#by the political regime change in serious ways

[impostoradult]

my stress level right now is sky high, and the fall of the Republic is like fifth in my priority list of concerns. which should emphasize just how stressed I am

[kvetchlandia]

I Don't Know...

if anyone pays enough attention to the the junk I post to have recognized that for the past several days, my focus has changed to fewer posts and the posts I do make are posts of more serious things. This is because of the horrors currently happening in the United States, the degeneration of this country from a poorly structured and very erratic and inconsistent bourgeois democracy into some weird, frightening and dangerous combination of autocracy, plutocracy, kakistocracy and plain, old fashioned rule by dictatorial fiat. Needless to say, this then is made all the worse by its explicit racism, misogyny, xenophobia, religious fanaticism (of the ugliest born-again sort) and its open hostility to education and to science. Just to top it off, the government is headed by the most crude, vulgar, ignorant, ego-damaged, corrupt, vile blowhard one can imagine; a man who fancies himself a feudal monarch and who leads a movement that is more a cult than a political party and that worships him as a demigod; a multiply convicted criminal and a man found civilly liable for sexually assaulting a woman; a specimen so grotesque and repulsive that if a novelist or script writer were to have dreamed him up, no one would have bought him, thinking he was too absurd to be believable. Many consider this monster a fascist. I don't, for reasons having to do with history and the conditions under which fascism arises, but he's close enough to make the distinction moot. Anyway, confronting this ugly reality on a daily basis and knowing the social and political conditions in the United States, in which there is no organized left and most of those who fancy themselves left have no connection to the labor movement, no real concept of what socialism is, are obsessed with identity issues because they have no understanding of class politics and many of whom are tainted by antisemitism, a sad state made worse by the disgusting politics of the Israeli government which they feel justifies their racism, all of this leaves me feeling rather hopeless. Of course, there will be demonstrations against some of the excesses of this repugnant regime, some of them no doubt quite large, and I'll be at most of them that happen near me and will even take part in organizing some of them. But I've been doing that for ages, and nothing has changed, because of the political reality I just described. As a consequence of all of this, I just don't feel like posting my usual stuff. If you are unhappy with the way my Stumblr has changed and decide to bail, I understand completely, and thanks for hanging around while you did. If you decide to keep hanging with me, thanks so much, I appreciate your support. Maybe Ill get back to my more typical posts shortly, maybe I won't at all. I guess only time will tell.

[misfitwashere]

Trump will overplay his hand. Be ready for when he does. 

ROBERT REICH

JAN 2

Friends,

I sometimes share with you perspectives about what we’re up against from non-American writers and journalists. Asli Aydintasbas, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. and a former journalist, published this short essay recently in Politico Magazine. As we prepare for Trump’s regime, I thought you’d find her views useful.

***

American democracy is about to undergo a serious stress test. I know how it feels, in part because I lived through the slow and steady march of state capture as a journalist working in Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey.

Over a decade as a high-profile journalist, I covered Turkey’s descent into illiberalism, having to engage in the daily push and pull with the government. I know how self-censorship starts in small ways but then creeps into operations on a daily basis. I am familiar with the rhythms of the battle to reshape the media, state institutions and the judiciary.

Having lived through it, and having gathered some lessons in hindsight, I believe that there are strategies that can help Democrats and Trump critics not only survive the coming four years, but come out stronger. Here are six of them.

1. Don’t Panic — Autocracy Takes Time

President-elect Donald Trump’s return to power is unnerving but America will not turn into a dictatorship overnight — or in four years. Even the most determined strongmen face internal hurdles, from the bureaucracy to the media and the courts. It took Erdoğan well over a decade to fully consolidate his power. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Poland’s Law and Justice Party needed years to erode democratic norms and fortify their grip on state institutions.

I am not suggesting that the United States is immune to these patterns, but it’s important to remember that its decentralized system of governance — the network of state and local governments — offers enormous resilience. Federal judges serve lifetime appointments, states and governors have specific powers separate from those granted federally, there are local legislatures, and the media has the First Amendment as a shield, reinforced by over a century of legal precedents. 

Sure, there are dangers, including by a Supreme Court that might grant great deference to the president. But in the end, Donald Trump really only has two years to try to execute state capture. Legal battles, congressional pushback, market forces, midterm elections in 2026 and internal Republican dissent will slow him down and restrain him. The bottom line is that the U.S. is too decentralized in its governance system for a complete takeover. The Orbanization of America is not an imminent threat.

2. Don’t Disengage — Stay Connected

After a stunning electoral loss like this, there’s a natural impulse to shut off the news, log off social media and withdraw from public life. I’ve seen this with friends in Turkey and Hungary with opposition supporters retreating in disillusionment after Erdogan’s or Orbam’s victories. Understandably, people want to turn inwards.

Dancing, travel, meditation, book clubs — it’s all fine. But eventually, in Poland, Hungary and Turkey, opponents of autocracy have returned to the fight, driven by a belief in the possibility of change. So will Americans.

Nothing is more meaningful than being part of a struggle for democracy. That’s why millions of Turks turned out to the polls and gave the opposition a historic victory in local governments across Turkey earlier this year. That’s how the Poles organized a winning coalition to vote out the conservative Law and Justice Party last year. It can happen here, too.

The answer to political defeat is not to disconnect, but to organize. You can take a couple of days or weeks off, commiserate with friends and mute Elon Musk on X — or erase the app altogether. But in the end, the best way to develop emotional resilience is greater engagement.

3. Don’t Fear the Infighting

Donald Trump’s victory has understandably triggered infighting inside the Democratic Party and it looks ugly. But fear not. These recriminations and finger-pointing are necessary to move forward. In Turkey, Hungary and Poland, it was only after the opposition parties faced their strategic and ideological misalignment with society that they were able to begin to effectively fight back.

Trump has tapped into the widespread belief that the economic order, labor-capital relations, housing and the immigration system are broken. You may think he is a hypocrite, but there is no doubt that he has convinced a large cross-section of American society that he is actually the agent of change — a spokesman for their interests as opposed to “Democratic elites.” This is exactly what strongmen like Erdoğan and Orban have achieved.

For the Democratic Party to redefine itself as a force for change, and not just as the custodian of the status quo, it needs fundamental shifts in how it relates to working people in the U.S. There is time to do so before the midterms of 2026.

4. Charismatic Leadership Is a Non-Negotiable

One lesson from Turkey and Hungary is clear: You will lose if you don’t find a captivating leader, as was the case in 2023 general elections in Turkey and in 2022 in Hungary. Coalition-building or economic messaging is necessary and good. But it is not enough. You need charisma to mobilize social dissent.

Trump was beatable in this election, but only with a more captivating candidate. For Democrats, the mistake after smartly pushing aside President Joe Biden was bypassing the primaries and handpicking a candidate. Future success for the party will hinge on identifying a candidate who can better connect with voters and channel their aspirations. It should not be too hard in a country of 350 million.

Last year’s elections in Poland and Turkey showcased how incumbents can be defeated (or not defeated, as in general elections in Turkey in 2023) depending on the opposition’s ability to unite around compelling candidates who resonate with voters. Voters seek authenticity and a connection — give it to them.

