#it continues to make decisions that damage its legitimacy

[canichangemyblogname]

I hate, hate, hate how ‘western’ media and countries are already engaging in genocide denial regarding Gaza.

“The Gaza Health Ministry has claimed the death toll in the enclave reached 20,000 today. We would like to note that the Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas and as such, these numbers may be inaccurate. [Insert News Site] has also been unable to independently verify this statistic.”

In the US, this trend began after the ADL publicly called for news organizations to report on the Health Ministry’s “clear bias.” They reasoned that the Ministry has a “clear propaganda incentive to inflate civilian casualties as much as possible,” and as such, news organizations must caveat the numbers they report as potentially inaccurate. This trend also emerged following the bombing of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital.

And I don’t know what’s more dystopian. Watching leaders and news organization platform and legitimize death denialism? Or the fact that every time I hear a news organization make this caveat, they cut to commercial afterwards, and the first one to aire is always either for the Holocaust Museum or the Jewish United Fund?

Personally, I see this as nothing short of a repulsive weaponization of Jewish tragedy. It’s tone deaf and irresponsible.

[mariacallous]

In a thought-provoking essay for the New York Times, Sen. Bernie Sanders advocated for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel on policy changes. He outlined several steps, ranging from ending the conflict in Gaza to Israel’s engagement in comprehensive peace talks for a two-state solution post-conflict. Acknowledging past inadequacies in the U.S. approach, Sanders emphasized the need for a shift from goodwill efforts to more impactful strategies. “Obviously, we did not do enough. Now we must recommit to this effort. The stakes are just too high to give up,” he wrote.

While Sanders’s initiative has predictably faced criticism from Israel’s supporters, it’s crucial to view it in the broader context of Israel’s internal struggles. This proposal, far from being harmful to Israel, could serve as a catalyst for addressing Israel’s deep-seated political challenges. Struggling with a deeply paralyzed political system, Israel is hampered in making critical decisions on its own. In these circumstances, the support and intervention of its allies could prove not just beneficial, but perhaps crucial for Israel.

Israel’s strategy in the recent Gaza conflict has been marked by a lack of clear, achievable objectives, with the primary aim being to topple the Hamas regime and dismantle its military capabilities. This goal, one of the most ambitious for a democracy since World War II, was shrouded in ambiguity. The Israeli government has quietly revised its war goals repeatedly. Such frequent revisions reflect a deeper issue: Heightened domestic disagreement leads to inflated public expectations, further complicating the definition of a concrete exit plan or success criteria. Caught in this cycle, Israel faces the peril of an unending conflict. Its paralyzed political system not only struggles to set realistic goals but also to identify the right moment to step back. This paralysis cripples Israel’s immediate decision-making and casts a long shadow over its future strategic direction, significantly impacting its regional and international standing. After eight weeks of intense conflict, Israel is far from achieving these initial goals.

The Israeli government has also failed to articulate a clear political vision for what follows the war. Currently, the conflict is being directed more by military imperatives than by a cohesive political strategy. Should Israel aim to reoccupy Gaza, acting as the primary force in place of Hamas, the war might continue for months until the last enemy combatant surrenders. On the other hand, if Israel were to support a two-state solution, allowing the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern Gaza again, it would help end the conflict more quickly. This would not only assist the PA in rehabilitating Gaza but also enhance its legitimacy among Palestinians in general, and those in Gaza in particular, portraying the PA as a savior from Israel’s military actions. However, Israel’s inability to make decisive choices due to its political paralysis is a significant impediment.

Contrary to what Sanders implies, the root of Israel’s paralysis extends beyond the influence of right-wing extremists in the cabinet. This situation is further complicated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vested interest in prolonging the conflict in order to remain in office. As long as the fighting continues, Israelis appear ready to put off a political reckoning with the Israeli leader.

More fundamentally, two moderating forces are being stifled. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has historically acted as a counterbalance to hawkish agendas—especially under previous Netanyahu administrations—with senior officers showing a keen awareness of the limits of military power. But Hamas’s surprise attack on Oct. 7 damaged the IDF’s reputation. In response to this humiliation, the IDF has shifted toward showcasing military might, frequently neglecting the need for caution and restraint. This aggressive posture has led to an unprecedented increase in civilian casualties in Gaza, risking Israel’s international legitimacy. Such an aggressive approach, diverging from the IDF’s traditionally more restraining role, signals a worrying trend in the context of Israeli domestic and foreign policy.

As the IDF grapples with these challenges, a shift is occurring within the Israeli political landscape as well. During previous conflicts, as Israelis rallied around their government, people on the political left often found a way to critique the war and offer alternatives. Those voices are now mostly muted for a host of reasons. The Hamas attack was so heinous that even Israeli supporters of Palestinian rights are finding it hard to stand against the war. Also, the right has accused the center-left camp of eroding the country’s deterrence before the war with mass protests against Netanyahu’s judicial reform program. The protests included a refusal by air force pilots and others to volunteer for reserve duty (though the protesters did report for duty once the war began). Faced with these accusations, the center-left has been more reluctant than usual to speak up and propose ways to end the war.

This situation has fostered a narrative wherein anything but all-out war in Gaza is viewed as untenable. The argument for a forceful response following Hamas’s attack—justified as it was—overshadowed any strategic rationale behind Israel’s specific military maneuvers. Consequently, the center-left has not only overlooked the vital question of the day after, but also appears disengaged from the challenges of rebuilding Gaza in the post-conflict period. Being an antiwar activist in Israel these days amounts to advocating for pauses in the war to allow for prisoner exchanges, in contrast to the rightist preference for prioritizing the smashing of Hamas. This stance falls short of offering a substantive alternative to the prevailing approach to the war.

The paucity of alternative perspectives in Israel is exacerbated by government measures that limit free speech. Antiwar demonstrations have been restricted. Members of the Arab minority are increasingly feeling intimidated in public spaces. In politics, vacuums are rare. With the absence of a clear exit strategy and a vision for future relations with Gaza, public opinion is shifting. Polls indicate growing support for the idea of rebuilding Jewish settlements in Gaza after the war. This is a messianic fantasy of the right wing that advocates for relentless revenge in Gaza. Conversely, U.S. President Joe Biden’s proposal to empower the PA to govern Gaza after the war has not sparked the kind of public debate it warrants.

In the context of Israel’s internal paralysis, the nation cannot make the crucial decisions necessary to restore its security. For Biden to effectively guide Israel away from a potentially self-destructive path and avert a broader regional crisis, his administration needs to be more assertive. Sanders’s agenda, driven by the belief that the “stakes are just too high to give up,” could bolster the administration’s efforts to achieve this aim. Historical precedents, including the George H.W. Bush administration’s refusal in 1991 to approve $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel unless it froze settlement construction, demonstrate the potential effectiveness of U.S. pressure. Historically, this form of external influence has helped Israel’s center-left challenge government policies. It played a pivotal role in the ascension of Yitzhak Rabin’s moderate government in 1992. Imposing such pressures today could inspire the center-left to champion a more dovish agenda. This camp, significantly composed of the middle class, might be galvanized into action as the costs of the conflict escalate—and the United States is no longer promising to finance it.

In short, a more assertive American role could be the key to unlocking Israel’s political impasse, paving the way for a more stable and secure future in the region. Now is the time for those who care about Israel to demonstrate their commitment in a constructive manner.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Sanity prevails!  ::  April 22, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

APR 22, 2023

         In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court stayed Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling revoking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. As a result, mifepristone will remain available until the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court consider Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling on the merits. That process will likely take two years.

         The Supreme Court’s order and Alito’s dissent are here: Danco Laboratories LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

         In granting the stay, the Supreme Court pulled back from the precipice of chaos that would have been created by a nationwide ban on mifepristone. There was a palpable sigh of relief among court watchers and reproductive rights advocates that the Court did not accept the invitation to depart the realm of sanity. As Ian Millhiser tweeted,

The Supreme Court did not do the most hackish, credibility-destroying thing it could possibly do.

         Millhiser offers a more sober analysis in his article in Vox, The Supreme Court’s new abortion pill ruling, explained. Per Millhiser,

The plaintiffs’ arguments in this case are laughably weak. They ask the Court to defy longstanding legal principles establishing that judges may not second-guess the FDA’s scientific judgments about which drugs are safe enough to be prescribed in the United States. Moreover, no federal court has jurisdiction to even hear this case in the first place.

[¶]

That said, the Court’s decision to temporarily keep mifepristone legal is a hopeful sign that the justices will ultimately decide not to ban mifepristone. And there are other reasons to believe that a majority of the Court might reject this entirely meritless attack on abortion rights.

         Justice Alito continued his descent into terminal crankiness with a three-page diatribe that belittles the medical necessity of mifepristone and women’s rights to healthcare. Alito would have denied the stay because he believes that a several-month period of restrictions on mifepristone would not “likely [impose] irreparable harm.” Tell that to a woman suffering through a protracted and dangerous miscarriage.

         It is tough to make predictions—especially about the future. But the fact that seven justices refused to allow Kacsmaryk’s ruling to remain in effect bodes well for the ultimate decision on the merits in favor of reproductive liberty.

         That is a good place to come to rest before the weekend. Sanity prevailed (for once), perhaps because the Court realized Dobbs inflicted irremediable damage to its legitimacy.

[ramblings-from-the-ether]

MaP I1: Week 1: Dusk before Daybreak

Night. 13th of July, 2024. Office of the Transitionary Council (temporary), Mexico City.

The situation was hilarious if you weren't yourself tasked with cleaning it up. Molly Blyndeff, the little girl whose story of childhood struggled had inspired widespread admiration, social movements and adoration; has been elected as the president of Mexico. The subsequent recount and political maneuvering before that had confirmed this beyond reasonable doubt.

You are one of the unlucky (or perhaps lucky from a certain point of view) officials assigned into the Transitional Council to oversee the transition of powers, if it does happen. To note, the Council's roster is incredibly diverse for the wrong reasons: everyone else who would have traditionally taken the job has either fled, been found dead, or resigned from their previous posts. You're even pretty sure some of your new co-workers are not Mexican, or never held government positions before this.

The previous president has resigned, citing his inability to control the violence by resurgent cartels that have pushed Mexico into a state of crisis. Nearly half of the presidential candidates were gunned down on the campaign trial, leaving a popular yet ceremonial candidate as the surviving winning candidate (on virtue of not being in the country). Unfortunately, the task of running the country now falls onto the Transitionary Council barely a week old.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court is (obviously) unhappy with the violation of constitutional requirements of candidacy, but with cartels openly supporting Molly, their hands are tied, not to mention the constant assassination attempts.

Taiga, the extra-dimensional, portal-using nation, and the girl's country of origin, has yet to make an official announcement regarding the situation. Yet their nationals in Mexico seem calm, it seems the leadership of Naven Nuknuk's joint investment programs in Mexico either gives them faith in their own safety or provided benefits to good to lose. At least there seems to be one business group not openly intending to flee.

Regardless, amongst the filled tables of the office. The Council has to decide on its first course of action as government.

3 options exist to temporarily address the crisis:

Cook up a purge of suspected affiliates of criminal organisations and declare martial law. The terroristic cartels must be struck as hard as possible before they can do more damage!

Integrate elements of the previous administration to ensure continuity of government. Focus on restoring some semblance of stability without expending too many resources.

Contact and calm powerful interests in the country from parties to business groups (including STEM), and if possible, convince them into a grand national plan to return the country to normalcy (concessions will be made though). Legitimacy of a government comes from its ability to care for its citizen's wellbeing after-all.

[hotilhotil]

Escort girls in Israel are

<a href="https://www.sexfire1.com/%d7%a0%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%95%d7%95%d7%99/">נערות ליווי</a> Escort girls in Israel are a growing industry, providing services for both locals and tourists alike. Due to the country's unique culture and religious beliefs, the industry has faced its fair share of controversies and challenges. However, it continues to thrive and provides a source of income for many women. The escort industry in Israel operates under strict regulations to ensure the safety and security of both clients and workers. Women who choose to become escorts are often highly educated, independent, and make the decision to become involved in the industry on their own accord. One of the main reasons for the popularity of escort girls in Israel is the country's thriving tourism industry. Israel is a land rich in history and attracts millions of visitors every year. These visitors come from all corners of the world and have diverse backgrounds, cultures, and needs. Some may seek companionship and intimacy during their visit, while others may want to explore their sexual fantasies. Israeli escort girls provide a discreet and professional service for those who choose to indulge in these desires. Escorts in Israel not only cater to tourists but also to locals who may need their services for a variety of reasons. Some may need company for an event or function, while others may simply want someone to talk to and share their thoughts with. It is not always about physical intimacy, but rather finding someone who can provide emotional support and a listening ear. Escort girls in Israel offer just that, in addition to their physical services. Another factor contributing to the growth of the escort industry in Israel is the country's progressive and liberal attitude towards sexuality. Despite being a predominantly religious country, Israel has a thriving sex industry, and escort services are widely accepted. This acceptance has allowed the industry to operate legally, ensuring the safety of both clients and workers. However, the escort industry in Israel has also faced its fair share of challenges. Due to the country's complex political climate and conservative religious beliefs, many view the industry as taboo and immoral. This has led to some escorts experiencing discrimination and stigma from society. It has also created a negative perception of the industry, which can be damaging to those involved. Therefore, it is important for the industry to continue to operate within the legal boundaries to maintain its legitimacy and respectability. In recent years, social media and online platforms have also played a role in promoting and expanding the escort industry in Israel. Escorts can now advertise their services and interact with potential clients on various social media platforms, making it more accessible and convenient for all parties involved. In conclusion, escort girls in Israel offer a professional, discreet, and legal service to those who seek companionship, intimacy, and even emotional support. Despite the challenges and controversies that may surround the industry, it continues to thrive and provide a source of income for many women. With proper regulations in place, the escort industry in Israel can continue to provide a safe and fulfilling experience for all involved.

[akermonrossenfeldusa]

Akermon Rossenfeld Explains The Impact of Debt Collection on Consumer Credit Scores

Managing private price range is a vital factor in a person's life. We all strive to keep an awesome credit score to get admission to favorable interest rates, secure loans, and revel in economic balance. However, now and again lifestyles throw surprisingly demanding situations in our manner, leading to unpaid debts and the involvement of debt collection agencies. One such agency, the Akermon Rossenfeld Agency, plays a giant role in the world of debt series. In this blog, we can delve into the impact of debt series on client credit score scores, dropping light on the approaches and concerns at play.

