#deconstructing American government

[socialjusticeinamerica]

Most of them work for one of Felon Musk’s companies but at least one was installed by right-wing German born oligarch Peter Thiel. One of them was hired after winning a “hackathon” contest! muskrat is now saying he re-hired the anti-Indian racist one that resigned.

🤬🤬🤬

[rejectingrepublicans]

Oh look, one of Elon’s DOGE Boys is a raging racist. Quelle surprise!

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

Children who worked as software engineers and have no idea what government agencies do or why they do it.

🖕🖕🖕

“Their obsessions with running our agency ‘like a business’ is nothing more than a reckless corporate takeover that disregards the critical role we play in serving the public,” the employee said.”

[fairuzfan]

AMAZING article about what it means to participate in anti-Zionism work both online and in person.

If your anti-zionism does not in any way acknowledge that it is a way of thought and practice led by and for Palestinians, then you need to reevaluate your "anti-zionism" label.

Some passages that felt especially relevant to tumblr:

If we accept, as those with even the most rudimentary understanding of history do, that zionism is an ongoing process of settler-colonialism, then the undoing of zionism requires anti-zionism, which should be understood as a process of decolonisation. Anti-zionism as a decolonial ideology then becomes rightly situated as an indigenous liberation movement. The resulting implication is two-fold. First, decolonial organising requires that we extract ourselves from the limitations of existing structures of power and knowledge and imagine a new, just world. Second, this understanding clarifies that the caretakers of anti-zionist thought are indigenous communities resisting colonial erasure, and it is from this analysis that the strategies, modes, and goals of decolonial praxis should flow. In simpler terms: Palestinians committed to decolonisation, not Western-based NGOs, are the primary authors of anti-zionist thought. We write this as a Palestinian and a Palestinian-American who live and work in Palestine, and have seen the impact of so-called ‘Western values’ and how the centring of the ‘human rights’ paradigm disrupts real decolonial efforts in Palestine and abroad. This is carried out in favour of maintaining the status quo and gaining proximity to power, using our slogans emptied of Palestinian historical analysis.

Anti-zionist organising is not a new notion, but until now the use of the term in organising circles has been mired with misunderstandings, vague definitions, or minimised outright. Some have incorrectly described anti-zionism as amounting to activities or thought limited to critiques of the present Israeli government – this is a dangerous misrepresentation. Understanding anti-zionism as decolonisation requires the articulation of a political movement with material, articulated goals: the restitution of ancestral territories and upholding the inviolable principle of indigenous repatriation and through the right of return, coupled with the deconstruction of zionist structures and the reconstitution of governing frameworks that are conceived, directed, and implemented by Palestinians.  Anti-zionism illuminates the necessity to return power to the indigenous community and the need for frameworks of justice and accountability for the settler communities that have waged a bloody, unrelenting hundred-year war on the people of Palestine. It means that anti-zionism is much more than a slogan. 

[...]

While our collective imaginations have not fully articulated what a liberated and decolonised Palestine looks like, the rough contours have been laid out repeatedly. Ask any Palestinian refugee displaced from Haifa, the lands of Sheikh Muwannis, or Deir Yassin – they will tell that a decolonised Palestine is, at a minimum, the right of Palestinians’ return to an autonomous political unit from the river to the sea. When self-proclaimed ‘anti-zionists’ use rhetoric like ‘Israel-Palestine’ – or worse, ‘Palestine-Israel’ – we wonder: where do you think ‘Israel’ exists? On which land does it lay, if not Palestine? This is nothing more than an attempt to legitimise a colonial state; the name you are looking for is Palestine – no hyphen required. At a minimum, anti-zionist formations should cut out language that forces upon Palestinians and non-Palestinian allies the violence of colonial theft. 

[...]

The common choice to centre the Oslo Accords, international humanitarian law, and the human rights paradigm over socio-historical Palestinian realities not only limits our analysis and political interventions; it restricts our imagination of what kind of future Palestinians deserve, sidelining questions of decolonization to convince us that it is the new, bad settlers in the West Bank who are the source of violence. Legitimate settlers, who reside within the bounds of Palestinian geographies stolen in 1948 like Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, are different within this narrative. Like Breaking the Silence, they can be enlightened by learning the error of colonial violence carried out in service of the bad settlers. They can supposedly even be our solidarity partners – all without having to sacrifice a crumb of colonial privilege or denounce pre-1967 zionist violence in any of its cruel manifestations. As a result of this course of thought, solidarity organisations often showcase particular Israelis – those who renounce state violence in service of the bad settlers and their ongoing colonisation of the West Bank – in roles as professionals and peacemakers, positioning them on an equal intellectual, moral, or class footing with Palestinians. There is no recognition of the inherent imbalance of power between these Israelis and the Palestinians they purport to be in solidarity with – stripping away their settler status. The settler is taken out of the historical-political context which afforded them privileged status on stolen land, and is given the power to delineate the Palestinian experience. This is part of the historical occlusion of the zionist narrative, overlooking the context of settler-colonialism to read the settler as an individual, and omitting their class status as a settler. 