5. Skip the Protests and Identity Politics

Soon, Trump opponents will shake off the doldrums and start organizing an opposition campaign. But how they do it matters. For the longest time in Turkey, the opposition made the mistake of relying too much on holding street demonstrations and promoting secularism, Turkey’s version of identity politics, which speaks to the urban professional and middle class but not beyond. When Erdoğan finally lost his absolute predominance in Turkish politics in 2024, it was largely because of his mismanagement of the economy and the opposition’s growing competence in that area.

Trump’s appeal transcends traditional divides of race, gender and class. He has formed a new Republican coalition and to counteract this. Democrats too, must broaden their tent, even if means trying to appeal to conservatives on some issues. Opposition over the next four years must be strategic and broad-based. 

Street protests and calls to defend democracy may be inspirational, but they repel conservatives and suburban America. Any grassroots action must be coupled with a clear, relatable economic message and showcase the leadership potential of Democratic mayors and governors. Identity politics alone won’t do it.

6. Have Hope

Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. is not the only part of the world that faces threats to democracy — and Americans are no different than the French, the Turks or Hungarians when it comes to the appeal of the far right. But in a country with a strong, decentralized system of government and with a long-standing tradition of free speech, the rule of law should be far more resilient than anywhere in the world.

Trump’s return to power certainly poses challenges to U.S. democracy. But he will make mistakes and overplay his hand — at home and abroad. America will survive the next four years if Democrats pick themselves up and start learning from the successes of opponents of autocracy across the globe.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Trajectories for the Future

In "Dark tidings: Anarchist Politics in the Age of Collapse," Uri Gordon paints an ominous picture: "industrial civilization is coming down," so "anarchists and their allies are now required to project themselves into a future of growing instability and deterioration."[20] I am not so sure about the imminent downfall of industrial civilization or the collapse of capitalism, but I concur that we need to project ourselves into some image of the future in order to prepare for it.[21] A complication is that the future is partially decided by how we project ourselves into it and how we imagine it. There is not a predetermined future that we merely need to prepare for. It will be shaped by how we prepare for it and by what future we prepare for. To fixate ourselves on a particular vision of the future could affect us by constricting our capacities in the present to those actions that lead to that future, blinding us to other possibilities.

Gordon mentions some possible future scenarios, summed up as "grassroots communism, eco-authoritarianism, or civil war."[22] As the ecological crisis becomes more clear and people demand change, global capitalism might attempt to recuperate by making minor adjustments and putting on a "green face" without any changes in the system that is actually causing the crisis: capitalism itself. This can only buy time, and as the crisis intensifies capitalism will employ more authoritarian and repressive measures to stay in power. It can do this either in an authoritarian, neoliberal form, deploying superficial, liberal "progressive" rhetoric while preserving existing hierarchies; or it could instead turn to "eco-fascism," combining nationalist, racist and misogynist ideas of population control and "belonging" with the need to protect nature by totalitarian means. Both are tendencies that exist in the present.[23] In either case, it can only be a matter of buying time by managing the crisis until the inevitable collapse. In his piece Gordon suggests a number of praxises that are necessary in order to resist the authoritarian tendencies during this period of interregnum as well as to build alternative communities that prefigure a new way of life, independent of global capitalism.

Another, more recent, theory of possible futures is Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright's (M&W) "Climate Leviathan."[24] They see four different trajectories: Either the capitalist order will continue under an increasingly authoritarian global sovereign - a planetary regulatory regime that decides who gets to pollute and at which cost ("Climate Leviathan") - or it will continue without such a sovereign as reactionary and nationalist movements refuse any serious collective efforts to mitigate climate change ("Climate Behemoth"). The global sovereign might also emerge as a non-capitalist world order: the state-socialist dream of a global centrally planned economy but with an emphasis on reducing carbon emissions ("Climate Mao"), and finally there is the more unknown path which involves a rejection and transcendence of both capitalism and political sovereignty ("Climate X").[25] Although climate denying "anti-globalist" right-wing movements have gained political power in several countries in recent years, the authors doubt this "Behemoth" will be long-lived: at some point the climate crisis will become so apparent it cannot be ignored.[26] They find the capitalist "Climate Leviathan" the most likely scenario as it can be built on global institutions and structures that already exist.[27] Climate X is less certain but is the only scenario the authors see as a viable strategy for the future.[28]

There are several overlaps between Gordon's and M&W's theories. Gordon's vision of eco-authoritarian capitalism is not that far from their Climate Leviathan: an attempt to manage the escalating crisis while preserving the existing structures of inequality. In his updated version, he admits that the prediction that capitalism would adapt by accommodating environmentalist and progressive concerns has not been realized. Instead capital has tended to "opt for full-blown reaction" expressed in climate denial and national chauvinism[29] - a trend that aligns with their vision of Climate Behemoth. The main point of convergence in the two theories is the hope for "Climate X" / "grassroots communism" - a movement of movements struggling for social justice, equality and self-management. My own theory is close to these. I also think we will see an increase in authoritarianism and inequality, but I posit that this is not really a change in the system but merely an intensification of the tendencies already contained within it. But the growing crises do give room for and force into existence other forces with the potential to create something new. I too, place my hope in "Climate X" - not as a utopian unknown but as concrete and existing praxises that can be expanded and amplified.

My aim here is thus not to critique the previous theories but to supplement them with empirical cases of what is already happening as the world responds to climate disaster - how the state and capital tries to consolidate the existing political structures on one side, and, on the other, how communities are responding by changing their social relations. Examining these cases from the present can give us a better idea of what to expect from the future and where to focus our struggles. I also add an element to "Climate X" that is under-emphasized in the aforementioned works, which focus primarily on protest and resistance to the dominating powers with the goal of preventing the destructive course.[30] Given the fact that climate disasters are already happening we also need to take into consideration how we are going to survive in the future. The politics of adaptation must be considered from the grassroots level.

[pumpacti0n]

Be for real.

Something that continues to vex me is this common presumption from centrist liberals that radicals are demanding strict moral purity or asking for far too much because genocide is an inherently unacceptable consequence for us and we refuse to be complacent about it.

It actually reads as far more "doomeristic" to respond to opposition on these grounds with "oh, here you go getting on your soapbox about genocide again 🙄" as if the scale of these atrocities were some minor issue brought up by a fringe group and not literally millions of people, as if this issue doesn't connect with multiple others. The implications are far-reaching and incredibly serious, yet are dismissed as flippantly as it would be if they were crying over spilled milk.

This is a familiar and predictable pattern with electoralists in general and apologists for imperial regimes, however. There's an obvious biased attitude that shows itself in the overemphasis on the so-called achievements of their favored parties and individual political authorities, while doing their dirty work by minimizing every harm they've committed.

They aren't even fully responsible for these achievements, by the way. Grassroots activists who have sacrificed and dedicated their lives to improving material conditions for the masses are erased while politicians and their constituents are given all the credit for it.

Apologists don't change anything and continue to enable the very fascist tendencies they fearmonger about precisely because they keep painting an incomplete picture of the situation and misrepresent the people calling for actual change instead of a mere changing of the guard. They get mired in futile "harm reduction" rhetoric while the harm only continues to escalate to the point of genocide, then blame the people who consider this escalation a deal-breaker, something that can't be meaningfully compromised with.

Just imagine, being under settler military occupation and bombardment, only be told you must compromise with the very people responsible for it, and that if you don't you'll be threatened with worse occupation and bombardment so you had better show up in support of the "less evil" genociders. This is gaslighting and abuse, plain and simple.

