad news”.

Among other things the article said:

“Stellenbosch University’s economic management dean, Stan du Plessis, who painted a bleak picture of the country’s immediate prospects, said a big question that had to be answered was why private corporations were not investing in business expansion. While low demand and the absence of skilled labour had been cited as some of the reasons in recent years, the deterioration of the political climate had emerged as the key reason corporations were not investing in growth.”

Another article published in September last year, entitled “SA firms hoard cash in indictment of economy”, said:

“Corporates in Africa’s most industrialised economy are so negative about future growth prospects that they’re sitting with record amounts of cash in the bank, according to Stanlib Asset Management, South Africa’s third-largest manager of domestic mutual funds.

“Investment by businesses has stagnated as confidence languishes near its lowest in almost four years and President Jacob Zuma’s administration struggles to reignite an economy expanding at the slowest pace since the 2009 recession…

“Companies had R689.4bn on deposit in South African banks at the end of June, compared with R671.5b in November, according to data compiled by Stanlib from South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) data…

These articles were published last year and I do not know what the situation is today, though I would suspect that it has not changed much.

I mention all this in the context of what has been said, quite correctly, that one of the national challenges we must address is ‘overcoming the deep suspicion of each other’, in this case the suspicion that, as I have said, the private sector is on an “investment strike”.

Let me once again cite remarks by Mark Cutifani to which I have referred in the past.

When he spoke at the Mining Indaba in 2013 he talked about the social responsibilities of the mining industry and among others said:

“The things we do [as the mining industry] are so important to global society, but the communities where we do business get the rough end of the stick…It is critical to understand how to really engage with communities. We must listen to what communities want to be, not tell them who to be…”

It was obviously correct that Mr Cutifani should speak in these terms, underlining the need for our corporate citizens to be sensitive to the national challenges.

Significantly Mr Cutifani also said:

“We each have a responsibility to be a leader – to seek a new future and to be the first to extend a hand of partnership to those that will develop this brave new world we all want to be part of…

“The job of those who have stewardship of capital is to support society…

“South Africa could meet its challenges once government and the private sector stopped talking past each other…”

These comments necessarily put on the national agenda the question – in what ways are those who have stewardship of capital discharging their responsibility to support society?

As all of us have seen, the current raging debate about the so-called state capture has brought sharply to the fore questions about the attitude of capital as a whole to the resolution of our country’s national challenges, and whether the drive to make money at all costs means that capital is ready even to subvert the constitutional order.

In other words, to what extent do our corporate chiefs share the view expressed by Mark Cutifani that – “The job of those who have stewardship of capital is to support society”?

The central point I am making is that obviously some of the strategic national challenges we face are that, together:

• we ensure that our economy grows at high sustainable rates;

• we reduce the levels of unemployment;

• we reduce the levels of inequality;

• we ensure that business plays its role in this regard;

• we encourage government, business and labour to work effectively together to achieve the objectives identified in the National Development Plan; and,

• we agree on an Implementation Plan to ensure the realisation of the objectives detailed in the NDP.

The reality is that if we do not do these things, and also fail to address the political challenges we face, the general crisis I have mentioned will get even deeper and more intractable.

In that situation it would be inevitable that social instability will increase as the people take to the streets to express their grievances and advance their demands, as the university students have been doing.

Added to this is the danger that such widespread instability would be accompanied by the destruction of property and loss of lives.

Obviously there would be instances of serious confrontation between the protesters and the State security organs. In this context we dare not forget what happened at Marikana in 2012 about which Mark Cutifani said, correctly, that “Marikana was a symptom of a much greater issue that needs us to engage and work together to find collective solutions.”

Any failure on our part successfully to address our political, economic and socio-economic challenges cannot but result in a vicious circle which would lead to a further deepening of the general crisis and therefore a further entrenchment of social instability.

It may be that some might think that what I have said is somewhat alarmist. However my view is that we should err on the side of caution rather than take comfort in an attitude of complacency.

In addition to what I have said concerning what we should do, I would like to add two more important initiatives.

Last March the Constitutional Court delivered its well-known judgement on Nkanda.

Of great importance in this regard were the detailed observations the Court made about what it means to govern a constitutional democracy.

It would have served our country very well if the political parties which serve in our National Legislature had discussed these observations to ensure that all relevant institutions operate as they should, as required by our Constitution.

These include the political parties themselves, the Legislature, the Executive, and the state institutions, including the Chapter 9 bodies.

If Parliament had done what I suggest, honestly and seriously, this would have made the strategic intervention we need to pull the country out of the unhappy political situation in which it is and put us on course to achieve the quality governance system we visualised when we adopted our Constitution 20 years ago.

Further, again last March, a number of our Foundations jointly issued a Call to engage in a National Dialogue.

They said that the Dialogue would “(aim) at mobilising South Africans across racial, class, gender, rural and urban as well as party-political divides to reflect on the journey travelled since 1994 and, more critically, to promote a national consensus for the future.”

I strongly suggest that all of us should support this important Initiative and therefore encourage the Foundations concerned to move with some urgency to enable all our people to engage one another in an open, inclusive and comprehensive process out of which should emerge a national consensus about what we should do together to address all the challenges our country faces.

I have argued that our country is immersed in a general crisis. Fortunately we have not as yet arrived at the tipping point when the country becomes ungovernable, with disastrous consequences for black and white, rich and poor and young and old alike.

This is an eventuality we must avoid at all costs. I am certain that as a people we have the capacity to achieve this result.

We must therefore act now and do the right thing because time is not on our side.

Thank you.

                                       Share                                    

                                                                               Facebook                                    

                                                                               Twitter                                    

                                                                               Pinterest                                    

                                                                               ReddIt