It is essential to note that Palestinians have never rejected Jewish indigeneity in Palestine. However, the liberation movement has differentiated between zionist settlers and Jewish natives. Palestinians have established a clear and rational framework for this distinction, like in the Thawabet, the National Charter of Palestine from 1968. Article 6 states, ‘The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.’ When individuals misread ‘decolonisation’ as ‘the mass killing or expulsion of Jews,’ it is often a reflection of their own entanglement in colonialism or a result of zionist propaganda. Perpetuating this rhetoric is a deliberate misinterpretation of Palestinian thought, which has maintained this position over a century of indigenous organising.  Even after 100 years of enduring ethnic cleansing, whole communities bombed and entire family lines erased, Palestinians have never, as a collective, called for the mass killing of Jews or Israelis. Anti-zionism cannot shy away from employing the historical-political definitions of ‘settler’ and ‘indigenous’ in their discourse to confront ahistorical readings of Palestinian decolonial thought and zionist propaganda. 

[...]

In the context of the United States, the most threatening zionist institutions are the entrenched political parties which function to maintain the status quo of the American empire, not Hillel groups on university campuses or even Christian zionist churches. While the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) engage in forms of violence that suppress Palestinian liberation and must not be minimised, it is crucial to recognise that the most consequential institutions in the context of settler-colonialism are not exclusively Jewish in their orientation or representation: the Republican and Democratic Party in the United States do arguably more to manufacture public consent for the slaughtering of Palestinians than the ADL and AIPAC combined. Even the Progressive Caucus and the majority of ‘The Squad’ are guilty of this.

Leila Shomali and Lara Kilani

[a-d-nox]

pluto in aquarius: a prediction of what's to come

this is a huge astrological event, pluto is moving into aquarius for the first time since the late 1700s. last time pluto was in aquarius america fought for independence from britain, uranus was discovered, the french revolution began, the bill of rights was ratified, etc.

so for day one, i want to create predictions of what is to come!

some house matters!!!

TWO PLUTO RETROGRADES WILL OCCUR - june 11th - jan 20th, 2024 is the first so we won't see too much wildness just yet as pluto will return into capricorn during this time and THE FINAL RETROGRADE BACK INTO CAPRICORN will be september 1st, 2024 - november 19th, 2024. then we are full steam ahead with pluto in aquarius until march 9th, 2043.

i personally am NOT a witch or anything wild, everything i am saying is purely theoretical - it is not fated to happen just because i am saying it. i am simply socially aware. i know what's up generally in the world today and what was up in world in the 1700s - "history typically repeats itself."

i live in the usa so my post likely will be slightly more focused there examples wise so i apologize in advance! feel free to comment, dm, or reblog with other examples from your country based on my prediction key phrases.

i am going to start light and get darker so mentally prepare yourself for that (tw: STI/STD outbreaks, war, 9/11, COVID-19, and other abrasive topics that may make people uncomfortable depending on where they are currently reading from) - but we are talking about pluto so... expect the unexpected?!

let's do this.

renewable energy sources

aquarius is electricity, light, inventions, electronics, telephones, televisions, etc while pluto can be change! i recently bought a new tv and the back of the remote has a solar panel instead of a battery pack. i do believe we will see more evolution with technology; perhaps we will see solar changed phones! otherwise pluto is also pollution and natural disasters - the climate is in crisis mode perhaps we will see more responsibility and thus changes in our sourcing of energy! example: recently i read that japan has a great source of geothermal energy. currently the conversion to using this source (instead of coal, gas, and nuclear energy) is being held up by a higher up in the hot spring business who claims switching to a new energy system "threatens centuries-old traditions" (bang - a capricorn term - tradition - so perhaps after the retrogrades are through we will see a major shift in energy sourcing).

general technological advancements/inventions

last time pluto was in aquarius the cotton gin was invented; which aided in quicker production of goods and higher demand for american cotton. i strongly believe this is a general indicator that AI is going to become an even bigger part of day to day life. i have seen AI already replace those who take orders in the panera drive thru, there is a higher demand for philosophy/english grads to help teach AI, etc. aquarius is also new teachers/occupations so AI could become the new teachers OR new careers could be coming in the area of interacting with AI generally so it gains more consciousness. so it could be AI or it could be something else that is only just a dream in the back of someone's mind at this moment in time.

altruistic extremists

we may see utopian dreamers rise up! they are likely to advocate for the deconstruction of pre-existing political institutions in favor of either self governance or egalitarian policies. they will likely do whatever it takes to make this statement; we may see more protests / political statements similar to wynn bruce's.

fanatical/extremist announcers radio/tv

we already have biased stations and channels (fox, abc, cnn, nbc, etc). we are likely to see a further rise in politically biased newscasters and announcers.