If we were to reduce the scale of this scenario to a violent, power-hungry husband and a wife suffering from domestic abuse, we can't honestly claim to be on the wife's side by telling her to flee to the house of someone who "only" beats her 2 days out of the week and not 5...we'd try to get her out of the situation by any means necessary. We certainly wouldn't be engaging in the dishonest and shameful tactic of bringing up how the husband donates .001% of his income to a local charity on occasion for tax write offs.

From this perspective, we might start to better recognize the apathy and anti-social conditioning it would require in order to tolerate or excuse such behavior, but when it comes to mass-death, it magically transforms into a simple math equation. "100 thousand dead is less than 200 thousand dead, so I guess 100 thousand dead is good" is a bleak and terrible consideration that forces us to view the lives of others as numbers and things whose existence are strictly theoretical and useful only to prove a point. It's repulsive to conflate any ideology that would force you to make such a calculation with the egalitarian worldview.

"Harm reduction" isn't about condemning thousands to death while smugly chastising those who view even one more victim as a cost too great. It reveals a deeply unsavory fact about the values of the people who use these kinds of arguments; that they think of their actions as "progress". Delaying the spread of the disease of fascism and directly opposing it on a conceptual and material basis are not the same thing. "progress" would look like decolonization and actual healing process taking place, where the long-standing grievances are finally addressed and the powers-that-be no longer exist to commit more harm in the first place.

This is not what electoralists want, however, because they lack the imagination, initiative and capacity to struggle and make this a reality. This is evident in the fact that their first impulse is to throw the people with these desires under the bus in favor of more elections and repeating the same debunked clichés about electoral politics ad-nauseam.

There's no honest desire from these administrations to bring about the end of this genocide, and there is no place for decolonization of the land on the ballot, because these things are integral parts of the empire's state mechanism itself. To do away with them would mean they have become obsolete. Acknowledging this isn't moralistic grandstanding, it's a conclusion drawn by analyzing the track record of this country, its various internal structures and its controllers.

Solidarity's foundation is trust, a sense of real interdependence. Neither is possible if someone whose immediate reaction to displeasure about genocidal policy is made out to be a trivial and hypocritical nuisance by their associates. Whose side are y'all on, anyway?

[queenwille]

is it finally time to reveal that one of the main reasons hamas took the chance on october 7th was a political crisis in israel?

i’ll try to make it short for my ADHD sibs in the crowd:

israel had a really tough political crisis between 2019 to 2022, where no elected leader was able to gather a government (men) under the israeli democratic requirements, so it led to 5 elections in 4 years 🫨

when finally netanyahu managed to build a coalition by selling his dignity and the israeli soul to religious extremists (as he always does since he only cares about being on top, no matter what) the very large secular and left public in israel were having non of that.

forward a few months, the extremist criminal members of the coalition tried to pass an absence law that takes the grand jury’s power to overrule the government if needed, which fired up protests and manifests literally EVERYWHERE. public facilities closed down as an act of rebellion, roads were blocked and much more. Galant, the minister of defense, said publicly that the gov really needs to freeze the passing of that law due to valid concerns about the country and its citizens��� safety. due to that comment, netanyahu publicly announced that he’d be firing galant for going against the government’s current agenda. oh boy, the night that happened, all hell broke loose. people literally shot the country down until the late late hours of the night. the lack of freedom of speech was a serious deal breaker (reminder: they have been protesting HARD for W E E K S). many were on reserved duty (it’s when they complete their mandatory service, but come every once in a while for a few days of duty like training or backup and in case of a war, they need to report back to duty when they’re up to date and well trained) said they wouldn’t come to their scheduled duty days under a government that is extremist, not equal (ultra orthodox don’t have to serve as the rest) and doesn’t allow freedom of speech. it was a whole thing, netanyahu changed his tune real fast. you need to understand that for israelis to rebel against their duty is extreme af. military service in israel is mandatory and a valuable part of the soldiers’ culture and identity, it’s not a just job they chose like in many countries.

BACK TO THE AGENDA. hamas documents and recordings revel that they were very much aware of the ongoing civil (and military) crisis and mentioned it as a perfect opportunity to hurt israel.

many of you think that when we identify with the word zionist, it means we agree with everything. the main thing y’all cancel when you call israelis white colonialists, it’s first the rich and diverse population it has. are all christians alike? do all muslims think the same? why is it that when it comes to the jewish people, everyone is so quick to assume we’re all clones? judaism itself has a few ethnicities which is very much a topic on the israeli agenda since like forever. and then you have, as any other religion, religious people and then secular and then people who are in between. that’s all before you mention the 2.5m non jews living in israel.

TL;DR no, not only not all israelis support netanyahu, but you’d actually be surprised how many oppose to his egocentric regime. take the time and ask, don’t just take the easy way out of goysplaining.

[mariacallous]

On Dec. 8, President Bashar al-Assad fled Syria, bringing an end to nearly 54 years of his family’s rule and sending millions of Syrians at home and abroad into a state of euphoria and relief. Over a dramatic 12 days, an armed opposition offensive that had begun west of Aleppo on Nov. 27 triggered the precipitous crumbling of regime front lines, one after the other. As rebels began to advance south, Syrians across the country began to rise up. By the night of Dec. 7, Assad’s defeat had been sealed.

The rapid disintegration of Assad’s regime came as a surprise to everyone. For years, the international community had written off any chance that Syrians’ demand for change would ever be realized, embracing instead the concept of a “frozen conflict” and gradually withdrawing attention and resources away from Syria policy. In 2023, most of the Arab world reembraced Assad, rewarding him with his seat back in the Arab League and granting him and his regime with high-profile public visits across the region.

In truth, the international community has misjudged the situation in Syria in recent years. While lines drawn on maps and the stagnation of diplomacy led to assumptions that Assad was here to stay and was consolidating his rule, the regime had, in fact, been decaying and fragmenting from within. In many ways, the fact that Assad’s regime had not faced a serious military challenge since early 2020 was what created the conditions that allowed the decay to take root.

Events over the past two weeks have turned the entire international approach to Syria on its head. A rapid process of adaptation and reassessment is now underway. In a series of hurriedly organized high-level meetings in Doha, Qatar, this weekend, Arab governments have struggled to adjust to the new reality.

As Syrians were seizing control of Damascus suburbs late on Dec. 7 and Assad was preparing to flee, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Qatar called for a cease-fire and political negotiations—a statement that might have made sense a week earlier but seemed irrelevant within hours. In subsequent side meetings, it was clear that regional states were simply perplexed and outpaced by events on the ground.

Meanwhile, the United Nations and its special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, have surged into action, engaging intensively with the so-called Astana group (Russia, Iran, and Turkey), the Arab states, the United States, and Europe to chart a path forward oriented around U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254.

That mandate, set forth in December 2015, calls for a transitional period, leading eventually to free and fair elections. Plans are already afoot for a return of Syria peace talks in Geneva—but without the Assad regime’s representatives, who had attended only to block any meaningful progress. Nevertheless, despite the rapid call to action, it remains unclear exactly what format the U.N. intends to bring to Geneva, nor who or how many Syrians would be involved.

While deliberations around a political process continue, events are developing fast on the ground. Early on Dec. 8, armed fighters from southern Syria escorted the country’s Prime Minister, Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali, to the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus amid a purported plan to conduct a swift but nonviolent transition.