Understanding Akermon Rossenfeld Agency

Akermon Rossenfeld Agency is a reputable debt series enterprise that specializes in assisting creditors in recovering antisocial debts from purchasers. When a person fails to make bills on their splendid debts, creditors may also choose to enlist the services of a debt collection corporation like Akermon Rossenfeld to recover the budget. This system can have huge effects on the patron's credit score rating.

Impact on Credit Scores

Reporting to Credit Bureaus: Debt collection corporations like Akermon Rossenfeld typically record unpaid money owed to credit score bureaus. These statistics appear on the patron's credit document, which could have an immediate bad impact on their credit score rating. The extra past due debt, the extra impact, often main to a significant drop in the credit score.

Extended Negative Reporting: If the debt collection technique continues without a decision, the bad reporting can persist, inflicting further damage to the credit score. Late bills, price-offs, and series debts stay on the credit report for a specific period, generally seven years.

Limited Ability to Obtain New Credit: A lower credit score rating can restrict a purchaser's ability to acquire new credit scores or loans. Lenders and creditors are regularly cautious of individuals with a history of delinquent payments and great collections, making it more difficult for them to steady financing.

Higher Interest Rates: Even if a consumer manages to achieve credit, they may face notably better interest quotes because of their lower credit score score. This can result in paying more over the years for the equal amount borrowed, making it crucial to remedy series bills promptly.

Debt Collection Process

Debt series companies like Akermon Rossenfeld observe an established manner when pursuing antisocial debts. This process generally includes:

Initial Contact: The organization will contact the debtor through mail, smartphone, or electronic mail, notifying them of the tremendous debt and imparting an opportunity to solve it.

Verification of Debt: Consumers have the right to request validation of the debt to ensure its accuracy and legitimacy. It's crucial to work out this right if there are doubts about the debt's validity.

Negotiation: Debt series corporations may be open to negotiations with purchasers to settle the debt. This can involve a lump sum price, a price plan, or even a discounted settlement amount.

Legal Action: If negotiations fail, the enterprise may additionally endorse legal movement, that could result in a courtroom judgment and further harm to the debtor's credit.

Tips for Managing Debt Collections

If you find yourself coping with a debt collection organization, it's essential to take steps to reduce the effect on your credit score rating:

Verify the Debt: Request validation of the debt to make sure it is accurate and valid.

Negotiate: Try to negotiate with the gathering corporation to reach a decision that works for each event.

Pay in Full or Settle: Pay the debt in complete if feasible, or negotiate a settlement to clear the debt.

Monitor Your Credit: Keep an eye on your credit document to make certain that the collection account is pronounced appropriately.

Seek Professional Advice: If you are uncertain about a way to handle the state of affairs, recollect seeking advice from a credit counselor or legal professional.

Conclusion

The effect of debt collection on consumer credit score scores can be tremendous, leading to lower rankings, restrained entry to credit scores, and better hobby fees. Akermon Rossenfeld Agency and similar agencies play a crucial position in debt series, making it essential for clients to understand their rights and take proactive steps to manipulate and clear up their money owed. By being informed and proactive, people can navigate the difficult method of debt series and work closer to restoring their monetary stability.

[sphor-art]

NHO is here! Members including - Etho, Bdubs, Doc, and Beef

This one’s a bit long cause we have nho brainrot 😔 Keep reading below the cut

[hermitcraft borderlands au developed by me, @biinaberry and @that-gay-computer - more can be found at #hermitcraft borderlands au]

The NHO was a vault hunter group working under the SciCraft Research Organization, tasked with exploring Pandora to collect and research Eridian relics. Each member is assigned a ‘role’ based on their area of expertise. 

Doc was the impromptu ‘leader’, and was responsible for the more technical aspects of the mission: collecting data and studying chemical compounds using his Cool Robot Eye.

Beef spent several years studying Eridian language, culture, and music. He worked as a translator for any writing or scripture they come across.

Etho was the resident bodyguard and engineer - tasked with driving, fixing electronics, and keeping the party and relics safe from aggressive encounters with the Pandoran wildlife (and bandits).

Bdubs, with a history in precision excavation and demolition, worked to safely extract and transport any artifacts and relics back to the primary lab orbiting Pandora using Warp Tech. 

One of their travels yielded the discovery of a vault key. After affirming its legitimacy, they sent it up to be catalogued and charged. The SciCraft team on-site determined the location of the closest vault the key was attuned to, and sent the NHO to go study it.

The crew reached the vault, instantly being enamoured by both its size, and the sheer quantity of new material able to study. Weeks pass and Doc progressively descends into obsession. Doc keeps contact with the SciCraft team, insisting that with the vault open, the potential for new knowledge could be endless. Unfortunately Methodz calls him a dummy and says to just move on and wait for the Professionals to handle it.

Wanting to impress and potentially make his friends day, Bdubs suggests that he try to blow up part of the vault in order to potentially unveil more intel. Doc questions this decision at first, with Beef being strongly against the idea. Though Doc’s sheer urge to know more results in him agreeing.

Despite Beef's warnings and several protests, in the end Doc made the executive decision to pull through with opening the vault and ordered Bdubs to try and break it open by all means necessary, which in this case was an absolute shit ton of explosives. Bdubs executes the order, and with a simple press of a button, history was set in scars. 

Though Bdubs’ explosion was contained, the energy the vault released upon being chipped away was enough to send the group flying back into the newly formed crater, scarred not only physically but mentally. Beef, the least affected physically, called in Scicraft to get everyone picked up and taken to a hospital to deal with their wounds. Beef is no SNITCH, so he explained the situation to the medics, chalking it up to an accident with unstable eridium.

After all was settled down, the group decided to split up. While Beef and Etho made amends, Doc and Bdubs continued feuding, each blaming each other and being too stubborn to back down.

Doc would continue to work with SciCraft. The explosion blew off one arm, his already cybernetic eye, and inflicted multitudes of internal injuries. The SciCraft medics patched him up as best they could, but the severity of his injuries resulted in him needing multiple cybernetic implants that pump refined eridium into his system. Alas, Doc is far from a siren, so the eridium is slowly poisoning his body, but it, and Doc’s own stubborn refusal to die, keeps him alive for long enough to do more research.

Beef stopped working with SciCraft shortly after the incident - returning to his home planet to study zoology. After studying the strange behaviours of his planet’s wildlife in regards to elemental damage, he catches wind from Etho that eridium does some funky stuff to one’s body. Taking this as a challenge, and also decided that having a clone would be a great idea, Beef decided to invent a completely safe eridium powered cloning device. 

Etho went off the grid for a few months to find ‘enlightenment’. The conclusion of his journey is “money is quite cool actually - I would like more of it”. Thus, Etho founded Shade-E-E’s, a business run the only way he knows how: through big brains and shady business practices. This was short lived, however, with the company being bought out by ConCorp a year later. Cub, realizing that Etho used to work under SciCraft, decided to utilize that big brain of his to work under Stress on the Elpis Cryo Research Lab where he will be paid fairly. 

Bdubs left Scicraft almost instantly after being bandaged and stable. He would later work under Scar at Concorp Headquarters. Concorp’s employee management proves to be subpar when Bdubs gets sick of their shit and non-fatally shoots Scar during one of their business meetings. He then leaves to eventually find Xisuma and Keralis, becoming one of the founders for IDEA.

[nicklloydnow]

“Over the past six days, Ukraine’s armed forces have broken through the Russian lines in the northeastern corner of the country, swept eastward, and liberated town after town in what had been occupied territory. First Balakliya, then Kupyansk, then Izium, a city that sits on major supply routes. These names won’t mean much to a foreign audience, but they are places that have been beyond reach, impossible for Ukrainians to contact for months. Now they have fallen in hours. As I write this, Ukrainian forces are said to be fighting on the outskirts of Donetsk, a city that Russia has occupied since 2014.

(…)

Russian troops are not fighting back. More than that: Offered the choice of fighting or fleeing, many of them appear to be escaping as fast as they can. For several days, soldiers and others have posted photographs of hastily abandoned military vehicles and equipment, as well as videos showing lines of cars, presumably belonging to collaborators, fleeing the occupied territories. A Ukrainian General Staff report said that Russian soldiers were ditching their uniforms, donning civilian clothes, and trying to slip back into Russian territory. The Ukrainian security service has set up a hotline that Russian soldiers can call if they want to surrender, and it has also posted recordings of some of the calls. The fundamental difference between Ukrainian soldiers, who are fighting for their country’s existence, and Russian soldiers, who are fighting for their salary, has finally begun to matter.

(…)

Back in March, I wrote that it was time to imagine the possibility of victory, and I defined victory quite narrowly: “It means that Ukraine remains a sovereign democracy, with the right to choose its own leaders and make its own treaties.” Six months later, some adjustments to that basic definition are required. In Kyiv yesterday, I watched Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov tell an audience that victory should now include not only a return to the borders of Ukraine as they were in 1991—including Crimea, as well as Donbas in eastern Ukraine—but also reparations to pay for the damage and war-crimes tribunals to give victims some sense of justice.

(…)

That original mission has already failed. There will be no such “new era.” The Soviet Union will not be revived. And when Russian elites finally realize that Putin’s imperial project was not just a failure for Putin personally but also a moral, political, and economic disaster for the entire country, themselves included, then his claim to be the legitimate ruler of Russia melts away. When I write that Americans and Europeans need to prepare for a Ukrainian victory, this is what I mean: We must expect that a Ukrainian victory, and certainly a victory in Ukraine’s understanding of the term, also brings about the end of Putin’s regime.

To be clear: This is not a prediction; it’s a warning. Many things about the current Russian political system are strange, and one of the strangest is the total absence of a mechanism for succession. Not only do we have no idea who would or could replace Putin; we have no idea who would or could choose that person. In the Soviet Union there was a Politburo, a group of people that could theoretically make such a decision, and very occasionally did. By contrast, there is no transition mechanism in Russia. There is no dauphin. Putin has refused even to allow Russians to contemplate an alternative to his seedy and corrupt brand of kleptocratic power. Nevertheless, I repeat: It is inconceivable that he can continue to rule if the centerpiece of his claim to legitimacy—his promise to put the Soviet Union back together again—proves not just impossible but laughable.

(…)

The possibility of instability in Russia, a nuclear power, terrifies many. But it may now be unavoidable. And if that’s what is coming, we should anticipate it, plan for it, think about the possibilities as well as the dangers. “We have learned not to be scared,” Reznikov told his Kyiv audience on Saturday. “Now we ask the rest of you not to be scared too.””

“The sudden advance made by Ukraine’s forces into Russian-occupied territory is not only a brilliant tactical move; it could prove a decisive turning point in the war.

The seizure by Ukrainian forces of two key towns – Izyum and Kupiansk – means that an area the size of Lancashire has been liberated from the Russian invader. And Kyiv’s forces are still pushing on.

The last time Russian forces had to retreat so close to Moscow was 1941 – when they were being pushed back by the German onslaught.

(…)

In his great novel War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy outlined how battles are often won for no other reason than that one side wants victory more than the other.

Ukrainians have shown they are willing to die to keep their country free. But few Russian soldiers see any glory in throwing away their lives for Putin’s arrogant misadventures.

During the ‘Great Patriotic War’ – Russia’s term for its heroic repulse of Hitler during the Second World War – millions of Russian conscripts were mown down on the steppes by German machine-gunners, tanks and artillery.

In contrast, Putin has been able to mobilise only about 750,000 troops. Of these, thanks to leaks from the Russian finance ministry, we know that ‘death grants’ have been paid to the families of 48,000 soldiers.

This represents the biggest Russian loss of life since 1945, and includes some of their best-trained and equipped forces. By some counts, Russia has lost 14 generals – a scale of losses unpre-cedented for almost 80 years.

(…)

When the invasion was launched, thousands of Russian riot police were mobilised to sign up to fight, believing that Kyiv would fall within days and the ‘special military operation’ would become a police matter.

How wrong they were. The Ukrainian resistance picked off many of these units – which means they are no longer available to stamp out any upcoming protests on Russia’s streets.

Putin also bet that sky-rocketing energy prices would split the West, eroding Nato’s unity as public opinion in Europe especially turned against aiding Ukraine. But he is losing the war too fast, and rising fuel prices are not undercutting western solidarity with Ukraine in the way he imagined.

Unless Moscow now sees a dramatic change of fortune, it is not hard to imagine Putin’s generals and spy chiefs deciding to make him the scapegoat for the war – and withdraw the bedraggled remaining troops.

He will never retire – or be retired. An ousted Putin would more likely suffer a nasty ‘fall’ or sudden fatal ‘illness’ – like so many of his own critics during the ugly years of his presidency.

And that, conversely, is why we may be approaching the most dangerous moment in the war. Schooled in Russia’s history and the ignominious end of so many of its leaders, Putin might be willing to do anything to prevent his assassination – even going nuclear to save his own skin.

(…)

Could the US possibly stand aside? Wouldn’t President Joe Biden instead have to threaten American intervention to try to stop further use of nukes? Would China stand by its Russian ally?”

“Economically, the nation’s parlous fiscal and monetary situation is leading the country in the direction of high inflation if not hyperinflation. Diplomatically, the approach of winter and the shifting sands of European and American politics pose a threat to Western unity that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is hoping will give him leverage. Without an immediate increase in Western support, Ukraine will struggle to sustain its success on the battlefield.

The good news from the eastern front was conspicuous by its absence from the speech delivered by Zelenskiy at YES on Friday. A “winter of discontent” lay ahead not only for Ukraine but for all of Europe, he warned; the next 90 days of the war with Russia would be decisive.

(…)

In a realist perspective, Russia would seem bound to prevail over Ukraine sooner or later. Its territory is 28 times larger; its GDP is nine times larger; its population is 3.3 times larger. Western sanctions do not alter the fact that Russia still has significant (if reduced) revenue from exporting its gas and oil, whereas Ukraine is heavily dependent on Western economic and military assistance. Time might seem to be more on Russia’s side than Ukraine’s.