demonization of astrology

astrology is aquarian in nature but pluto is fanatics, evil, demonics, etc. the community has been saying about the next world war for a while now. we are moving out of conservative pluto in capricorn, so we may find that those of deep belief systems accusing us [astrologers] of conspiring with the devil if/when something militant arises (similar to how the tarot community gets told constantly by christians that they must be satanists).

something with birds

i don't have this nailed down yet specifically, but both aquarius and pluto are rulers of birds. aquarius is large birds while pluto is wading/swamp birds and/or flesh eating birds. no one freak out and start thinking that i am indicating something like the 1963 horror film the birds. if anything i can see more bird-spread illness and/or parasites. OR pluto can be archaeology! there may be a bird related discovery or something to do with the distant relative of the bird - aka the raptor (dinosaur related).

a new STI/STD discovery/outbreak

aquarius represents the distribution of bodily fluids while pluto is often representative of sexual activity. this could either be an outbreak because pluto can be death, extremes, catastrophes, and/or casualties OR pluto can be ph balance in the body (possible new discoveries for feminine sexual health), kidneys (perhaps a discovery will be linked to the diminished functionality associated with syphilis, hiv, etc and how to combat more symptomatic issues), and even purification (aka a cure perhaps to help viral carriers to no longer pass the sti/std to sexual partners).

collapse of congress / house of commons/representatives

i mean it only stands to reason that the bill of rights was created/approved last time pluto was in aquarius that either those rights will disappear (pluto also represents dictators) OR simply the people rise up and demolish the institution as it stands: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

airplane catastrophes

aquarius rules over planes and pluto can represent accomplices, catastrophes, casualties, b0mbs, and t3rr0r!sm. we may experience another event similar to 9/11 OR we may see air strikes in a potential world war 3 scenario.

societal change: crime, war, leadership, and more

world war 3 is on the horizon so say pluto in aquarius (probably in the wake of election year in the US - when the final retrograde into capricorn concludes). but this could also just be governmental restructuring - this could be seen as rebellions (similar to the French Revolution), the rise of organized crime if good become more scarce, religious shifts (pluto is the antichrist, aquarius is freewill (first amendment), and capricorn is the old church (christian schools of thought)), etc.

aquarian terms i can't think of change in but seem important to note / keep in mind: freethinkers, hamburg germany, heart weakness (biden - perhaps the early death of a president in office?), motion picture (already changing as more theaters close), photography, psychology (we are already starting to care more about everyone's mental health), science (general scientific discoveries?), social affairs (there is always something going on - the question is how big will this be?), society, sweden, syria, and xray.

plutonian terms i can't think of change in but seem important to note / keep in mind: abductions (aliens - ufo sights?), aliases, alibis (governmental riffing similar to how no plan was in place when for COVID-19), assass!nat!0n (hopefully not), betrayal, bootlegging (bootleg tiktok if america bans it?), cemeteries (removal of that method if too many are dying at any giving time - mass graves?), convicts (prison release due to overcrowding? the mega-prison of el salvador?), corruption (governmental likely?), demolitions, earthquakes (more environmental issues?), electrocution, executions (war?), fanatic, extremes, floods (environmental? emigration - society is aquarius after all?), liars, massacres (the rise of crime?), murder, nihilism (the rise of philosophy at the time of war?), ransom (war?), satire (rise of political satire?), stolen goods, and taxes (trump-esque no?).

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my “suggest a post topic” button if you want to see a specific post or mythical asteroid next!

click here for the masterlist

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices!

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Overkill. http://Newsday.com/matt :: Matt Davies

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 13, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 14, 2024

Republican senators today elected John Thune of South Dakota to be the next Senate majority leader. Trump and MAGA Republicans had put a great deal of pressure on the senators to back Florida senator Rick Scott, but he marshaled fewer votes than either Thune or John Cornyn of Texas, both of whom were seen as establishment figures in the mold of the Republican senators’ current leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Scott lost on the first vote. The fact that the vote was secret likely helped Thune’s candidacy. Senators could vote without fear of retaliation. 

The rift between the pre-2016 leaders of the Republican Party and the MAGA Republicans is still obvious, and Trump’s reliance on Elon Musk and his stated goal of deconstructing the American government could make it wider. 

Republican establishment leaders have always wanted to dismantle the New Deal state that began under Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and continued under Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower and presidents of both parties until 1981. But they have never wanted to dismantle the rule of law on which the United States is founded or the international rules-based order on which foreign trade depends. Aside from moral and intellectual principles, the rule of law is the foundation on which the security of property rests: there is a reason that foreign oligarchs park their money in democracies. And it is the international rules-based order that protects the freedom of the seas on which the movement of container ships, for example, depends.

Trump has made it clear that his goal for a second term is to toss overboard the rule of law and the international rules-based order, instead turning the U.S. government into a vehicle for his own revenge and forging individual alliances with autocratic rulers like Russian president Vladimir Putin. 