Later that day, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—the most powerful armed group that launched the initial offensive—arrived in Damascus and went to Syria’s famed Umayyad Mosque to proclaim victory. In the Assad regime’s coastal heartlands of Tartus and Latakia, locals took to the streets to topple Assad family statues and opposition fighters took over military bases.

According to four sources associated with HTS and its broader military operations coalition, Syria’s political transition is already underway and is being managed internally. Their view is that a U.N.-led process designed and determined abroad is unnecessary, and they reject it. “We welcome the international community’s support, but we do not need them to manufacture a process that we are already implementing,” one of them told me as they arrived in Damascus. “We refuse to step into the traps of the past,” said another.

The divergent visions of internal and external actors represent a significant problem but also a simple reflection of how astonishingly fast developments have occurred.

For now, the priority for the international community needs to be on communication—with as many of the actors on the ground as possible, armed and civilian alike. Many towns and cities across Syria are now being run by long-standing local councils, religious bodies, and state institutions.

How they fit within the transition that is seemingly underway in Damascus or in the U.N.’s plans for talks in Geneva is anyone’s guess. Before devising another internationally-led process to determine Syria’s future, regional and U.N. officials would be wise to listen to and communicate with the forces on the ground that are already shaping it.

[inariedwards]

In recent years, questionable prosecutions targeting left-wing politicians have become a pattern across Latin America, following a playbook created and supported by the U.S. government. In Peru and Argentina—among others—a pattern of U.S.-backed prosecutions targeted left-wing politicians and helped pave the way for regime change. The Salazar revelations also echo one of the most egregious examples of U.S.-backed prosecutorial misconduct in the region: explosive reporting published by The Intercept Brasil in 2019 based on another trove of leaked messages, which revealed serious ethical violations by a Brazilian judge and prosecutors, who colluded with each other to pursue political attacks against Lula da Silva in an effort to prevent his return to the presidency in 2018. The judge, Sergio Moro, hailed by the U.S. as an anti-corruption champion, has since fallen into disgrace after evidence of his bias eventually led the Supreme Court to throw out his judgment that landed Lula in prison. According to the messages reviewed by Drop Site and The Intercept Brasil, the practice of U.S.-backed politically motivated prosecutions has reached Ecuador. “Diana Salazar has been spearheading the most brutal persecution and has been the principal author of the judicialization of politics in Ecuador,” said Andrés Arauz in a statement. Arauz is the executive secretary of Revolución Ciudadana, Correa’s left-wing political party in Ecuador. “The political persecution against ex-president Rafael Correa, to impede his presence and participation in Ecuador’s political life, has been particularly bloody and has done great harm to progressivism, democracy, and the state of law in our country.”

For example:

In 2019, Salazar’s office launched an investigation called “Bribes 2012-2016,” which accused Correa of running a corrupt network of officials that collected over $7 million in bribes. Correistas allege the case was based on flimsy evidence. During the investigation, a Correa assistant turned over a notebook she said included contemporaneous evidence that Correa had taken bribes, but it was soon shown the notebook hadn’t been printed until 2018, several years after the allegedly contemporaneous notes were taken. It was accepted as key evidence regardless.

[my-chaos-radio]

Release: April 1, 1988

Lyrics:

I buy her all the right clothes and pretty jewels to wear

My friends say she's a dumb blonde but they don't know she dyes her hair

She thinks the fighting in Central America's easily solved

But what to wear to Bel Air premieres is a problem she could never resolve

She's an airhead

Stungun and mace, Kharmann Ghia plates say "Lost in Space"

She's an airhead

Thousands in trust, cusp aquarius, get serious

She's an airhead

Tinted contacts don't change the fact that black is black

She's an airhead

And while I'm impressed with the length of those legs

She's not an intellectual giant

She'd like to model, or maybe act, or start a magazine

Before she signs any big contracts, she better learn to read

But in her dreams she's the queen of the fashion regime

You ask me do I love you, does the Pope live in the woods?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, baby ("ooh, you speak French")

She's an airhead

Stungun and mace, Kharmann Ghia plates say "Lost in Space"

She's an airhead

Thousands in trust, cusp aquarius, get serious

She's an airhead

And while I'm impressed with the size of that chest

She's not an intellectual giant

Sweet and low and oh-so, little Ms. Dora Jarre

Safe sex and fishnets and could you walk me to my car, pa

She's losing faith in a world that is out of control

So she's gonna nix politics, she's taking up volleyball

Volleyball, why?

'Cause she's an airhead

Stungun and mace, Kharmann Ghia plates say "Lost in Space"

She's an airhead

Thousands in trust, cusp aquarius, get serious

She's an airhead

And now the time's come for the end of my song

Don't get me wrong

Oh airhead

If she's an airhead, it has to be said

It was men made her that way

It was us made her that way

It was us made her that way

Songwriter:

Grant Morris / Thomas Dolby

AlbumFacts:

👉📖

Homepage:

Thomas Dolby

[beardedmrbean]

Islamic State is planning a mass prison break to free thousands of its fighters detained in Syria, according to Iraqi officials.

The terror group is feared to be trying to exploit the power vacuum left by the fall of the Assad regime to regroup just as Israeli bombs destroy the last of Syria’s military assets.

Abdul Karim Abd Fadhil, the head of Iraq’s national security service, said on Sunday that Islamic State (IS) was planning to target the prisons where thousands of its fighters have been held for years.

His warning about prison security followed concerns voiced by US senator Lyndsey Graham. He said an IS jailbreak would be a “nightmare” for both America and Europe.

At least 40,000 people associated with IS remain in detention camps run by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a US-backed Kurdish fighting force that controls most of north-east Syria.

About 9,000 well-trained, battle-hardened IS fighters are spread across multiple prisons, the largest being al-Hasakah and al-Shaddadi. Hundreds were killed in a previous prison break attempt at al-Hasakah in 2022.

The rest of the detainees are women and children from Iraq and Syria, accused of being supporters of IS or families of fighters. About 8,000 are from overseas, including former British citizens.

However, with most of their forces trapped within prisons, analysts estimate the group’s numbers remain low, somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000.

Since rebel forces swept to power just over a week ago, ending Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule, IS has already carried out six attacks in the Syrian desert, killing 70 people. Most were fleeing members of the former regime’s forces.

Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, warned last week that IS would probably attempt to capitalise on the instability as power in Damascus changes hands. Joe Biden, the outgoing US president, said Washington was “clear-eyed” about the threat of an IS resurgence.

The US air force has since carried out dozens of precision strikes on IS camps, operatives and leaders.

Bassam Ishak, a representative of the Syrian Democratic Council, the political wing of the SDF, told The Telegraph that an IS resurgence was already under way.

“The SDF is occupied with fighting Turkish-backed rebels and the more they become engaged in these new fronts, the more IS will try to attack,” Mr Ishak said. “That increases the risk of a prison break with the help of sleeper cells.”

“There is a very serious danger now. It’s very important that the SDF receives help to defend the region,” he added.

The threat comes as the SDF, which was key to dismantling the IS caliphate in 2019, is occupied with an operation by Turkish-backed rebels to “eliminate” their lead militia, the People’s Defense Units (YPG).

Turkey considers the YPG an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has fought a decades-long insurgency against the Ankara.

Before Assad’s fall there were warnings that IS could make a comeback, particularly in the vast desert regions where sleeper cells were thought to be regrouping and rebuilding.