(…)

The invader is at an inherent disadvantage in the face of a strong nationalist sentiment. Putin has inadvertently turned the formerly divided and disgruntled inhabitants of Ukraine into the Ukrainian people. And wars of national liberation against declining empires are more often successful than not. That is why there aren’t many empires left.

(…)

Right now, Ukraine is not only fighting for its freedom; it’s a proxy for a US-led effort to weaken Russia (and perhaps also to deter China from similar aggression). The Ukrainian war effort is sustainable only thanks to large-scale military and financial aid from the US and its Anglosphere and European allies. At the same time, US-instigated sanctions (especially technology export controls) are driving the Russian economy and military back into the late 20th century.

(…)

If the US further increased its supply of precision weaponry to Ukraine and added tanks to the mix, the Russian positions in Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk could probably be made unsustainable. Similarly, if the EU further increased its economic support for Ukraine, the risk of an inflationary crisis would recede.

There is a scenario — I would give it a 20% probability — that the Russian position in Ukraine now unravels. This is a largely colonial army, its best battalions severely depleted by six months of highly destructive warfare, its ranks replenished by raw recruits from impoverished provinces east of the Urals. Its morale is low. Such armies can be brought to a tipping point if they encounter well-armed, well-organized and well-motivated opponents. Defeat in land war is much less about killing enemy soldiers than getting them to surrender, flee or desert.

(…)

The war in Ukraine has now entered its seventh month. Most wars are shorter. Of 88 wars between states since 1816, nearly a quarter lasted less than two months and 38% between two and six months. Of the remaining 35, 12 were over within a further six months, seven lasted up to two years, 12 two to five years, and four more than five years.

In other words, a war that continues for six months has a roughly one-in-three chance of lasting no longer than a year in total, but an equal chance of lasting between two and five years. We should not forget the Korean War, the first “hot” war of Cold War I, which lasted three years and did not end with a conclusive peace agreement — merely an armistice.

The Ukrainian army may be winning. The Ukrainian economy is losing. As is typical in a war of this sort, the invaded country suffers a severe decline in output simply because productive land and assets are taken over by the enemy or destroyed. At the same time, one-third of Ukrainians have been displaced by the war; over 6.8 million have left the country and the rest are internally displaced. A large proportion have lost their jobs and homes.

Ukraine’s GDP shrank by 15.1% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2022. In the second, it shrank by 37%. The overall annual contraction of output will be around 33%, according to government estimates. Unemployment is at Great Depression levels.

The total damage caused by the war to Ukrainian infrastructure and housing was estimated last week in a World Bank report at $97.4 billion. The same report estimates total losses from the shuttering of business at $252 billion.

(…)

Although the Ukrainian government has an ambitious plan for the reconstruction of the country (price tag: $750 billion), it needs much more modest sums right now simply to stay afloat. As Shmyhal put it, “Infrastructure needs to be rebuilt before the winter in order for people to survive — I mean this literally.”

In the familiar pattern of an economy at war, public spending has soared while tax and other revenues have collapsed. Tax revenue in Ukraine now covers just 40% of government spending. The Finance Ministry says it requires approximately $5 billion (2.5% of pre-war GDP) in foreign aid per month to cover nonmilitary spending. To date, however, Ukraine has received $17.5 billion in aid, roughly half of the amount pledged by international partners — and far short of the government’s needs.

The Europeans are the main culprits. The EU promised Ukraine 9 billion euros in budgetary support in May, but only about 1 billion has been disbursed. The National Bank of Ukraine has had to buy roughly $8.2 billion in war bonds as the government dares not try to sell new debt on the international market so soon after “reprofiling” (i.e. delaying payments for two years) its existing external debt. Inflation, which began the year at 10%, is now at 24% and rising. The central bank has raised interest rates to 25% but it has also been obliged to devalue the hryvnia by 25% against the dollar.

A recent paper published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research urges the government to raise tax revenue and to sell domestic debt rather than monetize it through the central bank. I heard nothing in Kyiv to suggest this advice is going to be heeded. In the words of the Swedish economist Anders Aslund, “The greatest immediate risk to the Ukrainian economy is that the EU does not deliver sufficient budget support soon enough.” In that case, he added, the Ukrainian government “will be forced to print money so that the current high inflation … proceeds to hyperinflation.”

(…)

Russia’s invasion force at the outset of the conflict numbered between 175,000 and 190,000, plus around 34,000 in separatist militias from the self-proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics. Estimates of Russian casualties —killed and wounded — range widely. In August, the US and UK both put total Russian casualties at around 80,000. From this, Western analysts infer total deaths of 20,000 to 25,000. These figures include non-regular forces, such as the Donbas militias and mercenaries from the Wagner Group. The Russian casualty figures released by Ukraine are even higher. As of Sept. 1, Ukraine’s army reported killing over 48,000 Russian troops.

Western estimates imply a mortality rate of at least 9% to 12%. If Ukrainian claims are right, the figure is much higher: 25%-28%. These rates are staggeringly high by the standards of 20th- and 21st-century conflict. For example, US battle deaths in the Korean War amounted to 1.88% of the total force deployed there.

We know much less about Ukrainian military mortality. We should probably therefore assume that Ukrainian losses are on a similar scale to Russia’s.

Compare all these estimates to the death toll with the nine-year US war in Iraq, which saw 3,500 US soldiers killed in action and 32,000 wounded, or the US campaign in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021, which cost the lives of over 2,000 American service personnel and left more than 20,000 wounded. In both cases, the fractions killed in action of total forces deployed were miniscule by the standards of today’s war in Ukraine.

Over 10 years, beginning at the end of 1979, the Soviet war in Afghanistan saw 15,000 Soviet soldiers killed and over 50,000 wounded. Russia may have suffered comparable casualties in just the first 10 weeks of this war.

(…)

Both sides urgently need to raise, arm and train additional forces. On Aug. 25, Putin ordered a 137,000-person increase in military personnel, raising the target number of active-duty service members to 1.15 million by January. Russia has also established new, highly paid “volunteer” battalions (400 men from each of Russia’s 85 regions). However, many of these new battalions and other units are undermanned. The Third Army Corps, now being sent to Ukraine, is one-third of its planned size. For reasons of domestic politics, Putin appears unwilling to risk proclaiming that this is a real war that necessitates general mobilization.

By contrast, Ukraine declared a general mobilization on Feb. 24 and currently has 700,000 troops across the military, national guard and territorial forces. Ukraine is no longer prioritizing fresh manpower, with Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stating that the priority is now technical specialists rather than general recruits.

(…)

Meanwhile, Ukrainian morale could scarcely be higher. An August opinion survey found that 98% of Ukrainians believe their country will win the war. They are less willing today to give up on the idea of North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership than they were in April. Around 90% of Ukrainians either “strongly approve” or “somewhat approve” of Zelenskiy; 88% “strongly approve” of Ukraine’s military. Instead of weighing concessions, Ukraine’s leaders are openly discussing the liberation of Crimea to restore the pre-2014 borders, something 64% of Ukrainians believe is achievable by the end of the war.

(…)

Zelenskiy is right: The next three months will be crucial — though we should look even further ahead, beyond mid-December into January and February, usually the coldest months of the year in Ukraine. With the right military and financial assistance, Ukraine could celebrate the first anniversary of this war by driving Russia further back, if not all the way to the status quo ante of February 23, 2022. Without it, a winter of discontent will inevitably blow some of the stardust off the former entertainer turned war leader — and confront the Ukrainian people with the harsh reality that few struggles for national liberation have ever been won inside 12 months.

Between Lexington and Yorktown lay six long years.”

[pumpacti0n]

abolition is never “off the table”-- and we shouldn’t let anyone try to convince us otherwise.

allowing goals like abolition to get watered down and constantly misrepresented by the propagandized public, private corporations and career politicians leads to all these problems we keep hearing about on the news getting worse.

for example, we learn about instances of police violence, indigenous women going missing, the horrific prison industry, domestic & reproductive violence against women and non-men, systemic anti-blackness, families separated at hellish border facilities, seemingly endless wars and being on the brink of environmental collapse on a daily basis.

it all seems never-ending and overwhelming that no matter what good we do in our personal lives, it isn’t ever enough, because these problems will continue to manifest. somehow, it is always the same problems coming back to haunt us.

those are the consequences when attention and energy for micro problems are given priority, instead of investigating and healing the relationships people have to power, space and resources on the macro scale at the same time.

micro-scale problems are somewhat easy to package as isolated incidents for people who we believe are responsible for handling them, and they often can handle them well enough that the majority of people affected by the issue may feel placated enough to accept the authority as legitimate

these politicians and other micromanagers “solving” the problem is often used as evidence that the authorities are competent at their jobs and that issues can be solved by the system (when it wants to solve them), thus providing evidence of their legitimacy, even when it’s these same individuals and groups that are the direct causes of the problems to begin with.

beware that not being impressed or made passive by the reform logic of authorities and capitalism can be misrepresented as: “oh, you xyz group are never satisfied, you always want to save the world, but this is the real world, you’re too idealistic and your standards are too high!”

this is not an accurate portrayal, and it often isn’t meant to be. it’s meant to distract us, divide us and obscure what the problem is.

very simply, if the direct cause of a problem is not addressed, the problem is not going to be solved.

everything else is a surface-level approach that will allow the root of the problem to continue to endlessly self-reproduce the same harmful structure and power dynamics, but in different forms.

the best way to illustrate this is to picture the structure we live under (capitalism) as a living structure, like a tree. all living structures move, transform, grow and adapt given any and all external and internal forces that affect it, no matter what scale we observe it at -- either microscopically or as part of a larger surrounding ecosystem.

you’ll hear people say that radicalism is “grasping at the root” of a problem -- which is precisely what we must do if we have any hope at addressing any problem(s) that any structure provides us with.

the goal isn’t to eliminate all possibilities of conflict, or to be so bold as to think we can perfectly meet the needs of every single person affected negatively by something. not even capitalism which boasts as being this hyper-efficient, almighty, all-powerful system can do that, even on its best day.

the people who are intimately aware of the intricacies of this system are always found at the center, at the “grassroots” level of where the structure forms its base. without a base, without grounding, without roots, the rest of the structure cannot form, spread out or replenish itself when damaged or “reformed”. so that is where we must start; with the people, communities and land that is primarily affected.

rather than manage these groups by trying to decide what their needs are for them, or what actions must be done to meet their needs, they should be empowered to decide for themselves how to best maneuver and achieve those needs, while providing necessary aid when we can, and expanding the options for possible solutions when we can.

if something affects us negatively, there is a chance it affects others, too, and it follows that it’s in our mutual interest to work together to achieve a future where both our needs are met and that we can live healthy and fulfilling lives, together.

according to the janky ass reform logic of capitalism, this is an unnecessary and dangerous approach, because it does away the authority of the people who just say that they represent us and say that they’ll take responsibility for a problem -- the same people whose jobs hinge on appearing as if they care, with platforms, talking points, photo-ops and co-signs from other politicians and high ranking members of the public to offer “proof”.

they often use the logic that says that we must preserve this system, because it is sacred and perfect, that it would interrupt business, so we can’t empower people to make these decisions, even if it means that some people have to suffer and die because the system is inefficient and does not represent them, or demands that they experience social death.

we should not be impressed by these people. in fact, if they are standing in the way between these grassroots efforts, either by preventing these programs from assembling or actively attacking them politically, then they are enemies. when you become an enemy of the people you claim to represent, you are a tyrant and an opp.

and we do smoke opps.

at every grassroots level, there are groups of people who are very sensitive to the changes that happen at all the other levels of the living structure that oppresses them. from this perspective, they can experience for themselves the effects of the things that happen above the surface, and they experience the dissonance personally when another politician promises to change something, only to eventually fall short or make the problem even worse.

they get news that claims that a problem is (going to be, maybe, eventually) fixed, are present as media moves on to the next sensational story only to experience the problems same thing again, and again.

just because the cameras are turned away, because the tweets stopped getting traction, doesn’t mean that the people and communities have disappeared. and yet, no matter what, this is a cycle that continues.

the only answer, the only consistent thing that has been proven to make a difference, is there being a complete break with the logic of this system. as long as we follow the capitalist logic, the same structure will replicate. as mentioned, the roots will create new stems, leaves, seeds and thorns if left undisturbed. we’ll continue to see new iterations of the same problems as long as the logic, the roots, are left intact.

there’s no hope of creating new structures in the the place of one that’s taking up room at the same space, so the old system must be uprooted.

its this uprooting that some call a “revolution”.

this word might seem scary to a lot of folks for a lot of different reasons. it has way less to do with the chaos and bloodshed that's associated with it in our imaginations.

it has more to do with deeply investigating the roots of a problem and actually addressing them by changing the conditions -- something that capitalism refuses to do unless there is a profit motive, or only if the problem interferes with the flow of capital to private interests. the only way this chaos and violence would occur is if (and some would insist when,) these forces mobilize to preserve the same harmful system we’re attempting to uproot in the interest of private accumulation of profit.

should we just allow these corporations and wealthy individuals stop us from changing the things that affect the quality of our lives? the wealthy capitalists would say “why yes, of course you should!” but obviously they would say that -- and we have been given no reason to believe them.

we should each of us be prepared to deal with this violence in some way. to insist otherwise is naive and not realistic, and actually harmful to the communities that encounter this violence. this may look like armed patrols and free firearms & training for the most vulnerable communities, or creating an alternative directory that people may access instead of calling the police. these matters are up to the communities themselves to envision and implement.

we aren’t suggesting that we seek out violence where it’s reasonable to avoid it, or escalate problems beyond our management of them. this isn’t meant to encourage people to fulfill revenge fantasies for the hell of it, but to be prepared in case such conflicts occur.

the aforementioned unorganized violent activities are, at best, a strategy to cope with and purge the unending stress of life under capitalism or distract the state and similar private forces in combat while other solutions are being explored. we shouldn’t fall for the strategy of turning rioters, saboteurs, arsonists, vandals and looters into enemies of the people, when they are the people...and we shouldn’t dismiss these strategies as being harmful by definition when it is often only insured property that is the target of their actions, not individuals.

we shouldn’t disparage rioters for causing damage to this system, when capitalism has been damaging the world and our communities for as long as it has existed on this planet. both violent and non-violent methods of “grasping at the root” are legitimate, can coexist and inform each other, and are necessary to combat the terror capitalism’s logic has inflicted on us all.