He has begun moving to  put into power individuals whose qualifications are their willingness to do as Trump demands, like New York representative Elise Stefanik, whom he has tapped to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, or Florida senator Marco Rubio, who Trump said today would be his nominee for secretary of state. 

Alongside his choice of loyalists who will do as he says, Trump has also tapped people who will push his war on his cultural enemies forward, like anti-immigrant ideologue Stephen Miller, who will become his deputy chief of staff and a homeland security advisor. Today, Trump added to that list by saying he plans to nominate Florida representative Matt Gaetz, who has been an attack dog for Trump, to become attorney general.

Trump’s statement tapping Gaetz for attorney general came after Senate Republicans rejected Scott, and appears to be a deliberate challenge to Republican senators that they get in line. In his announcement, Trump highlighted that Gaetz had played “a key role in defeating the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax.” 

But establishment Republican leaders understand that some of our core institutions cannot survive MAGA’s desire to turn the government into a vehicle for culture war vengeance. 

Gaetz is a deeply problematic pick for AG. A report from the House Ethics Committee investigating allegations of drug use and sex with a minor was due to be released in days. Although he was reelected just last week, Gaetz resigned immediately after Trump said he would nominate him, thus short-circuiting the release of the report. Last year, Republican senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN that “we had all seen the videos he was showing on the House floor, that all of us had walked away, of the girls that he had slept with. He would brag about how he would crush [erectile dysfunction] medicine and chase it with an energy drink so he could go all night." 

While South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said he would be willing to agree to the appointment, other Republican senators drew a line. “I was shocked by the announcement —that shows why the advise and consent process is so important,” Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) said. “I’m sure that there will be a lot of questions raised at his hearing.” Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was blunt: “I don’t think he’s a serious candidate.”

If the idea of putting Gaetz in charge of the country’s laws alarmed Republicans concerned about domestic affairs, Trump’s pick of the inexperienced and extremist Fox & Friends host Pete Hegseth to take over the Department of Defense was a clarion call for anyone concerned about perpetuating the global strength of the U.S. The secretary of defense oversees a budget of more than $800 billion and about 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 1.4 million in the National Guard and employed in Reserves and civilian positions.

The secretary of defense also has access to the nuclear command-and-control procedure. Over his nomination, too, Republican senators expressed concern.

While Trump is claiming a mandate to do as he wishes with the government, Republicans interested in their own political future are likely noting that he actually won the election by a smaller margin than President Joe Biden won in 2020, despite a global rejection of incumbents this year. And he won not by picking up large numbers of new voters—it appears he lost voters—but because Democratic voters of color dropped out, perhaps reflecting the new voter suppression laws put into place since 2021.

Then, too, Trump remains old and mentally slipping, and he is increasingly isolated as people fight over the power he has brought within their grasp. Today his wife, Melania, declined the traditional invitation from First Lady Jill Biden for tea at the White House and suggested she will not be returning to the presidential mansion with her husband. It is not clear either that Trump will be able to control the scrabbling for power over the party by those he has brought into the executive branch, or that he has much to offer elected Republicans who no longer need his voters, suggesting that Congress could reassert its power.  

Falling into line behind Trump at this point is not necessarily a good move for a Republican interested in a future political career. 

Today the Republicans are projected to take control of the House of Representatives, giving the party control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, as well as the Supreme Court. But as the downballot races last week show, MAGA policies remain unpopular, and the Republican margin in the House will be small. In the last Congress, MAGA loyalists were unable to get the votes they needed from other Republicans to impose Trump’s culture war policies, creating gridlock and a deeply divided Republican conference. 

The gulf between Trump’s promises to slash the government and voters’ actual support for government programs is not going to make the Republicans’ job easier. Conservative pundit George Will wrote today that “the world’s richest person is about to receive a free public education,” suggesting Elon Musk, who has emerged as the shadow president, will find his plans to cut the government difficult to enact as elected officials reject cuts to programs their constituents like. 

Musk’s vow to cut “at least” $2 trillion from federal spending, Will notes, will run up against reality in a hurry. Of the $6.75 trillion fiscal 2024 spending, debt service makes up 13.1%; defense—which Trump wants to increase—is 12.9%. Entitlements, primarily Social Security and Medicare, account for 34.6%, and while the Republican Study Group has called for cuts to them, Trump said during the campaign, at least, that they would not be cut. 

So Musk has said he would cut about 30% of the total budget from about 40% of it. Will points out that Trump is hardly the first president to vow dramatic cuts. Notably, Ronald Reagan appointed J. Peter Grace, an entrepreneur, to make government “more responsive to the wishes of the people” after voters had elected Reagan on a platform of cutting government. Grace’s commission made 2,478 recommendations but quickly found that every lawmaker liked cuts to someone else’s district but not their own.  