“IS is like a disease – when the body is sick, that’s when it appears,” Jerome Drevon, a senior analyst with Crisis Group, told The Telegraph. “It is rarely the cause of problems and usually the symptom of something deeper.”

“The main question now is how to stabilise the new situation, because if there is chaos, that’s how the group spreads,” he said. “I don’t think they would be able to take territory at the moment, but the international community has to be engaged to stabilise the situation.”

The jihadists remain the most deadly terror group internationally, responsible for 1,636 deaths in 2023, with Syria bearing the brunt.

IS has carried out nearly 700 attacks in Syria since January, almost tripling last year’s rate, Charles Lister, a director at the Middle East Institute, wrote in The New York Times.

The attacks have also become more sophisticated with analysts warning the terror group could be planning more missions in Europe to reassert its status and attract new recruits.

“Excluding Isis Khorasan in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the group has diminished capacities now,” said Michael Horowitz, head of intelligence at Le Beck.

“However, it could see the [new reality] in Syria and general disorder in the Middle East as an opportunity to reassert itself in the region with attacks on the West or Russia.”

The SDF considers information about foreign fighters and their whereabouts highly sensitive. The status of many of the British people who went to Syria to join IS is unknown or they are presumed dead.

Human rights groups say those left include 10 men, 20 women and 35 children who are British or have held UK citizenship

Among the known survivors is Jack Letts, also known as “Jihadi Jack”, who is in an SDF prison near Raqqa. A Muslim convert, he left the UK to allegedly join IS in 2014, declaring himself an “enemy of Britain”.

Shahan Choudhury and his wife, Mahak Sabrina Aslam, were also captured in 2019 and have since been stripped of their British citizenship. Mr Choudhury is in an SDF prison in Hasakah while Aslam is in al-Roj camp.

Shamima Begum, who joined IS at the age of 15, remains in al-Roj camp. Her multiple appeals to return to the UK have been rejected.

The collapse of the former regime in Syria has also set off a scramble for control among foreign powers. Yet, countries are unable to legally deal with Syria’s new regime which is led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former al-Qaeda affiliate, as it is still designated a terrorist group by the UN, US and UK.

Despite former links, the Islamist-led rebel coalition have repeatedly pledged not to allow IS into their movement.

The terror group responded by trying to discredit HTS, calling them nationalists and revolutionaries rather than a jihadist group – a description likely to help rather than hinder HTS’s public image.

[attheexactlyrighttimeandplace]

I am so angry and tired of people on Twitter claiming that the dismantling of the zionist war cabinet means victory for Hamas, allegedly because the resistance outlasted the war cabinet that was formed after October 7 to end the armed group.

The eradication of Hamas remains one of the main war objectives of the zionists whether the ceasefire plan fails or not. The war cabinet was dissolved because some of its members, including some ministers, resigned at the request of the US. One of Netanyahu's main opponents, Benny Gantz, supported by the families of the hostages and soldiers and fully controlled by the State Department, issued an ultimatum to the government that ended on June 8. He was supposed to represent the “moderates” branch of the regime. After his departure, the “warmongering” zionist leaders took total control of the occupation government, and the only way out of the conflict is military now.

How can this be a victory when Palestinian civilians will pay the price? This means that Rafah will suffer what the rest of Gaza suffered: total extermination. What we have seen so far is nothing compared to what is to come.

Netanyahu is tiptoeing around this situation because he fears what will happen to him once he ends the genocide in Gaza. Will the United States replace him with a military, capable leader with the tactical expertise and strategic vision needed to fight a regional war?

Considering that the extension of the conflict is confirmed by all, and that its scale will concern all the armed groups included in the Axis of Resistance (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi Resistance, AnsarAllah + Syria and possibly Iran) and oppose them to almost all Gulf Arab countries + the Kurdish people + ISIS and its affiliated groups who are now mercenaries controlled by the United States; he has reason to fear that his time is over even though there is very little chance that he will end up in the cells of the International Criminal Court.

It is true that the United States acts in a very unpredictable and harsher manner. Biden told a jewish reporter at a White House party in april that he had made it clear to Netanyahu what he wanted, and that if Netanyahu doesn't do what he's been told, something will happen.

Obviously, the only reason why the president of the first military power in the world, who leads a military alliance of 32 countries (NATO), not counting their partners, and who has enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire planet, made such a vague statement, is because the threat he made was very serious, politically deadly for Netanyahu but perhaps also for the zionist entity, not the kind you can publicly disclose if you intend to violate any agreements you have signed.

There is no doubt that Biden pressured the zionist politicians to commit and take full responsibility for the genocide they wanted to do anyway, motivated them to stay focused and energetic when they were overwhelmed by the number of victims among their soldiers, the opposition of the families of the hostages and soldiers, and the fact that they have become a pariah state within the international community, with a growing minority of international opinion wishing to dismantle Israel to make a way for a Palestinian state, despite the zionist propaganda that wants to make Hamas a terrorist group.

Even the pathetic failure of their communication to cover up their crimes, I mean the unconvincing denial of the American authorities of all the violations committed by the zionist army as reported by their own Human Rights departments, international NGOs, UN institutions, journalists, ICJ lawyers, judicial institutions, which illustrates in a spectacular way that they have really lost control of the narrative as Blinken said, does not change the military reality: Hamas cannot stop the famine, and even the extension of the conflict will not be able to protect Palestinian civilians from a continuation and amplification of the genocide.

I also had illusions about Biden's ceasefire plan as to his willingness to favor a negotiated political solution, but it is obvious, at this point where US officials have responded coldly to Hamas' counter-offers, that the United States feels in such a dominant position that it does not feel the need to make any effort and believes it has shown enough patience. They really didn't mean it when they said that, in their plans, negotiations would be an important tool to find a solution.

If they fail to achieve the full surrender they want, they will kill every human being in Gaza and order the zionists to annex the entire West Bank.

[simplegenius042]

Fallout 2 OC - Finidy Mona (The Chosen One)

More information under the cut:

Here's my Chosen One of Fallout 2, Finidy Mona, the 22-year-old granddaughter of Elrand Brandt, and the next Elder in line to lead the Arroyo tribe after her mother. After the recent passing of her grandfather, several failed harvests and rampant sickness take hold of the tribe, which leads Elder Mona to send out her daughter Finidy to retrieve the Garden of Eden Creation Kit (GECK) to save the village, and Finidy takes this as an opportunity to prove herself to her village and mother, despite having failed the Temple of Trials (to her credit she got halfway through it). With a deadline hovering over her, Finidy goes off into the Southern California Wasteland to retrieve the GECK and save her village in her grandfather's Vault 13 jumpsuit, his flask and a spear. If only New Reno crime bosses, gangs, fascist regimes and all sorts of monsters weren't in her way. But hey, at least she gets some help along the way.

Finidy is a quite the beautiful and healthy intersex woman at a height of 5 feet and 11 inches, with overgrown wild hair tied in a low bun, with enough energy that outdoes all the other villagers. She had inherited her grandfather's hazel eyes, with exceptional strength and dexterity towards the Wasteland's environment. Her wardrobe changes from her grandfather's jumpsuit to jackets and leather armour to fancy clothes given to her by the crime families and finally Enclave power armor while infiltrating the oil rig. She's pretty decent at keeping her hygiene up even in the Wasteland.