remember that revolutions are only as peaceful as they are allowed to be.

the process of uprooting, of revolutionizing, may indeed be violent in nature when resistance is offered, but that shouldn’t stop us from continuing the process if it is necessary. just because a dangerous system is difficult to uproot doesn’t mean that it’s more reasonable or desirable to leave it alone to establish its roots and adapt.

we must acknowledge that multiple attempts may be necessary before any transformation takes place, possibly over the course of several years, perhaps lifetimes. it might require lots of planning. however, in the interest of conserving time and energy, the most simple and direct methods of applying pressure and healing should be prioritized. we do not want to resemble, in practice or theory, the politicians we hope to depose -- by making promises we don't intend to keep, making plans that never pan out, putting off immediate solutions until we personally benefit at the expense of others.

for example, this means that rather than coming up with overly-complicated, difficult-to-achieve long-term plans of gradually moving a low-income family out of a house infested with mold, they’d be moved immediately into safe housing if such housing is ample and available. this means that, rather than waiting on the state to decide how much food a hungry person needs or should have access to, we supply them with the food if it is abundant and we have it to spare.

if the needs people and communities have are immediate, the solution should also be immediate, whenever possible. the means are the ends.

this is because people need aid now, not in the future, not when the moment is perfect and some sort of irrelevant criteria is met, not when it’s more profitable to do so, but in the present. representatives and authorities have gotten really proficient at promising to solve issues in some far-off future they’re never be around to guarantee, abstracting issues and people so that they’re seen as insignificant to greater issues. how often have you heard: “we would like to do something about xyz, we just don’t have the time (money)”?

when these so-called “representatives” package all of these lies, and the time comes to prove their worth and legitimacy, there is often no reconciliation process that any of them must go through so that they’re held accountable for straight up lying and abusing the responsibility they had to the people. this is so often why our issues aren’t solved -- we started by trusting those that aren’t even affected by the problems we face to have our best interests in mind.

that is why we say enough electoralism -- enough elections -- enough career politicians -- enough bipartisanship -- enough government -- enough hollow campaign promises -- enough “lesser of two evils” -- enough “vote blue no matter who -- enough pitting poor communities against each other -- enough celebrity & corporate “activism” -- enough self-aggrandizing authorities -- enough micromanagers -- enough permanent elected positions

yes to community control -- yes to autonomous communities -- yes to free associations -- yes to reconciliatory organizations -- yes to federations of workers and professionals -- yes to voluntary work -- yes to open borders and travel -- yes to direct democracy and direct engagement with relevant issues -- yes to immediately recallable, voluntarily chosen delegates -- yes to grassroots organizing -- yes to self-defense and community-informed reactions to crime -- yes to direct action, mutual aid and solidarity for mutual survival -- yes to returning land and resources to indigenous and black communities -- yes to yielding space and resources to historically harmed communities on the margins (LGBT+, disabled, refugees & migrants, prisoners, non-human animals) -- yes to liberation for all!!!

[a-to-a-and-d-to-d]

The First Post, Unaffiliated

This is not my first rodeo on Tumblr, but I have not logged into my original account in some time.  I think a large part of that decision was due to a bitter taste in my mouth regarding friendships made on this site that I would eventually need to detach from, and sometimes that’s a difficult thing to not only recognize the need for, but to accept and actually do.

I am also less into fandom than I had been.  I realize that my indulgence into fandom was to find acceptance and love, but much like seeking religion or social groups for this purpose, it was bound to eventually backfire and discontinue that comfort that it brought me.  

I will probably go about discuss religion and like things in this place eventually, as I often ponder religion and spirituality, but do not take my pointing out of anything I find interesting as a means to try to disprove or prove anything.  

I thought perhaps today, though, I will talk about something that is on my mind a lot lately, and has recently been brought to the surface by a friend’s situation

One of the struggles I continue to deal with, even as I ever so slowly trudge towards that which we call mid-life,  is the child’s relationship with the parent(s), and how those that are/were damaging, we some how feel necessary to reconcile in some ways, for our sanity and for the parental love that we crave because we did not receive an adequate amount of any sort of parental relationship in our youth.

I personally did not develop what I would consider a relationship with my parents until I hit my 20s.  I spent a childhood being lonely despite being surrounded by siblings and having parents who remained married.  My teen years resulted in a tumultuous relationship with my mother and her scramble to convince teachers and other parents that she did not “screw up” as a parent.  I dealt with a significant amount of troubles in my adolescence and her reaction to that time was to become angry.  Angry that I had issues, angry that it was clear I had issues, and that I wasn’t living my teens as though everything had been and was perfectly fine.

My older siblings also had difficult times during their teen years, resulting from abusive and neglectful parenting and allowing their children - mostly due to a lack of interest in them - to stay in unsafe private schools and ruminate on those difficulties by themselves.  Somehow, I had been expected to be emotionally capable at 10/11 years old to deal with constant harassment.  I found release in music and story telling, and sometimes I still very much cling to these things.

What is currently difficult is trying to reconcile parents you had to who they are.  Can one forgive an entire childhood of neglect and mistreatment because their parents are better equipped to deal with the issues of completely independent children, or is the fact that they are no longer sole providers for any children making it easier for them to have a relationship with them?  The real question at the bottom of this barrel is, is are we - who decided we can tolerate a relationship with these people as adults - continuing to trigger ourselves?  I have had more than one night, after talking to my mother, laid in bed and unable to sleep, thinking about some violent act committed against me when I was so small, and wonder... how could she look at a child of 5 and think that was reasonable in any way?  It upsets me when I recall those my moments; of course they’re upsetting.  But the biggest part of the upset is the fact that I have the memories of this violence but a parent now that I feel more connected to and invested in their wellbeing.

When I was about 18, I was certain I wouldn’t cry at the funerals of either parent, but now I’m concerned about their well being as they become elderly.  In some ways, it feels like I’ve betrayed my child self by maintaining a relationship with them even though I had promised myself as a child I would cut them off for good.  This is a promise I’ve made a few times as an adult as well.

I think part of the reason I continue to go back is that we all yearn for a family of some sort.  And for a while, I thought I had found a “found family,” but after so many years, it was made clear that it really wasn’t that way.  Being rejected by found family hurts so much more than an entire life of biological familial rejection.  I’m sure this is due to the fact that I had been subjected to violence and neglect once I became a toddler.  Once actual parenting was required.

My childhood resulted in an odd way of feeling emotions and attachments.  I may talk about this in depth at a different time.

What’s been really bothering me is a friend and their particular relationship with their parents.  I’ve spent the better part of a year hearing about how their parents, one in particular, is vile and just the worst.  They plan to call authorities.  They let pets suffer & die (though my friend also noticed the pets in question and lives there so there is some question as to why they didn’t step up and do something about it).  They claim years of abuse and current child abuse in the home.  A lifetime of making them feel worthless and taking jabs, blaming them for a lack of confidence and depression.  They spent a lot of time discussing their anti-mask feelings and has made comments about them dying so the other parents could be free.  The other parent isn’t great, either, but the major complaint is that they’re racist as all get out.. but they excuse it away by saying “but they’re my parent.”

The bad-mouthed parent, the vile and evil one, the anti-mask one (and the racist one as well,, but less about them), the one said friend couldn’t wait to leave and never speak to them again, contracted our pandemic friend.  And the vile parent is suffering quite a bit more at its hands.  Suddenly, we love this person.

I had a similar experience several years ago, as well, of supposedly incredibly abusive and terrible parents that continue to abuse and mistreat into their adulthood, suddenly becoming a weird sort of saint in their eyes when illness/death is at the door.  its not that I believe people who have toxic parents do not love them, or should not worry or mourn if tragedy strikes them.  What I am saying is that, if you imagine your parent getting sick and suffering, and that makes your heart hurt and you feel a surge of love, then perhaps you shouldn’t have spent several years convincing everyone around you that they’re the worst person.  It makes me question what is more true.  I do think that we all unconsciously exaggerate situations that effect us, such as relaying a story of toxicity, but if you do it to a point where I think you’re just waiting for the opportunity to leave their life forever, I might wonder why you’re so bent out of shape.

Is it mourning of the relationship we wish we had?  As long as that parent is alive and relatively well, we may be thinking that there’s still a chance to have that relationship.  We hope that maybe the parents will suddenly give a shit about us and will love us in the way we needed when we were children.  And its difficult to admit to yourself that this isn’t going to happen.  Even if your parental relationships are fulfilling and loving now, they are not what you needed when you were a child and you cannot get them now, because you are not a child.

You can always experiment out in the big bad world with different avenues.  As I equate violence to the touch of a “loved one,”  I’ve fetishized some of that violence.  Just as, I’m sure, people had fetishized their own experiences and needs that had been neglected.

However we cope, we need to find healthy and viable ways to do so.  And while I do question the legitimacy of the abusive parent when a friend’s reaction to their parent takes a complete turn when something bad happens, I also understand that relationships with abusive people are weird and difficult, especially when they’re our families.

[vannminner]

-

Where Magic Flows

-

A03

FanFiction

-

Part Three: In the Air (IX)

-

  Debris swept up from the forest ground, and into Nokk’s face. He brayed, chuffing back at it. Nokk shook his head, continuing on, and pushed back against the harsh winds. 

From her station on his back, Elsa shielded her eyes behind an open hand. Blown from the trees, twigs and leaves braced against her. They sliced at her dress. Dust blinded her vision as well as the Nokk’s. Over time, it had grown more impossible to see. 

Yet, the two stumbled on. 

High above their heads, a loud crack sounded. Elsa looked up as a large branch snapped from its trunk and came hurtling down to earth. With her heel dug into Nokk’s ribs, they leapt aside. The branch fell with force. It shattered at their feet, and Nokk cried out in fear. 

Elsa soothed a soft hand over his neck. “I know, and I am sorry, but we must keep going!”

She didn’t know how much time either had left in them. They were out of breath, tired, and disoriented. Every attempt at fighting off Gale, only resulted in increasing her rage. Disgruntled, Elsa left her be. The wind continued its tirade, and Elsa drew mazes around her destruction. 

It was still mid-day, however, Gale had pulled the sky thick with dark clouds. Light fought against dark, but in the end, the darkness maintained. And despite the lack of sun, the summer humidity held on. The thick air was difficult to breath in. Elsa found herself choking and straining her lungs. However, she couldn’t stop now.

Honeymaren was out here on her own. She didn’t have Nokk to help guide her way through the storm, and she didn’t have Elsa’s ice powers to fight back against the debris. 

This notion consumed Elsa with guilt. If she hadn’t pushed Honeymaren to talk when she didn’t want to, Honeymaren would have been safe down in the ravine with the others. They both would have. Instead, Elsa was caught blinded and stumbling through the forest; once again, all because of her own foolishness. 

The limited vision had Elsa relying on her instincts; both her’s and Nokk’s. She’d traveled across the fields, and down the Northern trails, until she could see no more. From there, Nokk had taken over. Elsa only hoped he would be able to locate Honeymaren amongst the storm, because she certainly could not. Her eyes had long since clouded with dust and dirt. She could see no more than a few feet in front of her. 

With this, Elsa did notice when they wandered away from the trees. The pine and oak fell out of their mighty clusters. Debris settled from branches and leaves, into dirt and small pebbles. This had meant they were nearing the coast, and the sting of salty air was a welcomed change of pace. 

Elsa rubbed deftly at her lids. Nokk slowed as he experienced the same discomfort. He growled in pain over the howling winds, and used his front legs to alleviate the strain. He crooned into himself. Elsa’s hands joined against his face. She knew they could no longer continue like this. She had to get them both to safety. 

The two happened upon a collection of boulders. There was a gap between two of them, just large enough for Elsa two hide. 

She leapt from Nokk’s back. She took his snout in her hands. “Go.” She encouraged him. “Back to the sea.”

But Nokk didn’t move. He nuzzled her nose further into her palms. 

“You will be safe there.” she assured him. “And I will be safe here.”

Nokk’s eyes turned toward the north before coming back to Elsa’s. He brayed, long and deep. His head sank into a bow, and then he took off at a sprint. 

No sooner than he had disappeared did Elsa crawl herself between the boulders. She tucked herself into a tight ball, and buried her face between her knees. Even with her ears covered, the wind continued to howl. It moved around the rocks with such force. Elsa knew Gale’s claws sought to leave marks against her skin. 

There, between the rocks, she waited. Elsa reminded herself that Honeymaren would know to do the same. She was probably in the same position nearby. Honeymaren was smart. She knew the woods, and she would find a hollow tree or a ledge to tuck herself safely into. 

Knowing this did not quiet her guilt, though. Elsa could not help but feel that by being forced to stop her search, she failed her friend. However, Elsa knew she had already done that. She failed Honeymaren the moment she questioned the legitimacy of her feelings. She understood that now. 

It had her thinking- Yelena had been so confident Honeymaren would find her way back to the village. She had faith in her granddaughter’s strength and savviness to weather the storm on her own. Elsa wondered how one person could put their fear aside for the benefit of a community? In her own experience, Elsa had never been skilled at that. She had a long running history of making fear-based decisions, all for the sake of her sister; not that she regretted it. 

Except, now her reasoning was flawed. Had what Honeymaren confessed to her caused Elsa to stray from the village? If she hadn’t learned of Honeymaren’s feelings for her, would she still be out here risking both of their lives?

Elsa knew her answer, and it surprised her more than she’d thought possible.

She would have sacrificed anything for Honeymaren, just as she would have done the same for her sister. Further reasoning was irrelevant.

Honeymaren was her friend, and no longer a new friend, but a best friend. She was even the first friend Elsa had made outside of her own bloodline or creation. They talked like family. They shared in conversations about their day; their interests, likes, and dislikes. The two bickered with each other. They teased and joked like siblings, but they weren’t siblings. They were friends, however, her friendship with Honeymaren proved much different than what Elsa had experience with Ryder or the other villagers. 

What the two of them shared was simple. It was the ease of a good conversation, one that Elsa would find herself going out of her way to have. Their friendship was compatible; the excitement of sharing a walk or allowing Honeymaren to show her around to her favorite secrets of the forest. 