Will notes that a possible outcome of the Trump chaos might be to check the modern movement toward executive power, inducing Congress to recapture some of the power it has ceded to the president in order to restore the stability businessmen prefer.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was himself a wealthy man, and in the 1930s he tried to explain to angry critics on the right that his efforts to address the nation’s inequalities were not an attack on American capitalism, but rather an attempt to save it from the communism or fascism that would destroy the rule of law. 

“I want to save our system, the capitalistic system,” FDR wrote to a friend in 1935. “[T]o save it is to give some heed to world thought of today.” 

The protections of the system FDR ushered in—the banking and equities regulation that killed crony finance, for example—are now under attack by the very sort of movement he warned against. Whether today’s lawmakers are as willing as their predecessors were to stand against that movement remains unclear, especially as Trump tries to bring lawmakers to heel, but Thune’s victory in the Senate today and the widespread Republican outrage over Trump’s appointment of Gaetz and Hegseth are hopeful signs. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[constantly-chaotic-and-confused]

It bugs me so much when people critique the unrealistic politics in Red White and Royal Blue as like a flaw of the books like just think about it.

With a romcom, literally the whole point is to put people’s wildly unrealistic romantic and sexual fantasies on screen, like the literal stuff you’d dream about at night, like what if my boss is going to be deported and I have to fake an engagement and then fall in love with her for real, what if my blind date under my friend’s name turns out to be the mega-rich owner of the company where I work, what if I’m a famous actress one day and an average guy who is also Hugh Grant spills orange juice on me and we fall in love like seriously the whole point is that’s it unrealistic and no one says anything.

And then we’ve got coming of age books which are also wildly unrealistic, like I’m thinking dystopia - 16 - year - old - single-handedly -takes -down - oppressive - government - regime sort of unrealistic, but we all eat it up cos 16 year old us would idealistically dream about single-handedly saving the world.

And all Casey does is make a book with both romantic fantasies and political fantasies and suddenly everyone says it’s unrealistic. Like cmon how is reading that one 21 year old aspiring politician single handedly deconstructs deeply entrenched American inequalities with the power of idealism and family and love any less catharticly unrealistic than ur average romcom plot. Like I’m sorry but I loved the politics, in the exact same way I loved the romance.

[the-desolated-quill]

It’s hard not to look at Captain America: Brave New World and not be incredibly angry at the squandered opportunity here.

Captain America was always propaganda. That’s why the comic was created in the first place back in the 40s, and it’s very much a reflection of the cultural attitudes of the time. The clever thing about the films is that they serve as a deconstruction of that propaganda. They deliberately make a distinction between Captain America; the symbol, and Captain America; the man. In all three films, Steve Rogers is expected to represent the interests of America, and in every single film he goes against that. He disobeys his commanding officer in order to save Bucky and the Howling Commandos from the HYDRA camps. He disobeys SHIELD when he finds out they’ve been infiltrated by Nazis and threaten the freedoms of the American people. He goes against the government when the Sokovia Accords come into effect. Steve Rogers explicitly and unambiguously rejects the idea that he is America’s mascot and must obey orders without question. He will always stand up and do the right thing, even if the right thing isn’t always the popular thing. It all comes back to what Dr Erskine said to him in the first movie. He’s not looking for a perfect soldier, but a good man. A perfect soldier doesn’t question. A perfect soldier represents his country regardless of his own beliefs. Red Skull is a perfect soldier. He’s also an elitist, egomaniacal tyrant. Winter Soldier is a perfect soldier. He’s also a brainwashed sleeper agent with no free will. Captain America is not a perfect soldier. But he is a good man.

Which is what makes Sam Wilson as the new Captain America so interesting. As an Africa American, he knows first hand what his country has done to people who look like him. He knows what his country historically represented to people like him. So what does that mean to suddenly be expected to represent that same country, and all its history of racism and discrimination along with it? Who is Sam Wilson? Is he a perfect soldier? Or a good man? In the eyes of America, what do those things even mean? There’s so much potential there for interesting social commentary and character exploration. Unfortunately this is the MCU, where interesting social commentary and character exploration has fallen by the wayside in recent years.

The irony is reactionary morons will reject this film for being ‘woke’ and ‘political’. When in reality, from what I’ve seen, this is going to be one of the most toothless and uninspired films in the whole franchise. It’s such a shame.

[coquettemouse]

american people or people who spend a lot of time with other american people are so steeped in eugenicist ideas that they don't even realize that certain thoughts of theirs are eugenicist. Anti-racism is not "let's fight for things to change but using the government's logic" anti-racism fight must begin by deconstructing your current ideas of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender norms. You ain't anti-racist until you break the pre-defined stereotypes of what defines someone as who they are. Because race is a racist idea to dehumanize, separate and power over people.