As Elder Mona's daughter, and the next in line to inherit the title of "Chieftess", she was taught everything she needed to be taught to do the title right and exceed her own mother. Her ability to communicate and mediate in conflicts is impressively thorough, and is the most combat, stealth and survival efficient of Arroyo, and her cooking is to die for. Finidy is also extremely creative, both in methodical plans and improvisation, and had gotten what her grandfather failed to receive; The Rizz (TM). Alert but not paranoid, Finidy is quite comfortable walking about without worry that an animal will attack her, and her luck wasn't as terrible as her grandfather's. Persuasive and literate, Finidy has a natural charm that just lures people in. However, future chieftess she may be, she is inexperienced with technology and the likes of children (though the latter isn't as bad as how Elrand viewed them).

Finidy's intellect, while not as advanced as her late grandfather, is still pretty impressive. Her spirituality is as high as her passion to help the village under any means necessary, and her humor can chink the armor of the most serious man (well... except one, though his status as "man" is debatable). Her anxiety only comes up during unexpected and/or high stress situations, which can waver her confidence, especially in regards to the deadline and retrieval of the GECK. When it's all over, while she's exhausted and saddened of what she's lost, she is still able to find the silver lining. Patience though... could be improved.

She's a lot more polite than her grandfather was, though she can't refuse a bite in her words when speaking to some... unpleasant individuals. Though naive and inexperienced in such a hostile world, Finidy is brave, while she would prefer a peaceful solution, she will not hesitate to use violence if she thinks its necessary or she believes the person deserves it. Finidy is impulsive, and often times agreeable. Though she starts overbearingly idealistic, Finidy manages to wring it back, but keeps her hope. Finidy manages to spend more caps that she really should keep for something else. Though having living in an isolated village for majority of her life, Finidy loves the outdoors and excels at talking with people. She's young, impulsive, the daughter of the chieftess and also related to the man who drove the Master to despair after pointing out super mutants can't clap cheeks... of course she's a bit wild. Finidy is ambitious in proving her mother and village proud, and is stubborn in achieving this goal, the crime families and Enclave be damned! Surprisingly, Finidy can get jealous easily, and is quite possessive over her lover/s.

Finidy is charismatic and empathetic, qualities she needed to learn as a future leader (though the only authority she will ever truly bow down to is that of her mother's), though she has quite a temper. Generous when she needs to be, and responsible enough to keep tabs on her wealth so she doesn't lose everything (despite being a big spender). Though, unlike her grandfather, she has a high libido, and gets around often. She's cute and flirty, but often times obedient (in a non-sexy way, though useless full disclosure, she is a bottom) to the whims of others, especially if they have something over her (though she gets back at them) and due to her village's isolation, is more gullible than her grandfather (though she slowly loses this gullibility like her grandfather... though it takes longer for her to get there until she reaches the Bishops).

Finidy kind of believes in higher powers? Like most of it is mixed in with the belief her grandfather is looking out for her, and some others she gains on her journey. A very big believer in fate and destiny, as well as magic. However, while she does believe there are people who are driven by maliciousness and greed, and not everyone is as noble and generous as they appear to be, she does try to believe there is an explanation for their evil deeds, but never excuses them (especially the likes of President Richardson and Frank Horrigan, as well as John Bishop). Finidy is under the belief her grandfather's spirit has blessed her with luck, though whether she believes luck and karma exist is entirely for convenience.

Finidy's top priorities are the survival of her family and home, and while on her journey, ensuring her companions and lover/s safety. She does her best to take care of her health, to reveal the truth and take into account other's opinions. While she is mindful of praise (a desire she used to want for but is replaced by the weight of responsibility and duty she knows she has to commit to), dispensing justice, and ensuring some wealth, they aren't top priority but if given the opportunity she tries. Power and fame are hardly what she wants and is a little annoyed she gets some of it anyway.

Her SPECIAL Stats include:

Strength (7), Perception (7), Endurance (4), Charisma (8), Intelligence (7), Agility (10), and Luck (6).

Tag Skills include:

Melee, Lockpick and Speech.

And lastly main Perks:

Magnetic Personality, Awareness, and Toughness.

Template below:

[misfitwashere]

The Submission Chain

The Transitive Property and Trump

TIMOTHY SNYDER

NOV 14

To normalize what is happening is to take part in the regime change.  For a writer, normalization means pretending that the same concepts that once applied still do apply.  When we do that, we destroy the concepts. 

For an unfamiliar politics we will need experimentation.  Two essays ago, this meant reconsidering a historical cliché; last time, it meant a sitcom pitch; this time, we will do some applied math.

You might remember the transitive property.  If one number (x) is lesser than another number (y) and (y) is lesser than (z), then we can be certain that (x) is lesser than (z).  Or: if x < y and y < z, then x < z. 

The mathematical notation can help us define a submission chain: who submits to whom in the Trumpian oligarchy.  If we can lay this out plainly, we might see some openings for understanding -- and for action.  And so, to begin:

Trump voters  <  Trump

Trump voters have chosen a Leader, someone with a story.  Many of them believe that he is a billionaire, that he won the election of 2020, that Russia had nothing to do with it, that Haitians in Ohio eat cats, and so on.  In other words, many of them believe in lies that, at some level, they know to be lies.  This is submission; living inside someone else's story always is.  And thus many Trump voters are choosing to be manipulated in a certain kind of venture, one in which politics must be about division (sorry, more math!).  If politics begins from lies and you accept that, you can always "own" the other side, because they will be upset not only by your winning but also by the lies you repeat.  For many Trump voters, this is what power means: "owning the libs." 

I remember the first time I heard this phrase: in rural southwestern Ohio, in 2016.  And what I thought then was: just because he upsets other Americans, how does that help you?  How does that help our country?  "Owning the libs" does not get us far in international politics. Usually democratic power is about multiplication: we bring people together, we can pass some laws, people might benefit.  But Trump's domestic power is division, making America much weaker than it would be in foreign affairs.  The United States is strong as a republic (flawed though that republic might be).  It is weaker when its ruler aspires to be a divider and a dictator.  And thus the very power that Trump voters see in Trump is, seen from any external perspective, weakness.  This is how the next step of the formula is possible:

Trump voters <  Trump  < Putin, therefore Trump voters < Putin

At this point the Trump voters protest!  The moment the subject Russia is raised, Trump supporters defend their submission to Trump by defending him from the charge that he is submissive to Russia.  They have been trained to use the word "hoax," which emerges like an auto-response to the word "Russia."  Trump supporters (and Russians pretending to be Trump supporters on the internet) have bullied the press with the "hoax" taunt for so long and so hard that media seem frightened of the subject, even though every serious journalist who has worked on the subject knows that Russia backs Trump and has backed Trump for years and years. 

The "hoax" taunt, incidentally, or perhaps not so incidentally, is what the Russians call "reflexive control."  A psychological environment is created in which you do not what you want to do but what Russia wants you to do.  You know that if you write about Russia's persistent and obvious backing of Donald Trump, a chorus of "hoax" will follow you.  And so you do not do it.  And so, even when Russia blatantly interfered in this presidential election on election day by way of bomb threats to dozens precincts with Democratic majorities, this got little attention.  This reflex does so much work these days that even new and obvious examples of Russian support for Trump get absorbed by it! 