When Honeymaren would check to see that Elsa had eaten before eating herself, and when Elsa would check in on Honeymaren before she would go to bed; this was a different kind of friendship. It was a partnership; a silent agreement, even.

Elsa didn’t know why it had taken her so long to figure this out for herself. Perhaps it was because the only friendship she had to compare it to, was the one she had with Anna. And if Elsa were being honest, she certainly wouldn’t have drawn the similarities and differences on her own. Had she not learned of Honeymaren’s feeling for her, Elsa might have continued on blind for the rest of her days.   

That, or until Honeymaren made a new friend. Perhaps she’d meet a man or a woman, one whom she would want to marry. Elsa thought she might notice the differences then, when her friendship with Honeymaren was forced to change to order to accommodate her new relations.

The idea of that caused Elsa to feel uncomfortable. If Honeymaren moved on, and their friendship weakened; Elsa decided then that she would rather stay stuck between the rocks. 

A life without Honeymaren’s constant teasing and bright-eyed intuition, wasn’t a life worth living at all. For nearly a year, Elsa had Honeymaren involved in each of her days. Not having her, or having her in some other capacity; that idea was terrifying. No sooner than she’d accept that, would Elsa allow the storm to swallow her whole. 

The storm… The storm!

Elsa’s head snapped to attention. Her eyes drove wide. 

The winds had calmed while she’d lost herself to her thoughts. Gale no longer terrorized the forest with her hurricane like force. Instead, Northuldra sat stagnant. Gale appeared to be heading west. The tops of the trees drew still as Gale traveled away from the forest. 

“Another friend lost.” Elsa sighed, and pulled herself to stand. 

She wiped her hands along the top of her gown. The fabric was littered with cuts and scratches, while dirt coated the white silky ice. Elsa slid from between the boulders, knowing she probably looked as healthy as her dress, and her eyes quickly drove wide.

Air caught in her throat. So much around her had changed in such a seemingly short amount of time. The Northern lands had crumbled. Tops of trees lopped off before their points. Branches and leaves carried long distances away from their homes. And despite the wind, which continued to travel away, the air was thick with dust. 

Elsa forced herself to put worries about damage aside. There was little time to worry about what had been done, when instead she should be concerning herself with what could be done now. 

Honeymaren was still out there somewhere, and Elsa needed to know that she was alright. 

Allowing Nokk time to recover, Elsa took the next leg of her search by foot. 

It was slower. That went without saying, however, it would allow Elsa to be more thorough. On foot, she would leave no rock nor fallen tree branch unturned. She would not stop; not until Honeymaren was back safe in the village. 

“Honeymaren!” she called out.

Elsa’s blue eyes scanned the boulder-laiden cliffside. 

There was only so much further Honeymaren could have gone before accidently reaching the sea. Decidedly, Elsa circled back toward the south, and hugged the estuary as a boundary line. From there, Elsa stood at the highest peak in all of Northuldra. She could see down across the valley, and through to the forest. If anything moved, Elsa would see it. 

“Honeymaren!” she called again. Her feet had started slow, but her pleas were desperate. 

Nothing but the waves below responded to her calls. Water lapped at the shore, and crawled over the rocks. 

“Where did you go?” she worried. 

Elsa’s brow pulled low. The skin against her forehead tightened, and her fists tensed at her side. 

With the wind howling in her ears, Elsa hadn’t the headspace for anxious thoughts. She had been on autopilot as she stumbled through the enchanted northern lands. Yet now, the silence fueled her fears. Elsa’s mind conjured up dark thoughts about all the ways in which Honeymaren could have been hurt; all the directions in which Honeymaren would have run to get away from her. 

In her panic, Elsa’s eyes scanned her surroundings erratically. She checked the depths of the ledge below, and double checked the shore. Elsa was approaching the falls when she coached herself into relaxing. A fully fledged anxiety attack would not help her now, and it would not help her find Honeymaren. 

And so, Elsa continued on. 

She tripped over branches and dislodged rocks. She stumbled through the outskirts of the forest, and alongside the river, driving south. There had been no sign of life, whatsoever. Not a deer, nor rabbit lay in sight. Not even the birds had yet to return to the sky. It was a haunting sight, but Elsa held her concerns at bay. 

Still, she knew her solo rescue efforts were looking slim. 

Feeling defeated and isolated, Elsa decided it was time to return to the village. There, she would be able to recruit the people into helping with her search. They could fan out better, come up with a plan, and locate Honeymaren faster as a group.

Or better yet, perhaps Elsa would get lucky and discover Honeymaren had already returned home. 

I hope that’s the case. She thought.

With a plan in motion, Elsa took a confident step forward. She turned toward the village, hands braced against her stomach, just as a voice sounded in the distance. 

Elsa froze on queue. She waited, listening again for whatever had startled her. 

When nothing came, Elsa shrugged it off. 

She took another step, and the voice surfaced once more. 

At that, Elsa hurried blindly forward. Her feet caught against rocks and tattered debris. The far off whispers were leading her closer to the rock ledge, and had Elsa’s eyes scanning the fast moving river below.

“Help!”

Elsa heard the voice clearer this time. It channeled throughout the cliffs, and carried back out to sea. The voice traveled from beyond the falls, a little less than a quarter kilo from where she stood. 

Newfound adrenaline coursed within Elsa’s blood. She stumbled into a run, and followed along the height of the cliffs.  

“Honeymaren!” Elsa shouted as she neared the rolling hills. 

Loud waves coursed below her. The wind littered the current with large branches and twigs, and the further Elsa ran, the faster the water churned. 

“Help me!” She heard again, and this time from much closer by. 

“Honeymaren!” Elsa hoped, though she did not know for certain. 

Elsa held her breath.

“I’m down here!” The voice pleaded. “Please! I’m stuck between rocks!”

Where the ledge circled the bend in the river, Elsa stopped to peer out. The valley appeared as if a hurricane had surged through the narrow inlet, tearing the walls apart. Boulders ripped away from where they’d lodged in the cliff face. Now, rocks surfaced like small islands amongst the fast moving stream. 

And there, caught between the river and a dismantled flood wall, was Honeymaren. She was looking up at Elsa as if she couldn’t believe she was there. With her body lodged beneath a shallow divot, only the top half of her was exposed. She waved to Elsa erratically with the only arm she could free, as the tide pooled up nearer toward the rock that held her trapped. 

“Elsa?” she called to her. 

“Don’t worry! I’m coming down!” 

Stepping back, Elsa assessed her next move. She could slide in at Honeymaren’s side, but would risk further jostling the precariously fallen rocks. Instead, Elsa decided on her stair method. She could freeze the remaining rockface to the walls, while navigating down to Honeymaren.

Elsa felt her powers begin to surge beneath her skin. She stepped back. Her hands aimed at the wall. She fired at the ledge and a bright light emitted from her palms, but suddenly, it fizzled out into a small flurry. 

Frowning, Elsa tried again. She closed her eyes, took a deep breath, and felt the magic alive within her. 

Ice shot from her fingertips. It laced over the boulders, coating them quickly and with precision. In a burst of excitement, Elsa hurried down the embankment. She sailed over the rock ledge, using her powers with ease. 

“Elsa!” Honeymaren sighed as she neared. 

Elsa could see now how the two boulders had wedged Honeymaren against the floodwall. The rising tide held them into place, but had allowed Honeymaren enough space to free her upper half. 

Elsa landed amongst the shore. 

“I am going to get you out.” she promised. 

Ice cascaded around the first boulder and tugged it from the tide. Elsa tossed it into the river, sending waves splashing amongst the current. 

Water surged up Elsa’s feet and onto her calves. She didn’t care.

Elsa ran to Honeymaren’s side and took her arm over her shoulder. Elsa lifted her from the hole. 

“Are you alright? Are you hurt?” She leaned Honeymaren against the wall.

Honeymaren briefly fell into her. Her nose pressed into Elsa’s neck, as she worked to calm her breathing. Honeymaren’s arms dragged from Elsa’s shoulder, and she pulled away. 

Her hands shook erratically. “I- I think so. My head, I’d knocked it against something… Do I- do I look alright?” 

Elsa came to stand at her back. Honeymaren’s long hair was tangled and disheveled by the wind. Brown curls had caked with dust and dirt, and her hat was now missing. Very gently, Elsa pulled the tie from Honeymaren’s braid. She brushed each strand clean from debris and set the loose hair against her back. 

She sighed. “You have a good size bump back here, but no blood... We should get you back to the village.”

Honeymaren shook her head. “No. No, not yet, please…” she begged breathlessly. “I need- just give me a minute…”

“There’s no rush.” Elsa assured her. “Catch your breath.” She sat at Honeymaren’s feet. 

Honeymaren gasped for air, and her hand caught against her chest. She had her wide brown eyes transfixed on the river across from them. 

“I thought-” She stumbled. “I thought I was going to die… drown… The water kept coming and I couldn’t yell loud enough over the wind. I didn’t know who would come for me, or what had happened… I was so scared, and- how did you know?”

Honeymaren turned to Elsa.

“How did you know to look for me here?”

“I didn’t,” She held Honeymaren’s eyes as her lips tugged sheepishly to the side. “I searched for you everywhere I could think to. I- I didn’t want you out in the storm on your own. I’m so sorry I let you down…”

Frowning, Honeymaren’s head tilt. “You didn’t let me down, Elsa. You saved my life! You risked going out in the storm for me, and- thank you!”

“Don’t thank me.” Elsa told her. “It is my fault you were out here on your own in the first place.”

Honeymaren softly laughed. “Technically, it was my own foolishness that drove me out here, but whether it was guilt or genuine concern that led you to me; regardless, I am so thankful for you, Elsa.”

Elsa reeled in a sharp breath. “It wasn’t guilt, Honeymaren. I do care for you. You have to know that?”

Her cheeks stained red. Honeymaren turned away. “I know, I- I didn’t mean to, it’s just-”

Elsa placed her hand on Honeymaren’s knee, stalling her words. “Let’s… talk about this later, okay? We should get back to the village. Someone should see about that injury.”

Honeymaren seemed to be contemplating Elsa’s words. Her eyes had circled back slowly, and she stared.

“Okay.” she finally agreed. She struggled to pull herself to stand. 

“Here,” Elsa quickly came in at her side, lifting Honeymaren to her feet. “Easy does it.” she encouraged. 

Elsa took Honeymaren’s arm over her shoulder. She started them slowly, trekking them back toward her stairs of ice. 

Honeymaren suddenly pulled them to a stop. Her head turned, face lingering close to Elsa’s. 

“Is Gale gone?” she asked. 

Elsa nodded. “I’m afraid so…”

Though saddened, Honeymaren moved to walk again. Her thoughts were elsewhere as they stumble back up the embankment. 

“Elsa…” She whispered, halting them once more. “If Gale is gone, how will you communicate with Arendelle? The bridge between you and Anna has faded… Even if both sides still stand, the spirits have now made it harder for you both to cross…”

- 

Cheers, (kinda)

-M.

[mahfuzseo03-blog]

Performance and Estimations for a Montreal mover

A Montreal movers Company can come in any shape and size, and choosing a mover you feel confident about is crucial. In order to find the best Montreal movers for your job, make sure to contact Moving companies in Montreal for quotes.

To verify the legitimacy of a mover in Montreal, check if they are licensed with Commission des Transports du Quebec, carry cargo, and damage insurance. Most importantly, make sure you feel confident and comfortable about hiring that Montreal movers company.

It has gotten standard to enlist proficient Montreal movers to help while moving from one spot to another. You can discover an expert mover without any problem. Be that as it may, everyone has a diverse execution level and every one of them may request particular rates. In the accompanying area, we will discuss execution just as cost estimations of moving specialist organizations Let us continue...

What does it mean by the Performance of a Mover?

Moving or moving from one spot to another is actually a major errand to do. Especially, on the off chance that you have encountered it previously, you would know better how much troublesome and requesting it is. Notwithstanding, still you have a choice that can make it basic and simple for you in a manner you need and need. No doubt, we are looking at moving administrations. you have a few moving assistance organizations just as experts who work for this course. A portion of these organizations and faculty are perceived over the nation. Be that as it may, you can see and feel immense contrasts among every one of them. These distinctions lie if there should arise an occurrence of effectiveness and execution.

Do you realize I'm not catching its meaning by execution? Indeed, when you discover an expert mover or moving specialist co-op Company, you understand a couple of worries about it. These worries choose which of them have superior and which can't be considered by any means. Presently, information and experience are significant for expert Montreal movers to have a superior exhibition level. Simultaneously, it is smarter to incline toward one who is prompt and who completes his doled out assignments in a given span. These realities explain the presence of Montreal movers subsequently; you can respect these components while choosing a Montreal mover.

The amount it costs to employ a Montreal mover

At the point when we talk about recruiting Montreal movers then clearly it needs to make cost estimations for him also. He will offer quality moving administrations on the off chance that you are eager to give him the requested rates. Various movers request various costs. What's more, it is doubtlessly up to you which one to like or not. particular costs are requested in various states. For example, you can locate that a mover's rates in Calgary and Montreal are extremely less than in Toronto and West Coast urban communities. At the point when we talk about normal costs then you may need to pay around every hour for two men and a truck.

What will you do now?

In the above conversation, you understood execution and costs decisions for Montreal movers. In this way, you may respect these elements while picking expert Montreal movers for your own moving.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

With Donald Trump’s victories on Tuesday, he has moved to the cusp of securing the 1,215 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. The rest is a formality. The party has become a vessel for the fulfillment of Mr. Trump’s ambitions, and he will almost certainly be its standard-bearer for a third time.

This is a tragedy for the Republican Party and for the country it purports to serve.

In a healthy democracy, political parties are organizations devoted to electing politicians who share a set of values and policy goals. They operate part of the machinery of politics, working with elected officials and civil servants to make elections happen. Members air their differences within the party to strengthen and sharpen its positions. In America’s two-party democracy, Republicans and Democrats have regularly traded places in the White House and shared power in Congress in a system that has been stable for more than a century.

The Republican Party is forsaking all of those responsibilities and instead has become an organization whose goal is the election of one person at the expense of anything else, including integrity, principle, policy and patriotism. As an individual, Mr. Trump has demonstrated a contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law that makes him unfit to hold office. But when an entire political party, particularly one of the two main parties in a country as powerful as the United States, turns into an instrument of that person and his most dangerous ideas, the damage affects everyone.