[darkmaga-returns]

USAID is a CIA Surrogate

A former USAID director, John Gilligan, admitted that USAID was "infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people." Gilligan explained that "the idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas; government, volunteer, religious, every kind." Given that USAID is widely believed and reported to be infiltrated by CIA personnel, and to function essentially as an arm of the CIA, it is ironic that USAID was established by President John F. Kennedy on November 3, 1961, through the signing of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Kennedy aimed to create a more efficient way to counter Soviet influence abroad through foreign assistance, seeing the State Department as too bureaucratic to accomplish this task efficiently.

When American humanitarian groups receive funds from USAID, their reports made the groups they assisted legible to USAID, and through USAID, this information is passed along to the CIA. Father Cotton, a missionary who became curious about the sources of mission work, described USAID as "the CIA'S little sister", and worried that those working on humanitarian and assistance projects were being "plugged into an information network that starts with the U.S. government and to which the CIA is connected". Cotter also understood that the CIA valued missionaries because, like anthropologists, they tended to "spend years working with grass-roots people and helping the unfortunates among them, they win trust and confidence. People will tell them about their hopes and fears, about village happenings, and about whatever there is of interest. They learn who are the most promising leaders, what are the region's problems, and they are often given access to people and areas closed to most outsiders. This is the information wanted by the CIA, and wanted in steadily flowing streams".

[spiritofthemountainnaturephoto]

I'm sick to my stomach thinking over the fact we as the American people could lose our public lands, national parks and monuments. We would lose so many beautiful natural areas, wildlife and history. We could lose places to hike, hunt and fish.

He was putting things in motion before and he will do it again.

"The Trump administration is responsible for the largest reduction in protected public lands in history, a study finds.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon coined the term “deconstruction of the administrative state,” to describe efforts to take power away from the federal government and allow business a freer hand in development. Nowhere is that policy being carried out more systematically than in the Trump administration’s actions on public lands, where the businesses seeking that freer hand are primarily the oil and gas extraction, logging, and mining industries.

Republicans in Western states hoped would be a new effort to take over control of federal lands, and introduced a bill to sell some 3.3 million public land acres out of federal hands."

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for-business-the-trump-revolution-on-public-lands

Please share so that more people can be aware for what is to come. We need to keep an eye on the Trump administration so that we don't lose our American right to hike, hunt and fish on OUR public lands!

[mariacallous]

Today, the flames of violent nationalism still flicker in the Balkans. Revisionist grievances and autocratic instincts animate leaders in Turkey and Hungary. The fallout from the 2009 European debt crisis and the years of hardship and austerity that followed showed that resentment of German influence—in this case, economic influence—is never deeply buried. Even today, as Putin gives European states every reason to work together, tensions between Ukraine and Poland or between France and Germany occasionally flare.

There are worrying political trends, as well. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has spent years deconstructing Hungarian democracy and touting the rise of the “illiberal state.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is carrying out a similar project in his country. Parties such as the National Rally in France are rising in the polls and trafficking in a hard-edged nationalism that can easily turn into zero-sum geopolitical thinking, with centuries of historical grievances ready to be awakened. The far-right Alternative for Germany remains a political contender even as it becomes more extreme. The triumph of these movements might well be aided by a Russia assiduously waging political warfare, all too eager to set European states against one another.

A fractured Europe gripped by its ancient demons is a nightmare scenario, and nightmares usually don’t come true. But what is crucial to understand is that a post-American Europe would be fundamentally unlike the Europe we have come to know. The geopolitical shock absorbers provided by U.S. power and its umbrella over Europe will be gone. The destabilizing uncertainty over status and security will return. Countries will no longer feel so confident that they can ensure their survival without resorting to the behavior—the military buildups, the intense rivalries—that characterized earlier eras. Today’s Europe is the product of a historically unique, unprecedented configuration of power and influence created by the United States. Can we really be so sure that the bad old ways won’t reassert themselves once the very safeguards that have suppressed them for 75 years are withdrawn?

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Europe’s transformation into today’s peaceful EU can never be undone. After all, Europe experienced stretches of relative peace before 1945—in the decades after Napoleon’s defeat, for instance—only for that peace to collapse once the balance of power shifted. And don’t think that tragedy can’t befall a continent that seems so enlightened: The history of Europe, prior to U.S. engagement, was the history of the world’s most economically advanced, most thoroughly modern continent repeatedly tearing itself to shreds. Indeed, if there is a lesson from Europe’s past, it is that the descent can come sooner and be steeper than currently seems possible to imagine.

In the 1920s, the forces of liberalism seemed ascendant: British writer James Bryce hailed the “universal acceptance of democracy as the normal and natural form of government.” The newly founded League of Nations was offering novel mechanisms for crisis management. Countries were slashing their militaries and settling outstanding grievances from World War I. Just a decade later, it was the forces of fascism that had the momentum as the continent careened toward another world war. Europe’s own history is testament to how quickly and completely things can all fall apart.

America Firsters may think that the United States can have all the benefits of a stable Europe without paying any of the costs. In reality, their policies risk reminding us that Europe has a far nastier historical norm. That would be a calamity—and not just for Europe. A weaker, more fragmented Europe would make it harder for the democratic world to cope with challenges from Russia, China, or Iran. A violent, hypercompetitive Europe could cause fallout on a global scale.