Trump knows that Russia's backing of him is not a hoax, and Putin knows that it is not a hoax.  Russia's support for him is so much on Trump's mind that he seeks to appoint as CIA director someone who believes will expunge the record of what Trump called in the announcement "fake Russian collusion."  In fact, the CIA at the time, along with all other US intelligence agencies, judged that Russia had intervened to support the Trump campaign.  After the election, the evidence only mounted.  I wrote an entire book that led to this episode (Road to Unfreedom), tracing its sources back to ideological changes in Russia and technological changes that allowed for the intervention.  The Mueller Report, though little read and dismissed, actually makes the case quite indisputably that Russia supported Trump; indeed, even its critics did not directly question that, but rather focused on the idea that it did not prove collusion.  This was not really true, either; there was plenty of collusion, but Mueller thought that this was better left for an impeachment than a prosecution, which got us into the square dance of legal irresponsibility around Trump in which we still find ourselves.

One can debate the sources of Trumps submissiveness to Putin.  Is it mainly all the money made from the licensing agreements?  Is it mainly admiration for the billionaire oligarch, something that Trump clearly wants to be?  Is it mainly gratitude for the electoral assistance, for the favor that Russia now explicitly calls in?  Is it a more complicated manipulation of Trump's ego, combining elements of all these?  Or is it that the Russians are actually capable of blackmailing him directly, as people who spend time with him tend to believe?  Is it now that Trump and Musk and Putin, in all of their calls these last two years, have cooked up something between themselves?  Whatever the causes, the results up to now have been unmistakable.  Trump portrays Putin as a great leader, says that he trusts him more than his own advisors, praises his invasion of Ukraine as "brilliant," and now proposes a defender of Putinism as director of national intelligence. 

There is no conceivable argument from US national interests to propose Tulsi Gabbard for that most critical position.  She has zero relevant experience. The only thing for which she is known is her support of Putin (and Assad). Her candidacy is, quite literally, a proposal that can only have emerged in Moscow, where she is known as a "Russian agent" or as "our girlfriend."

Trump voters <  Trump  < Putin < Xi, therefore Trump voters <  Xi

Trump voters, of course, would resist this formula, and so would the pro-Trump elite.  Surely Trump, if nothing else, is a China hawk?  Yet whatever Trump might say, he cannot possibly mount a policy that deters China if he is submissive to Putin.  The Russian leader is in an inferior position to the Chinese leader; Russia's war on Ukraine has reduced Putin very much to the position of beseeching client.  So to be Putin's client, as Trump very much appears to be, is also to be Xi's. 

But I don't insist on this just as a logical consequence of the transitive property of submission.  The relationship is concrete and specific and has to do with Ukraine.  If Trump submits to Putin on Ukraine, he not only demonstrates that he is incapable of dealing with China, he surrenders in advance to China. 

This logic is clear to essentially everyone in the world except Americans, who tend to see themselves as only having bilateral relationships with other countries, and to always be in the dominant role.  We might imagine that we are in a bilateral relationship with Ukraine, and with Russia, and with China, and can do as we choose with respect to each.  But these relationships are deeply intertwined. 

Ukrainian resistance deters China in way that we cannot deter China ourselves.  Virtually anything the United States does to deter China can be seen as provocative.  Simply by defending itself, however, Ukraine demonstrates that offensive operations are difficult and unpredictable.  Should Trump submit to Putin and try to force Ukraine to surrender, this deterrent affect disappears. 

And of course China is watching what we do (again, whether we realize this or not!).  Not only in Beijing but in all the world beyond America's allies the thinking is essentially such: if the United States cannot help to defend Ukraine, which is an easy case, there is no way that the United States would help to defend Taiwan. 

Why is Ukraine an easy case?  Because we have no troops in Ukraine and never will; because the case fits perfectly our explicit commitment to defending democracy; and because we enjoy, with our allies, an overwhelming economic advantage over Russia.  And so, if the United States tries to surrender Ukraine to Putin, this is not only submission to XI, it is an invitation to a far broader war, one that might have been deterred simply by continuing to back Ukraine.

I write "tries to surrender Ukraine to Russia" advisedly.  Ukraine is not ours to surrender.  Trump can himself surrender, but he cannot surrender on behalf of Ukraine.  And precisely because Trump has been to persistently submissive in his dealings with Putin, the Russians assume that his opening offer, whatever it is, can be improved by ignoring him or abusing him. 

Putin and his Kremlin subordinates are certainly mocking Trump at the moment: denying that a phone call took place when Trump says it did; escalating viciously in Ukraine after Trump claimed that he told Putin not to escalate; showing pornographic photographs of Trump's wife on Russian state television; suggesting that Trump owes his presidency to Russia (Patrushev); predicting that Trump will be assassinated if he does not do Russia's bidding (Medvedev).  All of this emphasizes Trump < Putin. 

But for Putin this is also in some sense a bluff.  The war in Ukraine, although horrible costly for the Ukrainian defenders, is also a disaster for Russia.  The Russians are taking horrible losses for minor advances.  They are using North Korean soldiers in a battle to try to regain Russian territory from Ukrainians.  If, when Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022, someone had forecast that "in about three years, Russia will be deploying North Koreans to try to retake Ukrainian-occupied portions of Kursk oblast" that would have seemed insane.  But that is where we are.  The Russians have been telling themselves for two years that a Trump victory will mean their victory in Ukraine, and they will no doubt try to prove themselves right.  Continuing the offensive and bullying Trump are two sides of the same coin. 

Theoretically, Trump could break out of this logic.  As the Ukrainians keep trying to remind us, Russia will only seek peace if it believes that it is losing.  Russia will only believe that if the United States aids Ukraine more rather than less.  But this is impossible so long as it remains the case that Trump  < Putin, so long as that part of the submission chain holds.  And so long as that link is unbroken, it also remains true that Trump < Xi.  There can be no successful China policy without the right Ukraine policy.  And, so long as that is the case, Trump voters < Xi, whether they like it or not.  This is not what they voted for, and not what the Trumpist elite promised, but it will be the case.

To be sure, the transitive property of submission does not capture everything about domestic and international politics.  But I believe that it does capture something quite important that conventional thinking might not.  We will never understand the choice of Tulsi Gabbard in terms of democracy or national interest or by any of the familiar concepts.  It does make sense as part of a submission chain (or on Oligarchs' Island). 

By making ourselves smaller than we need to be at home, we also make ourselves smaller than we might like to be abroad.  If we have a president who considers himself an aspiring dictator among real dictators, the United States is weak where it might have been strong.  When we enter the personalistic kinds of relationships that Trump favors and claims to thrive in, we find ourselves in a submissive position that no one ever actually wanted -- no one, except for Trump, Putin, and Xi.

[azhdakha]

I don't know if I'll have enough energy for collecting materials on this topic, so I'll start with just voicing my thoughts.

I think that a lot of misunderstanding and conflict between Eastern Europeans & West Asians come from the half-ass knowledge about the history of communism in these countries. Before the revolution in russian empire indiegnous people and ethnic minorities were oppressed, that's a fact. Stripped off their culture, religion and land, treated as inferior to the colonized ethno-religious community, raped, murdered, genocided. Economic and social inequality and opression also did exist and played a serious role in that. Naturally there were quite a lot of people among russians as well as indigenous people that saw the revolution of 1917 as a way to get rid of this opression, to change the society. Communists' ideology of equality including racial and ethnic was attractive to them. It was a political ideology that got into a lot of nations and peoples including through communist propaganda using the inequality to attract followers and supporters. That's a fact. That's why I'm always baffled when people say as if communism was something exclusively foreign and brought by russians from Moscow and there wasn't any communists among indigenous popualtion. Communists policiy included so-called Korenization in the first two decades of USSR. In some regions communists brought emancipation for women which is seen as colonial by some conservative activists. And tankies know that too and naturally see it as good.