Mr. Trump’s ability to solidify control of the Republican Party and to quickly defeat his challengers for the nomination owes partly to the fervor of a bedrock of supporters who have delivered substantial victories for him in nearly every primary contest so far. Perhaps his most important advantage, however, is that there are few remaining leaders in the Republican Party who seem willing to stand up for an alternative vision of the party’s future. Those who continue to openly oppose him are, overwhelmingly, those who have left office. Some have said they feared speaking out because they faced threats of violence and retribution.

In a traditional presidential primary contest, victory signals a democratic mandate, in which the winner enjoys popular legitimacy, conferred by the party’s voters, but also accepts that defeated rivals and their competing views have a place within the party. Mr. Trump no longer does, having used the primary contest as a tool for purging the party of dissent. The Republican candidates who have dropped out of the race have had to either demonstrate their devotion to him or risk being shunned. His last rival, Nikki Haley, is a Republican leader with a conservative track record going back decades who served in Mr. Trump’s cabinet in his first term. He has now cast her out. “She’s essentially a Democrat,” the former president said the day before her loss in South Carolina. “I think she should probably switch parties.”

Without a sufficient number of Republicans holding positions of power who have shown that they will serve the Constitution and the American people before the president, the country takes an enormous risk. Some of the Republicans who are no longer welcome — such as Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney — tried to hold their party’s leader accountable to his basic duty to uphold the law. Without such leaders, the Republican Party also loses the capacity to avoid decisions that can hurt its supporters. John McCain, for example, voted to save Obamacare because his party had not come up with an alternative and millions of people otherwise would have lost their health coverage.

A party without dissent or internal debate, one that exists only to serve the will of one man, is also one that is unable to govern.

Republicans in Congress have already shown their willingness to set aside their own priorities as lawmakers at Mr. Trump’s direction. The country witnessed a stark display of this devotion recently during the clashes over negotiations for a spending bill. Republicans have long pushed for tougher border security measures, and Mr. Trump put this at the top of the party’s agenda. With a narrow majority in the House and bipartisan agreement on a compromise in the Senate, Republicans could have achieved this goal. But once Mr. Trump insisted that he needed immigration as a campaign issue, his loyalists in the House ensured that the party would lose a chance to give their voters what they had promised. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who pushed for the bill for months, ultimately abandoned it and voted against it. He is now considering endorsing Mr. Trump, a man whom he has not spoken to in over three years, according to reporting by Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher of The Times. And last week, Mr. McConnell announced that he would step down from his leadership post.

Similarly, the party appears ready to ditch its promises to support Ukraine and its longstanding commitment to the security of our NATO allies in Europe. When Mr. Trump ranted about getting NATO countries to “pay up” or face his threats to encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to them, many Republican leaders said nothing.

The Republican Party has long included leaders with widely different visions of America’s place in the world, and many Republican voters may agree with Mr. Trump’s view that the United States should not be involved in foreign conflicts or even that NATO is unimportant. But once competing views are no longer welcome, the party loses its ability to consider how ideas are put into practice and what the consequences may be.

During Mr. Trump’s first term, for example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo persuaded him not to abruptly withdraw from NATO. If Mr. Trump were to try in a second term, Congress could, in theory, restrain him; in December lawmakers passed a measure requiring congressional approval for any president to leave NATO. But as Peter Feaver pointed out recently in Foreign Affairs, such constraints mean little to a party that has submitted to the “ideological mastery” of its leader. Marco Rubio, one of the authors of that legislation, now insists that he has “zero concern” about Mr. Trump’s comments.

It may be tempting for Americans to dismiss these capitulations as politicians doing whatever it takes to get elected or to ignore Mr. Trump’s bullying of other Republicans and tune out until Election Day. In one recent poll, two-thirds of Americans said they were “tired of seeing the same candidates in presidential elections and want someone new.”

But tuning out is a luxury that no American, regardless of party, can afford. Mr. Trump in 2024 would be the nominee of a very different Republican Party — one that has lost whatever power it once had to hold him in check.

This subservience was not inevitable. After Mr. Trump incited the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, some party leaders, especially in Congress, suggested that they were ready to break with him. The Republican Party’s disappointing results in the 2022 midterm elections appeared to further undermine Mr. Trump’s support, adding doubts about his political potency to the longstanding concerns about his commitment to democracy.

But after Mr. Trump announced his candidacy and it became clear that the multiple indictments against him only strengthened his support, that resistance faded away. He is now using these cases for his own political purposes, campaigning to raise money for his legal defense, and has turned his appearances in court into opportunities to cast doubt on the integrity of the legal system.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal Jan. 6 trial, imposed a gag order on him to prevent him from intimidating witnesses. She noted that Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers did not contradict testimony “that when defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.” The leadership of the Republican Party has been silent.

With loyalists now in control of the Republican National Committee and his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, in line to become its co-chair, the party may soon bend to Mr. Trump’s insistence that the party pay his legal bills. His campaign spent roughly $50 million on lawyers last year, and those expenses are mounting as the trial dates approach. One prominent Republican, Henry Barbour, has sponsored resolutions barring the committee from doing so, but he conceded that the effort can do little more than just make a point.

Mr. Trump has also taken over the party’s state-level machinery. This has allowed him to rewrite the rules of the Republican primary process and add winner-take-all contests, which work in his favor. That is the kind of advantage that political parties normally give incumbents. But in the process, he has divided some state parties into factions, some of which no longer speak to each other. Democrats may see the dysfunction and bickering among Republicans as an advantage. But it also means that for Democrats, even state and local races turn into ones against Mr. Trump. Rather than competing on the merits of policy or ideology, they find themselves running against candidates without coherent positions other than their loyalty to Trumpism.

Republican voters may soon no longer have a choice about their nominee; their only choice is whether to support someone who would do to the country what he has already done to his party.

[antoine-roquentin]

The permanent background music to those larger events are several corruption investigations and scandals involving figures close to the president. The investigations involving bank transfers by employees of Flavio Bolsonaro, a son of the president, to a middleman who was Flavio’s chauffeur, are lingering on. The former president of Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party (PSL) Gustavo Bebianno, an important figure, had to step down due to the high amount of public election monies that went to an unimportant candidate two days before the election. Similar investigations against the Minister of Tourism continue, and the education minister Damares faced accusations due to her adoption of a girl from an indigenous community years ago that was never officialized, and that was called kidnapping by relatives of the girl. For a supposed anti-corruption government this track record in just three months is remarkable.

What was more damaging was the scandal around the corruption investigation itself. State oil company Petrobras which is at the center of the Lava Jato scandal has also faced investigations in the USA. The indemnization that Petrobras had to pay to U.S. authorities was lowered to $853-million (all sums in U.S. dollars) in September 2018. At the time, it was reported that 20 per cent of the sum remained with U.S. authorities, and that 80 per cent, some $682-million would go to the Ministerio Público in Brazil (that led the investigations) for unspecified social and educational programs. In addition, in order to settle a class-action lawsuit it was agreed that Petrobras pay $3-billion to shareholders who bought company stocks on the NY stock exchange between 2010 and 2014. Hence, Petrobras paid almost $4-billion while, in the end a higher amount of between $5 and $10-billion had been expected by market observers.

Only in March 2019 was it revealed that the basis of this reduction was a deal between Petrobras and the U.S. authorities, signed on 26 September 2018 by representatives of Petrobras, the U.S. Department of Justice and the respective U.S. state attorneys. The deal states the sum of $682-million will go to a private NGO run by the prosecutors in the Ministerio Público of Brazil, and that Petrobras keep the U.S. Department of Justice informed about its investments and business plans.

The agreement has caused a huge uproar and led to the cancelation of plans for the NGO in question. Raquel Dodge, the supreme state attorney blocked the deal after determining it violates the Brazilian constitution, so the sum of $682-million will remain with Petrobras. Most importantly, the deal discredited the image of the investigations among the public since the suspicion was confirmed that the investigations have as one of its goals the control of Petrobras by U.S. interests, and include the direct intervention of U.S. authorities in the political life of Brazil.

The arrest of former president Michel Temer, a week after the scandal, was interpreted as a move to regain legitimacy for the corruption investigations, even if Temer had to be released after seven days. But the arrest of Temer, and other politicians, was also seen as a sign of indirect blackmail of established politicians in Congress that were about to discuss the first draft of the law for pension reform. The signal was interpreted as: ‘if you don’t organize agreement on the reform, we will also arrest you for corruption.’

While Temer was not able to pass the reform, Bolsonaro has radicalized it. Poor pensioners who today have the right to receive a pension in the value of the minimum wage from the age of 60 onward (1000 Reals, about 250 Euros), shall now receive only 400 Reals from the age of 70 onward. At the same time, the generous pensions for military personnel – who receive full salaries as pensioners and which represent the larger part of the overall budget deficit – will be largely spared.

Pension Reforms

The conflict that unfolded in the second half of March over pension reform was over Bolsonaro’s refusal to rally the deputies of Congress to support the reform draft. This is usually a game of exchanging favours, deputies negotiating in favour of their clientele, and then being rewarded with posts, money or other political favours. Bolsonaro announced that he will not distribute any favours, the practice of which he designated as the “old politics.”

Nonetheless some engagement with deputies is necessary to get the pension reform approved, and this will require several changes to the constitution if Bolsonaro sticks to the plans. It was then that the president of Congress, Rodrigo Maia from the Democratic Party, a right-wing outlet with roots in the dictatorship, began to provoke Bolsonaro in a series of tweets demanding that he “start governing” and get off of Twitter. Bolsonaro responded angrily on Twitter. Maia’s aim was to exhibit the incompetency of Bolsonaro and to bring himself into play as an important negotiator.

It was a little after this exchange of insults between Maia and Bolsonaro – Maia wrote Bolsonaro should stop “kidding around” and start working, Bolsonaro said “Maia is stressed about family issues,” alluding to the arrest of Maia’s father-in-law together with Temer – that Bolsonaro came up with his dictatorship commemoration plans, only to be topped by his Minister of Exterior, Araujo, who declared that German Nazism was a left-wing project. Bolsonaro repeated this phrase on his visit to Israel a week later, maybe the worst choice of location for it.

This incredible mess and ideological madness led to a considerable drop in the popularity of the government and Bolsonaro himself, registering the lowest poll-ratings after the first three months for any first mandate since the first elected official, Fernando Collor de Melo – even Collor who was impeached quickly, had higher approval rates. Only Cardoso and Rousseff scored worse than Bolsonaro after three months, but this was in their second mandates respectively.

The Brazilian business elite which effectively decides who stays in power once elected is getting nervous. The amateurism of Bolsonaro and his government (it would be wrong to call it a team) is seen as a danger for the pension reform and bets are now that it will be considerably watered down. Pressure groups in Congress are already calling for exceptions for firefighters, teachers and the military police. While a cut in pensions for the poor will be most disastrous, it is the middle class and reasonably paid workers in the public sector that have the most to lose with the pension cuts.

Unemployment is up to around 12 per cent, the same level as a year ago, and there is no visible economic agenda of the government. The head of the mighty agrobusiness caucus recently had cause to vent his anger against Bolsonaro. Backing away from moving the Brazilian embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the president instead announced the opening of a commercial office in the city, while one of Bolsonaro’s sons – who regularly intervenes on political issues without coordinating with anyone – tweeted “Hamas should detonate itself” after Hamas had criticized the opening of the office in Jerusalem. A considerable amount of meat exported by Brazilian agrobusiness goes to Arab countries and is specifically produced as Halal meat in the presence of Muslim religious representatives. Other producers from India and Turkey are waiting to take over this chunk of business. Despite all the ideological regression that emanates from the Brazilian business elite, it becomes very pragmatic when its commercial interests are at stake.

It is hard to say what can be expected from the next 100 days. It is obvious that the conflict between the military faction in the government and the ideological hardliners has hardened. Moro and Guedes as the neoliberal third-pole have not shown much political leadership and independent initiative in this scenario. The hard-core making the crucial decisions are until now Augusto Heleno in the important post of national internal security leader and vice-president Mourão who demonstratively met with the Palestinian ambassador to Brazil in January – business is treating Mourão already as a president in waiting for a lack of alternatives. But the lack of coordination on the economic front is set to worsen the economic situation of the country, and it will probably be a joint protest by workers and business, albeit for different reasons, that can cause serious trouble for Bolsonaro’s motley crew. •

things have actually gotten worse since this was published. bolsonaro’s main advisor, astrologist olavo de carvalho who’s sort of a brazilian cleon skousen or francis parker yockey (check out some of his hilarious theories), gave a speech in which he trashed the military as not doing enough to protect brazil from communism. bolsonaro’s son posted it on his father’s twitter, in what was seen as an attack on his vice president, but his father ended up deleting it and changed his password so his son carlos couldn’t get on. so the son went to sulk at a firing range while complaining on his own social media about how the brazilian military are cowards

[theculturedmarxist]

On 13 October 1806 a young German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, had an encounter with world history. En route to their annihilation of the Prussian forces 24 hours later, Napoleon and his army were marching through the East German university town of Jena. Hegel couldn’t disguise his terror that in the ensuing chaos the recently completed manuscript of The Phenomenology of Spirit might get lost in the mail. But neither could he resist the drama of the moment. As he wrote to his friend Friedrich Niethammer, ‘I saw the emperor – this world-soul (Weltseele) – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it.’

Two hundred years later, in rather more sedate circumstances, the Berkeley historian Daniel J. Sargent, addressing the American Historical Association, also evoked the world spirit. But this time it came in the person of Donald Trump and he was riding not on horseback, but on a golf cart. Trump can be compared to Napoleon, according to Sargent, because they are both destroyers of international order. In the wake of the French Revolution, Napoleon wrecked what was left of the legitimate order of Europe. Trump, in turn, has apparently ended the American world order, or, as Sargent prefers to call it, Pax Americana.

Sargent’s is an extraordinary suggestion, even though overenthusiastic historic comparisons have now become commonplace. Early in 2017 I was among those who thought they were seeing the end of the American century. But, even then, in the early days of the Trump administration, it seemed crucial to draw a distinction between American power and American political authority. Two years on, that distinction seems more important than ever.