If Europe has benefited from being part of a thriving liberal order in recent decades, that liberal order has benefited from having a peaceful, gradually expanding EU at its core. If Europe turns dark and vicious again, it might once more export its conflicts to the world. On the day that the United States retreats across the Atlantic, it will be placing far more than the future of Europe at risk.

Trump’s Return Would Transform Europe

[anarchistfrogposting]

Genuine question. How does an anarchist state deal with people who want to kill for fun? Do we just let them, because to have rules is to oppose ever single anarchist value, or do we stop them because true anarchism like that would be the death of humanity?

It’s a question that anarchists get a lot. I’ll say first and foremost that, like any other field I personally am not involved in the organisation of, public safety is better left to professionals who understand its machinations (and hence how to deconstruct its inherent hierarchies) better than myself (and no, I don’t mean the police).

I’ll also posit that anarchist society is absolutely not founded on the concept of an absence of rules, just an absence of hierarchical (as opposed to self-) government. I don’t blame you for thinking that; it’s a very common perception of anarchism, especially considering the associations people tend to form with the word anarchism and anarchy in modern lexicon.

It’s true that sometimes, somehow, people end up in a path of life wherein they would do something as heinous as kill for fun, or other various unjust reasons.

I’d first like to posit that such people and situations, whilst sensationalised, are in fact pretty rare.

But they might still exist, so what do we do about them? The first step, like in much anarchist praxis, is to shift perceptions and culture. Whilst it’s true that humans love gossip, I would also posit that much of the culture around serial murders and the like exists because media companies exaggerate and glamorise murder in order to grab clicks/interactions/readers. This is most stark, for example, in the cycle of American gun violence.

Familial units would be significantly less isolated as a result of their integration into their communities, meaning the cycles and chains of domestic abuse that often lead to the proliferation of those violent tendencies would be much less common. It’s worth remembering that capitalism’s rise came hand in hand with the breakdown in communities; that it had to in order to succeed.

But let’s say the revolution has happened, culture has shifted and yet there’s still mass and serial murderers out and about. What do we do about it?

Community self government also means community self defence. On a voluntary basis, that means that communities can set up security measures like communal watches, (extensively trained, cyclically employable and imminently accountable and recallable) guards, and even detainment revolving around the attempted reformation and treatment of those individuals.

Fundamentally, detainment exists as a means to reform individuals, and the workers in those facilities would all receive training and all be fully accountable and recallable to and by their communities. Accountability measures include enforcing transparency and setting up dual power that includes the prisoners themselves, the communities concerned with those facilities, and the staff volunteering in it.

This approach is contentious, and different anarchists have different opinions on the most effective strategies. A great example of a leading prison abolitionist is Angela Davis, if you’re interested in learning more about systems of justice outside of imprisonment.

Keep sending in your questions! I’ll do my best to answer (as long as you’re asking in good faith!) no (genuine) question is too silly.

[alainamama17]

Comparative Analysis: Project 2025, 1930’s Nazi Germany, and the Rise of Authoritarianism

Introduction

The study of political systems and their trajectories provides valuable insights into the conditions that foster the rise of authoritarian regimes. This essay aims to compare the contemporary Project 2025 policies with the historical context of 1930’s Nazi Germany and the general emergence of authoritarian governments. By examining the ideological underpinnings, policy objectives, and governance strategies, we can discern the parallels that may signal a drift towards authoritarianism.

Project 2025: A Conservative Vision for America

Project 2025 is a conservative policy agenda aimed at deconstructing the administrative state and implementing a comprehensive conservative governance plan in the United States. The project’s policy aims include restoring the family as the centerpiece of American life, dismantling the administrative state, defending national sovereignty and borders, and securing individual rights. It is a concerted effort by a coalition of conservative scholars and policy experts to prepare for a conservative presidential administration in 2025.

Nazi Germany: Totalitarian Ambitions and Policies

Nazi Germany, under the rule of Adolf Hitler, was a totalitarian state that sought to control every aspect of public and private life. The regime’s policies were characterized by aggressive nationalism, suppression of opposition, and the persecution of minorities. The Nuremberg Laws and other decrees systematically stripped Jews and other groups of their rights and laid the groundwork for the Holocaust.

Authoritarianism: Characteristics and Formation

Authoritarian governments are characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, the absence of a clear mechanism for the transfer of power, and the repression of individual freedoms. These regimes often emerge in response to societal problems, where leaders promise stability and order in exchange for political rights.

Comparative Analysis

Ideological Foundations

Both Project 2025 and Nazi Germany share a focus on strong nationalistic sentiments. Project 2025 emphasizes the restoration of traditional values and national sovereignty, while Nazi Germany promoted a racially pure state. Authoritarian regimes often rise on the promise of returning to a ‘golden age’ or rectifying perceived societal decline.