Now what they seem to not understand in their utopian idealized and sanitized version of communists regimes is that if something works in theory it doesn't mean it's gonna work in practice. Yes, ideologically communists were supposed to bring ethnic equality, land back, equal rights, economic equality, eradicate opression etc. In reality it turned into a certain cruel, radical and bloody extermination and opression of not only everyone who doesn't agree and blindly support communism and worship their leaders, but everyone who's life and whole existence was on the way of communist plans. It was as insane as it sounds, whether you like it or not. People were taken away their last food supplies and means to survive. People were repressed for the most marasmatic reasons or even without reason. It was a civil war and it was violent. It wasn't just a fight against the oppressors. It was a war against everyone who was in the wag of communists holding the power. Often between the members of the communist party. And there is plenty, PLENTY of materials about it. Eventually after the Civil War the red army veterans and active communists were repressed themselves during purges. The politics of korenization didn't last during the whole period of USSR, it existed only a couple of first decades. The traditional cultures were replaced by a surrogate, comfortable for the regime. The casual racism, chauvinism and xenophobia didn't go anywhere. Some would say that for that period of history it was very progressive nevertheless. But we do criticize the societies of western countries of the past despite they also strived for equality in some way, don't we? We criticise early white feminists and white abolitionists. Why can't we criticize the communist states of past then? This is a question for tankies. For some reason you assume that everyone criticizing communism or everyone repressed is a bourgeois and deserved it. Meanwhile everyone from Eastern Europe and West Asia will say that this isn't true even if they are communists themselves.

World isn't divided on black and white, it's complicated. Yes, communists promised equality, indigenous rights, eradication of opression, and yes, a lot of indigenous people joined them hoping to get rid of the imperial regime. But in reality it turned into a bloody war and cruel repressions. Most of its time since late 30s to its end USSR was just as imperialist as the west, simply under the slogan of "we've come to free you from western imperialism". Both can coexist without a hypocrite silencing of one.

[robinsnest2111]

I wanted to let you know I'm perfectly okay with you posting your response to my other ask - and this one - publicly.

Also, the German Guilt™ is bullshit and needs to go. I feel so bad for everyone over there; y'all rarely show much national pride anymore unless it's for a sporting event. Germans have just as much right to feel proud of their heritage as anybody else. (Heaven knows we Americans show plenty of it😂) I'd venture to say the majority of people understand the regime was one of those things that takes special circumstances to even happen. One of those 'the planets have to align just so' type events. It was a different era; a different political climate altogether. Those who still throw slurs are uneducated idiots. Ignore 'em, call 'em a dummkopf...whatever floats your boat.😄 Same applies to any other Germans who might be reading this.

But yeah, the war ended 78 years ago, our countries have been close allies for decades, etc. It's time to let the past go. Remembering it in order to prevent atrocities from happening again is fine. Continuously feeling guilty over the actions of people who are long dead, however, is not. If y'all could survive the absolute chaos that was the Weimar Republic, you guys can handle this too.🇺🇲💜🇩🇪

(I would have sent all of this to you in a message, but you only allow messages from Tumblrs you follow.)

thank you for your kind and encouraging words

idk about my fellow Germans, but for me national pride is a very difficult subject. the war may be long over and the regime smashed, but if you look closely, its ghost is still present in many parts of daily life, society, and power structures here. Still so much to change and improve.

The ones yelling the loudest for a comeback of traditions, culture and national pride are very obviously aligned with far right conservative ideology, purity of the German people and other such harmful nonsense and paint a very narrow-minded and hate-filled picture of what they consider German culture, traditions and values. All while stealing and misusing other cultures' symbols and traditions for their goals.

Personally, I've never been shown or taught much of anything about regional (and national) history, traditions and culture apart from the shameful role we played in the 30s and 40s. There's not much to be proud of from my current point of view.

[All of this makes enjoying or being interested in any media that involves this era, no matter if the nazis are painted as fools and losers in a comedic light or as evil Bad Guys in a more serious way, even objective deep dive documentaries, feel dangerous and forbidden. Other Germans don't shy away from occasionally making fun of Hitler and the Nazis, idk why it is so difficult for me. Maybe because the lines between humour, education and glorification are so damn blurry, can turn into a slippery slope so fast, you cannot look into other people's brains and know the true motivations behind their actions, and I've never been good at navigating all this.]

Anyway, maybe I need to dig deep into local archives and do some research myself. Find some pieces of light (local folklore, everyday history, smaller lesser known traditions, etc.) underneath the dark heavy blanket of Germany's national past. Try to differentiate and balance it out in my brain. Find nuance. To quiet the part of my mind that keeps shouting "IT'S ALL CONNECTED AAAHHHH!" whenever I think about German history and culture, cause and effect, etc.

As always, this is only how I personally feel and think about this in this moment, I'm obviously NOT speaking for all of the German people!

[leohtttbriar]

In Toronto, I was listening to a gifted young pianist play Haydn’s Variations in F minor. It seemed like the perfect escape from politics and an overriding pessimism: to throw myself into art, and the act of giving to the next generation of musicians. But as soon as he started—strange to say—I was jealous. Not to run up to the stage and take over. My craving was even worse. I wanted to crawl into bed and wrap myself in the gorgeous sadness of this music like a blanket, with bags and bags of unhealthy snacks, and stay there for four years or more, depending. Sitting in the audience, trying to look like a serious teacher, I wondered—what is it about this particular musical melancholy? Why does it ring so true, feel so real? We are bombarded by fake sadness these days, so much aggrieved whining and childish, feigned outrage dominating the news cycle, trickling down into our lives. It felt amazing to drink pure, adult unhappiness. It made me want to unpack it, to see what consolations or truths were held within. [...] As I listened on to the young pianist play, in between moments of surrendering to the music, I kept murmuring to myself—against my better judgement—the phrase “both sides.” An endemic epidemic phrase nowadays. For instance “now that the media’s tyranny has been lifted, you can hear both sides” or “universities should teach both sides” or crap like that. In junior high school, in 1982, our teacher made us have a both-sides discussion of creationism vs. evolution, and even back then I wondered what the hell we were doing. What is the line between a productive debate and an irresolvable culture war? From the moment “both sides” is uttered, you are likely not in a meaningful discussion. The game is already rigged. Issues of import to our lives do not (and should not) have two sides. They have many sides, shades, perspectives, so many! But how then do we deal with a world which prefers to paint in twos? [...] In the world of the pastoral, of course, no matter how delightful the breezes are, coming off the Aegean Sea or wherever, no matter how contented the sheep are, grazing on the rocky hills, there is always the other side, where the same force becomes deadly. The happy fertile rain of spring, helping to bring forth nature’s bounty, becomes the killing frost of winter. Seasons are a form of regime change. Both sides! I wished my student, as he played, would have more of this uncertainty, this helpless awe in front of the shifting faces of nature or fate—or however you want to put it. I felt similarly about Schiff, to be honest. Control seemed central to his vision of these variations—but the piece, viewed another way, is more about how certain variations are beyond our control.