The idea that Trump is a wrecker of the American-led world order rests on three claims. First, he is manifestly unfit for high office. That such a man can be elected president of the United States reveals a deep degeneration of American political culture and permanently damages the country’s credibility. Second, his capricious and crude pursuit of ‘America first’ has weakened America’s alliances and instigated a departure from globalisation based on free trade. Finally, he has triggered this crisis at a moment when China poses an unprecedented challenge to Western-led globalisation. Each of these claims is hard to deny, but do they in fact add up to a historically significant shift in the foundations of America’s global power?

No question, Trump has done massive damage to the dignity of the American presidency. Even allowing for the personal and political failings of some previous incumbents, he marks a new low. What ought to be of no less concern is that he has received so little open criticism from the supposedly respectable ranks of the Republican leadership. Similarly, American big business leaders, though sceptical of Trump, have profited from his administration’s tax cuts and eagerly assisted in dismantling the apparatus of environmental and financial regulation. He has been applauded by the section of the US media that caters to the right. And a solid minority of the electorate continues to give him its wholehearted support. What is worrying, therefore, isn’t simply Trump himself, but the forces in America that enable him.

Of course, Trump isn’t the first Republican president to evoke a mixture of outrage, horror and derision both at home and abroad. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were accused, in their time, of endangering the legitimacy of the American world order. The cultural conservatism and overt nationalism of the American right is fiercely at odds with bien pensant global opinion. This culture clash has historical roots in America’s domestic struggles over civil rights, the women’s and gay liberation struggles, and in the worldwide protest movement against America’s brutal war in Vietnam. Since the days of Nixon and the ‘Southern strategy’, the Republicans have been progressively digging in, consolidating their grip on the white electorate in the South and Midwest. By the 1980s the Republican Party was an uneasy coalition between a free-market, pro-business elite and a xenophobic working and lower-middle-class base. This was always a fragile arrangement, held together by rampant nationalism and a suspicion of big government. It was able to govern in large part owing to the willingness of Democratic Party centrists to help with the heavy lifting. The Nafta free-trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada was initiated by George H.W. Bush, but carried over the line in 1993 by Bill Clinton, against the opposition of the American labour movement. It was Clinton’s administration that righted the fiscal ship after the deficit excesses of the Reagan era, only for the budget to be blown back into deficit by the wars and tax cuts of the George W. Bush administration.

Meanwhile, the broad church of the Republican Party began to radicalise. In the 1990s, with Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove setting the tone, the battle lines hardened. With the Iraq War going horribly, and the Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006, the right became ever more dominant within the Republican Party. In 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis, the Republicans in Congress abandoned the Bush administration. The financial crisis-fighting of Hank Paulson as Bush’s Treasury secretary and Ben Bernanke at the Fed relied on the Democrats for congressional support. Elite leadership of the Republican Party collapsed. John McCain chose the shockingly unqualified Sarah Palin as a running mate in the 2008 election because she was hugely popular with the Republican base, who revelled in the outrage she triggered among liberals. Barack Obama’s victory in that election only exacerbated the lurch to the right. The Republicans in Congress put up a wall of opposition and indulged the populist right in openly questioning his legitimacy as president. The defeat of the centrist Mitt Romney in 2012 caused a further, decisive slide to the right, opening the door for Trump. In 2016 no major corporation was willing to sponsor the convention that nominated Trump as the Republican presidential candidate: their brand advisers were too worried that Confederate flags would be waving in the convention hall. His is the voice of the right-wing base, energised by funding from a small group of highly ideological oligarchs, no longer constrained by the globalist business elite.

A cynic might say that Trump simply says out loud what many on the right have long thought in private. He is clearly a racist, but the mass incarceration of black men since the 1970s has been a bipartisan policy. His inflammatory remarks about immigration are appalling, but it isn’t as though liberal centrists would advocate a policy of open borders. The question – and it is a real question – is whether his disinhibited rhetoric announces a disastrous slide from the hypocrisies and compromises of the previous status quo into something even darker. The concern is that he will trigger an illiberal chain reaction both at home and abroad.

At G20, G7 and Nato summits, the mood is tense. The rumour that the US is planning to charge host governments ‘cost plus 50 per cent’ for the military bases it has planted all over the world is the latest instance of a stance that at times seems to reduce American power to a protection racket. But for all the indignation this causes, what matters is the effect Trump’s disruptive political style has on the global power balance and whether it indicates a historic rupture of the American world order. How much difference does the US being rude to European Nato members, refusing to co-operate with the WTO, or playing hardball on car imports really make?

This is not merely a debating point. It is the challenge being advanced by the Trump administration itself in its encounters with its allies and partners. Do America’s alliances – do international institutions – really matter? The administration is even testing the proposition that transnational technological and business linkages must be taken as given. Might it not be better for the US simply to ‘uncouple’? Where Trump’s critics argue that at a time when China’s power is increasing the US should strengthen its alliances abroad, the Trumpists take the opposite view. For them it is precisely in order to face down China that the US must shake up the Western alliance and redefine its terms so that it serves American interests more clearly. What we are witnessing isn’t just a process of dismantling and destruction, but a deliberate strategy of stress testing. It is a strategy Trump personifies, but it goes well beyond him.

In October 2018 the giant Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman unexpectedly pulled out of the Eastern Mediterranean, where its planes had been bombarding IS’s positions in Syria. It sailed into the Atlantic and then suddenly and without warning headed north. Aircraft carriers don’t do this: their itineraries are planned years ahead. This was different. The Truman and its escorts headed full steam to the Arctic, making it the first carrier group to deploy there for 27 years, backing up Nato’s war games in Norway. The consternation this caused delighted the Pentagon. Unpredictable ‘dynamic force employment’ is a key part of its new strategy to wrong-foot America’s challengers.

The Harry S. Truman is a controversial ship. The Pentagon would like to scrap it in favour of more modern vessels. Congress is pushing back. The White House wants more and bigger carrier groups; the navy says it wants 12 of them. The Nimitz-class behemoths commissioned between 1975 and 2009 are to be replaced by a new fleet of even more gigantic and complex Ford-class vessels. All have their priorities, but what everyone in Washington agrees on is the need for a huge military build-up.

*

The resignation of General James Mattis as defence secretary at the end of 2018 sparked yet another round of speculation about the politicking going on inside the Trump administration. But we would do better to pay more attention to his interim replacement, Patrick Shanahan, and the agenda he is pursuing. Shanahan, who spent thirty years at Boeing, is described by one insider as ‘a living, breathing product of the military-industrial complex’. Under Mattis he was the organisational muscle in a Defence Department with a new focus, not on counterinsurgency, but on future conflicts between great powers. Shanahan’s stock in trade is advanced technology: hypersonics, directed energy, space, cyber, quantum science and autonomous war-fighting by AI. And he has the budget to deliver. The Trump administration has asked for a staggering $750 billion for defence in 2020, more than the spending of the next seven countries in the world put together.

Declinists will point out that the US no longer has a monopoly on high-tech weaponry. But that is grist to the mill of the Trump-era strategists. They recognise the threat that great-power competition poses. Their plan is to compete and to win. In any case, most of the other substantial military spenders are American allies or protectorates, like Saudi Arabia or the European members of Nato. The only real challenges are presented by Russia and China. Russia is troublesome and the breakdown in nuclear arms control poses important and expensive questions for the future. But Russia is the old enemy. Shanahan’s mantra is ‘China, China, China’.

The ‘pivot’ in American strategy to face China was initiated not by Trump but by Obama in 2011, under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even then, despite their far more tactful leadership, it caused some crashing of gears. The problem is that containing China is not what Washington’s system of alliances is designed to do. From the early 1970s, the days of Nixon and Kissinger, China was enrolled as a US partner in keeping the balance of power with the Soviet Union. Given half a chance, Trump would like to essay a reverse-Kissinger and recruit Russia as an ally against China. But Congress and the defence community will have none of that. Instead, the US is doubling down on its Cold War alliances in urging both South Korea and Japan to increase their defence efforts. This has the additional benefit that they will have to buy more American equipment. If the Vietnamese regime too were to veer America’s way, Washington would surely welcome it with open arms.

None of this is to say that Trump’s version of the pivot is coherent. If containment of China is the aim, America’s Asian partners must wonder why the president scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade and investment deal within days of taking office. That elaborate package was the foundation of Obama’s China-containment strategy. But for Trump and his cohorts that is muddled thinking. You cannot build American strength on the back of a giant trade deficit. Washington is no longer willing to pay for military co-operation with economic concessions: it wants both greater contributions and more balanced trade.

In Europe the Trump administration is proceeding on the same basis. Trump’s antipathy towards the EU and its political culture is disconcerting. But the problem of burden-sharing has haunted Nato since its inception, and until the 1980s, at least, the Europeans were significant contributors. Until 1989 Germany’s Bundeswehr was a heavily armoured and mechanised force of 500,000 men with a mobilisation strength of 1.5 million. Though its loyalty to the Federal Republic wasn’t in doubt, it was unmistakably a descendant of Germany’s military past. The break following the end of the Cold War was dramatic, not just in Germany but across Europe. Spending collapsed; conscription was abolished; Europe’s contribution to Nato’s effective strength dwindled. There were also deep disagreements between Germany, France and the US over strategic priorities, particularly on Iraq and the war on terror. But differences in threat-perception are no excuse for the dereliction of Europe’s security landscape. If Europe really feels as safe as it claims to, it should have the courage to push for even deeper cuts. Instead, it continues to maintain military establishments which, taken together, make it the world’s second or third largest military spender, depending on how you add up the Chinese budget. But given that it is spread across 28 poorly co-ordinated, undersized forces, Europe’s $270 billion in defence spending isn’t enough to buy an adequate deployable military capacity. Aside from its value as a work-creation measure, the only justification for this huge waste of resources is that it keeps the Americans on board.

The result is a balance of hard power that has for the last thirty years been extraordinarily lopsided. Never before in history has military power been as skewed as it is today. For better or worse, it is America’s preponderance that shapes whatever we call the international order. And given how freely that power has been used, to call it a Pax Americana seems inapposite. A generation of American soldiers has grown used to fighting wars on totally asymmetrical terms. That for them is what the American world order means. And far from abandoning or weakening it, the Trump administration is making urgent efforts to consolidate and reinforce that asymmetry.

How can the US afford its military, the Europeans ask. Is this just another instance of America’s unbalanced constitution? Isn’t there a risk of overstretch? That was certainly the worry at the end of the 1980s, and it recurred in the fears stoked during the Bush era by critics of the Iraq War and budget hawks in the Democratic Party. It doesn’t play much of a role in the current debate about American power, and for good reason. The fact is that for societies at the West’s current level of affluence, military spending is not shockingly disproportionate. The Nato target, which the Europeans huff and puff over, is 2 per cent of GDP; US spending is between 3 and 4 per cent of GDP. And to regard this straightforwardly as a cost is to think in cameralist terms. The overwhelming majority of the Pentagon’s budget is spent in the US or with close allies. The hundreds of billions flow into businesses and communities as profit, wages and tax revenue. What’s more, the Pentagon is responsible for America’s most future-oriented industrial policy. Defence R&D was one of the midwives of Silicon Valley, the greatest legitimating story of modern American capitalism.

If Congress chose, defence spending could easily be funded with taxation. That is what both the Clinton and Obama administrations attempted. The Republicans do things differently. Three of the last four Republican administrations – Reagan, George W. Bush and now Trump – combined enormous tax cuts for the better-off with a huge surge in defence spending. Why? Because they can. As Dick Cheney declared, to the horror of beltway centrists: ‘Reagan showed that deficits don’t matter.’ US Treasuries will be a liability for future American taxpayers, but by the same token they constitute by far the most important pool of safe assets for global investors. Foreign investors hold $6.2 trillion in US public debt, 39 per cent of the debt held by investors other than America’s own government agencies. US taxpayers will be making heavy repayments long into the future. But they will make those payments in a currency that the US itself prints. Foreigners are happy to lend in dollars because the dollar is the pre-eminent global reserve currency.

The hegemony of the dollar-Treasury nexus in global finance remains unchallenged. The dollar’s role in global finance didn’t just survive the crisis of 2008: it was reinforced by it. As the world’s banks gasped for dollar liquidity, the Federal Reserve transformed itself into a global lender of last resort. As part of his election campaign in 2016, Trump undertook an extraordinary vendetta against Janet Yellen, the Fed chair. But he was more restrained after he took office, and his appointment of Jerome Powell as her successor was arguably his most important concession to mainstream policy opinion. Needless to say, Trump is no respecter of the Fed’s ‘independence’. When it began tightening interest rates in 2018 he pushed back aggressively. (As a man who knows a thing or two about debts, he prefers borrowing costs to be low.) His bullying scandalised polite opinion. But rather than undermining the dollar as a global currency, his interventions were music to the ears of hard-pressed borrowers in emerging markets. The same applies to the giant fiscal stimulus that the Republicans launched with their tax cuts: despite rumblings of a trade war, it has kept the American demand for imports – a key element of its global leadership – at record levels.

The world economic order that America oversees was not built through consistent discipline on the part of Washington. Discipline is for crisis cases on the periphery, and dispensing it is the job of agencies like the IMF and the World Bank. Both have been through phases of weakness; in a world in which private funding is cheap and abundant even for some of the poorest countries in the world, the World Bank is struggling to define its role. But the IMF is in fine fettle, largely because the Obama administration pushed the G20 to add $1 trillion to its funding in 2009. So far the Trump administration has shown no interest in sabotaging Christine Lagarde. Over the latest bailout for Argentina, the Americans were notably co-operative. A key issue will be the rollover of the crisis-era emergency funding; from the point of view of international economic governance that may prove to be the most clear-cut test yet of the stance of the Trump presidency.

A stark illustration of the asymmetrical structure of American world order came in recent months in the use of the dollar-based system of invoicing for international trade to threaten sanctions against those tempted to do business with Iran. This outraged global opinion; the Europeans were even roused to talk about the need for ‘economic sovereignty’. What they are upset about isn’t the lack of order, but America’s use of it. To many, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement is another indication of American unreliability and unilateralism. But why is anyone surprised? It took extraordinary political finesse on the part of the Obama administration to secure backing for the Iran deal in Washington. It was always more than likely that a Republican administration would repudiate it. That may be disagreeable but it can hardly be described as a rupture with the norms of American world order. The system is hierarchical. While others are bound, America retains the sovereign freedom to choose. And that includes the right to revert to the cold war it has been waging against the Iranian Revolution since 1979.