Policy Objectives

Project 2025’s goal to dismantle the administrative state mirrors the early actions of the Nazi regime, which consolidated power by eliminating political opposition and centralizing control. Similarly, authoritarian regimes often centralize power to preserve the status quo and prevent political plurality.

Governance Strategies

The emphasis on a conservative victory and preparedness for immediate action in Project 2025 suggests a swift and decisive shift in governance upon election. This approach is reminiscent of how the Nazi party rapidly enacted policies to transform Germany into a totalitarian state. Authoritarian regimes typically employ rapid changes to solidify power and suppress dissent.

Conclusion

The comparison reveals concerning parallels in the rhetoric and strategies employed by Project 2025, 1930’s Nazi Germany, and the general patterns of authoritarianism. While the contexts and specifics differ, the underlying themes of nationalism, centralized power, and suppression of opposition are common threads that warrant attention. It is crucial for democratic societies to remain vigilant and protect the institutions that ensure political plurality and individual freedoms.

[achrilock-aether]

What concerns me, aside from everything that concerns everybody, is that we have the tactical level pretty much covered.

We, all of us, anarchists, communists, feminists, bureaucrats, progressivists (sigh), lawyers, environmentalists, abolitionists, everybody, understands the ground game for what’s coming.

What is less clear is the strategy layer. Tactical layer is the ‘how,’ the ‘when,’ the ‘where,’ the ‘who.’ We are very good at answering those questions quickly and collectively.

The strategy layer, however, is the ‘why.’ It is where the future actually takes shape. Our lefty tacticians, bless ‘em, often just go with ‘it’ll sort itself out in time.’

No. It won’t. Last time the goal, for nearly everyone, was ‘get the fascists out of government, and the rest will sort itself out in time.’ It didn’t.

We merely replaced overt fascists with your polite, cleaner American colonial variety, and ended up right back here where we started, except worse. Now, I’m not trying to rehash the last four years. Enough people have done that already.

What I am trying to do, though, is warn you all that we are going to reach a point in the coming cycle of confrontation, conflict, and activism, where each of us is going to be asked to pick an endgame.

It will be a choice between lefty accelerationism to build something new or to repeat the cycle of ‘resistance™’ in perpetuity. Or it will be the neoliberal imperative to ‘get out the vote,’ again. And again. And again, until the fascists take the vote away.

Alongside preparations for facing the fascism that awaits us in two months, making our plans for resistance or escape, organizing and building infrastructure for use over the next several years, we need to, now, before this even begins, ask ourselves the question: what exactly are we struggling for?

‘Which faction will I choose when it becomes clear that there are factions at odds with one another?’ Because that’s how this is going to end.

It’s going to get really bad. Alliances will be made and honored, for sure, but people are going to see the eventual outcome of the place called the United States very differently.

Think about this now, not later, because the old world is dying. The basic blue politics of eternity are over, the climate is collapsing, and capitalism has chosen fascist fervor and the deconstruction of the state as protector as its weapon of choice to defend and hasten that destruction.

Your votes have failed you so often before. Are they the right choice moving forward into the post-collapse future? Are you ‘really’ ready for something new? It’s not a trick question or a seed for any belief system. I can’t answer that question for you. I’m still wrestling with it myself.

But you need to try and answer it, because history is going to ask you very soon. And circumstances will likely demand a quick and ready answer.

[bonni]

Sometimes I'll be sitting around and I'll just randomly remember what a shockingly good movie The Suicide Squad (2021) was. I'll put my discussion under the cut because I truly believe it is best to go into this movie blind. If you haven't seen it, you should go watch it right now.

The entire concept behind the suicide squad (not the movie, just the general franchise) is that a bunch of villains become antiheros because they're working for the government, and this movie completely deconstructs that by making the American government the main villain. The moment in which the suicide squad become the heroes is the moment they decide they'd rather die than be complicit in government atrocities. Considering the boot-licking of the MCU (and previous DC films as well), I never expected a big-budget superhero movie with a theatrical release to go that far. They fully indict US foreign policy and government interference in South America, as well as drawing direct parallels to Operation Paperclip in portraying the American government as complicit in post-WW2 Nazi experimentation. And they drive all of this home with some incredibly stylish cinematography that goes out of its way to draw parallels between the overly-patriotic (and white) Peacemaker and the jaded-by-incarceration (and Black) Bloodsport, ultimately condemning Peacemaker's mindless devotion to the US government and having Bloodsport, a man representative of everything the government hates and tries to repress, step up and become the true hero of the movie. And let's look at our other heroes: an impoverished street urchin, a victim of parental abuse, a psychiatrized victim of ipv, and a hybrid who is forced to live on the fringes of society due to his appearance. This entire movie is about people who have been done wrong by the government in some way turning against it to fight for the lives of innocent people in the "developing world," people who the government has deemed disposable. I really need to rewatch this movie soon, it is eating my brain.