The same harsh logic applies when it comes to the Paris Agreement on climate change. Clearly, it is a disaster that the US has pulled out. But Congress and the George W. Bush administration did the same to the Kyoto Protocol at the beginning of the century. Moves like this should not be interpreted as a rejection of international order tout court, let alone as an abdication of American leadership. The Trump administration has a clear vision of an energy-based system of American leadership and influence. It is based on the transformative technological and business breakthrough of fracking, which has broken the grip of Russia and the Saudis on oil markets and is turning the US into a net exporter of hydrocarbons for the first time since the 1950s. Liquefied natural gas is the fuel of the future. Terminals are being built at full speed on the Texas shoreline. Fracking was originally a wildcat affair but big corporate money is now pouring in. The oil giant ExxonMobil is back (after a weak commercial patch and Rex Tillerson’s humiliating stint at the State Department), investing heavily in huge new discoveries in Latin America. All this will be horrifying to anyone convinced that the future of humanity depends urgently on decarbonisation. But again it is unhelpful, if the aim is to grasp the reality of international order, to conflate it with a specifically liberal interpretation of that idea.

*

If Republican policy is just Republican policy, American military power is waxing not waning, and the dollar remains at the hub of the global economy, what exactly is it that is broken? The clearest site of rupture is trade, and the associated geopolitical escalation with China. The US is engaged in a sustained and effective boycott of the WTO arbitration system. But the WTO has been ailing for a long time. Since the Doha round of negotiations became deadlocked in the early 2000s it has made little contribution to trade liberalisation. In any case, the idea that legal agreements such as those done at the WTO are what drives globalisation puts the cart before the horse. What really matter are technology and the raw economics of labour costs. The container and the microchip are far more important motors of globalisation than all the GATT rounds and WTO talks put together. If in the last ten years globalisation appears to have stalled, it has more to do with a plateau in the development of global supply chains than with backsliding into protectionism.

In this regard the Trump administration’s aggressive attack on America’s regional trade arrangements is more significant than its boycotting of the WTO. It is in regional integration agreements that the key supply chain networks are framed. The abrupt withdrawal of the US, in the first days of the Trump presidency, from TPP in the Asia-Pacific region and TTIP in the Atlantic, was a genuine shock. But it is far from clear that either arrangement would have been pursued with any energy by a Hillary Clinton administration. She would no doubt have shifted position more gracefully. But the political cost of pushing them through Congress might well have been too high.

In spring 2017 there was real concern that Trump might abruptly and unilaterally cancel Nafta – apparently the hundredth day of his presidency had been set as the occasion. But that threat was contained by a concerted mobilisation of business interests. Once the negotiations with Mexico and Canada started, the tone was rough. In Robert Lighthizer as his trade representative, Trump has found a bully after his own heart. But again, if you look back at the history of Nafta and WTO negotiations, tough talk is par for the course. In the end, a replacement for Nafta emerged, in the form of the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). Apart from minor concessions on dairy exports to Canada and intellectual property protection for American pharmaceuticals, its main provisions concerned the car industry, which dominates North American trade. To escape tariffs, 40 per cent of any vehicle produced in Mexico must have been manufactured by workers earning $16 an hour, well above the US minimum wage and seven times the average manufacturing wage in Mexico. Three-quarters of a vehicle’s value must originate inside the free-trade zone, restricting the use of cheap imported components from Asia. This will likely induce a modification but not a wholesale dismantling of the production networks established under Nafta. Though it was not endorsed by US trade unions, it wasn’t repudiated by them either. As the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organisations commented, the effect will depend on how it is implemented.

The auto industry was at the heart of the Nafta renegotiation and it is the critical element in simmering US-EU trade tensions too. Let there be no false equivalence, however: the incomprehension and disrespect shown by the White House towards the EU is unprecedented. It isn’t clear that Trump and his entourage actually grasped that America no longer maintains bilateral trade deals with individual members of the EU. Trump’s open advocacy for Brexit and encouragement of further challenges to the coherence of the EU has been extraordinary. The use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to investigate car imports from Germany as a threat to American national security is absurd. Such things mark a bewildering break with previous experience. That said, Trump’s obsession with the prevalence of German limousines in swanky parts of New York does highlight another painful imbalance in transatlantic relations: the persistent European trade surplus. Of course America contributes to this imbalance with its disinhibited fiscal policy: the better off Americans feel, the more likely they are to buy German cars. But as the Obama administration repeatedly pointed out, Europe’s dogged refusal to stimulate faster growth is as bad for Europe as it is for the world economy. The scale of the Eurozone’s overall current account surplus is highly unusual by historical standards and is both a vulnerability for Europe, leaving its producers hostage to foreign demand, and a potential source of global shocks.

*

Europe’s freeriding may undermine the global order, but the EU does not mount a direct challenge to US authority. China is different, and that is what truly marks out the foreign relations of our current moment as a break with the decades since the end of the Cold War. No one, including the Chinese, anticipated how rapidly the Trump administration would escalate tensions over trade in 2018 or that this would evolve into a comprehensive challenge to China’s presence in the global tech sector. The US has been putting pressure on its allies to cut the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei out of their plans for 5G, the next generation of internet technology. But here the US – and its allies – are in reactive mode: the original shock was China’s unprecedented growth.

China alone was responsible for a doubling of global steel and aluminimum capacity in the first decade of the 21st century. Its huge investment in R&D transformed it from a ‘third world’ importer of Western technology into a leading global force in 5G. As the likes of Navarro and Lighthizer see it, it was the naivety of enthusiasts for an American-led world order in the 1990s that allowed China’s communist-run state capitalism into the WTO. What the globalists did not understand was the lesson of Tiananmen Square. China would integrate, but on its own terms. That could be ignored in 1989 when China’s economy accounted for only 4 per cent of global GDP: now that figure is close to 20 per cent. As far as the American trade hawks are concerned, competition within an agreed international order is to be welcomed only so long as the competitors agree to play by America’s rules, both economic and geopolitical. This was the lesson Europe was made to learn after the Second World War. It was the lesson that Japan was taught the hard way in the 1980s and early 1990s. If China refuses to learn that lesson, it must be contained.

America retains some huge advantages. But it would be dangerous, the argument goes, simply to count on those. Sometimes American preponderance has to be defended by a ‘war of manoeuvre’. The emerging American strategy is to use threats of trade policy sanctions and aggressive counter-espionage in the tech arena, combined with a ramping up of America’s military effort, to force Beijing to accept not just America’s global preponderance but also its terms for navigation of the South China Sea. In pursuing this course the Trump presidency has a clear precedent: the push against the Soviet Union in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, which deployed economic and political pressure to break what was perceived to be a menacing phase of Soviet expansion in the 1970s. Despite all the risks involved, for American conservatives that episode stands as the benchmark of successful grand strategy.

The reason the attempt to apply this lesson to present-day China is so shocking is that US business is entangled with China to an immeasurably greater degree than it ever was with the Soviet Union. If you are seeking a component of the American world order that is really being tested at the present moment, look no further than Apple’s supply chain in East Asia. Unlike South Korea’s Samsung, the Californian tech giant made a one-way bet on manufacturing integration with China. Almost all its iPhones are assembled there. Apple is an extreme case. But it is not alone. GM currently sells more cars in China than it does in the US. America’s farmers converted their fields wholesale to grow soy beans for export to China, only to find themselves cut out of their biggest market by Brazilian competitors. And it isn’t just American firms that are caught up in the escalation of tension. Important European, South Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese businesses have staked huge wagers on China.

Given these investments, one might have expected more pushback against Trump’s China strategy from US business. So far there has been little. The radical decoupling of the Chinese and American economies may be so horrible a prospect that business leaders simply prefer not to discuss it in public. They may be lying low hoping the row blows over. Or it may be that American business itself buys the increasingly pessimistic diagnosis of the US intelligence and defence community, who argue China’s persistent protectionism and economic nationalism may mean that it presents more of a threat than an opportunity. Even top ‘China hands’ like Steve Schwarzman and Hank Paulson have warned of a chill in the air.

The hardening of attitudes towards China is not confined to America. It was the Anglo-American intelligence consortium known as ‘Five Eyes’ that raised the alarm about Huawei’s capability to build back doors into the West’s most sensitive telecommunications networks. Canada and Australia are deeply concerned about Chinese penetration. The new pessimism about Sinocentric globalisation isn’t confined to security policy hawks, but shared by many mainstream economists and political scientists in US academia, the think-tank world, and journalists and commentators on Chinese affairs. The liberal version of the American world order is deeply influenced by strands of modernisation theory, the up to date version of which is encapsulated in the doctrine of the middle-income trap. Very few large countries have managed to grow beyond China’s current level of income. Those that have done so have kitted themselves out with the full set of liberal institutions and the rule of law. On this reading, China is in a precarious position. Xi’s authoritarian turn is a decisive step in the wrong direction. Further frequently cited signs of Chinese weakness include ethnic tensions and the ageing of the population as a long-term effect of the one-child policy. There is a belief, held well beyond the administration, that the tide may be turning against Beijing and that now is the moment for the West to harden the front.

This would indeed constitute a break with the narrative of globalisation since the 1990s. But it would hardly be a break in the American-led world order. To imagine the American world order as fully global is after all a relatively recent development. After 1945, the postwar order that is generally seen as the non plus ultra of American hegemony was built on the hardened divisions of the Cold War. Where China is concerned, the issue is not so much America’s intention to lead as whether others are willing to follow. Building the Cold War order in Europe and East Asia was comparatively easy. Stalin’s Soviet Union used a lot of stick and very little carrot. The same is not true of modern-day China. Its economy is the thumping heart of a gigantic East Asian industrial complex. In the event of an escalation with China, particularly in East Asia, we may find ourselves facing not so much an end of the American-led order, as an inversion of its terms. Where the US previously offered soft-power inducements to offset the threat of communist military power, backed up by hard power as a last resort, in the next phase the US may become the provider of military security against the blandishments offered by China’s growth machine.

But this is premature. As of today, two years into the Trump presidency, it is a gross exaggeration to talk of an end to the American world order. The two pillars of its global power – military and financial – are still firmly in place. What has ended is any claim on the part of American democracy to provide a political model. This is certainly a historic break. Trump closes the chapter begun by Woodrow Wilson in the First World War, with his claim that American democracy articulated the deepest feelings of liberal humanity. A hundred years later, Trump has for ever personified the sleaziness, cynicism and sheer stupidity that dominates much of American political life. What we are facing is a radical disjunction between the continuity of basic structures of power and their political legitimation.

If America’s president mounted on a golf buggy is a suitably ludicrous emblem of our current moment, the danger is that it suggests far too pastoral a scenario: American power trundling to retirement across manicured lawns. That is not our reality. Imagine instead the president and his buggy careening around the five-acre flight deck of a $13 billion, Ford-class, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier engaged in ‘dynamic force deployment’ to the South China Sea. That better captures the surreal revival of great-power politics that hangs over the present. Whether this turns out to be a violent and futile rearguard action, or a new chapter in the age of American world power, remains to be seen.

[rmsnwtacoma]

8 Excellent Reasons You Need a Website for your Business

As technology continues to take over a large portion of our daily lives, it is also having a significant impact on the way we carry out our daily activities.

Consumers are using current technology tools like cell phones and the internet more than ever to investigate businesses before engaging with them.

Yes, that is accurate.

Before making a purchase, customers search online for your company. In fact, more than 90% of customers use the internet to research local businesses before going there.

The following are the reasons why you need a website for your business from the best website designing company, Washington regardless of whether you run an offline or online firm.

Research supports it.

The findings of a study conducted by Deloitte can be used to understand how crucial it is to have a website for your business. This analysis shows that a small company with a website Is anticipated to produce 3 times as many jobs.

Is most likely to boost the revenue per employee by 2 times.

We anticipate an almost four-fold increase from last year.

Consumers want it.

In this digital age, we live. You must also make it simpler for customers to contact you. If you want to attract new ones and keep the ones you already have, it is easy to see that a website is the best way to contact your customers given that consumers now spend an average of 5 hours online each day. In fact, the majority of consumers nowadays want their favourite businesses to have a strong online presence so they can contact and communicate with them with ease. The fact that businesses without websites are viewed as less professional is even more astounding.

Your business needs it-

Online users are looking for your company. A website will not only make it simple for these customers to contact you, but it will also help your company expand into new markets throughout the world. A website can help you reach your customers more successfully while also making it simpler for people to find and purchase from you. One of your company’s main goals is to be where your customers are. We provide small, medium, and large businesses with incredibly gorgeous websites that are also mobile-responsive.

A better way to engage

What does it mean to interact with a business specifically? It’s not just about making purchases from the company; it’s also about interacting with it to ask questions, learn more about it, the firm’s past, future goals, and other things, and a company website makes all of this feasible and a blog. According to the research by the LSA (local search association), more than 60% of customers contact businesses online. So, if customer happiness is even somewhat important to you. Make sure that your company has a high- quality website.

Digital content affects commercial (B2B Sales)

Many companies claim that they do not require a website or any other form of online presence since their respective industries are not online, particularly those in manufacturing. If that’s the case, what do you think of these facts? More than 70% of B2B buyers acknowledge that the content of digital websites influences their purchasing decisions.

Consumers judge a company by its website.

Your company’s growth may be slowed without a website, but a subpar website could cause far more damage. According to research, more than 70% of customers based their judgment of a company’s legitimacy on the style and functionality of its website.

Beat the competitors.

I would wager that your rival, if they are doing well relative to your own company, has a website that customers enjoy visiting and shopping from. To compete with them, you must have a website that excels in all areas, including design, user experience, sales, and service.

Digitization is the future.

Every single activity is getting digitalized; whether it be for payment or education, this is like an ever-ending trend. Therefore, you shouldn’t try to evade this revolution if you are a business owner, an entrepreneur, or a director of a company.

To know more about web design services fife and Puyallup Web Designer please stay with our website:rmsnw.com