#pragmatic conservatism

[pomoculture]

The Wage-Reality

The gender pay-gap was something pushed by a rage-click journalist culture to feed a hellbent activist culture. Often times when I speak to people about the fairness of working less hours and/or laborious jobs for less money, bristles flair, but the sad fact is most people don’t know how those statistics construe hours (part-time employments and/or overtime) and lower paying jobs (How many female firefighters can one expect by ratios?) to be irrelevant to the “Big Title”. There are only so many non-physical jobs that women can fill. It has to be recognized as a limiter and even a second-hand experience limiter for jobs that involve the administration of physical labor. Are we just going to decide, on no other merit than "equality of outcome", that administration is as hard and worth as much as mining? Not only this, but Nordic countries, often considered the most liberal and feminist leaned governments of the world, have demonstrated that with more freedom, men and women choose more stereotypical jobs of their gender. People want to be effective, that’s intrinsic in any effort we care about, can we please stop pushing nonsense for diversity’s sake alone?

[mariacallous]

in our desperation to "learn from" this election i do think people are getting attached too soon to what type of campaign or candidate should be run in future elections (if we have them). obama was not necessarily the logical answer to eight years of bush era conservatism. trump was definitely not the logical answer to eight years of moderate pragmatic progressivism under obama. we don't know what people will want. i certainly didn't know biden would be what (enough) people wanted after trump part one, i was wrong for that. i'm seeing "we can never run a woman" "we're getting another bill clinton neolib now" we don't know any of that, actually, and frankly i think it's dumb to speculate on at this point. let's just get through the next few years.

I tend to agree - I think it was agraybee, fka brainstatic here on tumblr, who made the point that if you had said in 2004 a black man with Hussein in his name would have been not only nominated for president but win, he would have laughed at you. The "What's The Matter With Kansas?" author doesn't mention Obama either, and that came out in 2006. John Edwards was once the young bright future of the party.

[themindmovement]

“In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected. [...] It is clear that none of these versions can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: each involves a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to excrement. Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism. [...] The point about toilets is that they enable us not only to discern this triad in the most intimate domain, but also to identify its underlying mechanism in the three different attitudes towards excremental excess: an ambiguous contemplative fascination; a wish to get rid of it as fast as possible; a pragmatic decision to treat it as ordinary and dispose of it in an appropriate way. It is easy for an academic at a round table to claim that we live in a post-ideological universe, but the moment he visits the lavatory after the heated discussion, he is again knee-deep in ideology.”

— Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies

[odinsblog]

Truly impressive what Minnesota accomplished with only a one seat majority

“…in addition to having a one-vote margin, this was not a radical left-wing legislature! There are plenty of moderate Dems here.

But the moderates, unlike (centrist) Dems elsewhere, still wanted to get stuff done and saw progressives as partners in making that happen.”

Rather than looking at the November numbers result and imposing some kind of self-limiting narrative about the scope of their mandate, MN Dems looked at their priorities and said "How much of the list can we get done?"

Turns out the answer was, "Almost everything."

Republicans did not worry about appeasing the sensibilities of Democratic voters when they rammed through Trump’s unqualified Supreme Court Justices, and then gutted Roe v. Wade.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS, whenever Dems have political power, instead of performatively agonizing about “reaching across the aisle” to compromise with Fascistic Republicans, or pontificating over & worrying about what Republican voters might think, they need to focus on one thing and one thing only: accomplishing ALL the good they can while they still can. Like Minnesota just did.

Dems need to be bold, and press through their base’s policies whenever they have the opportunity, not finger wag and tell us why the things we want are impossible and won’t ever happen.

“Pragmatically” “triangulating” and waiting for the “right” time, or waiting for a “better” time to do what is right only helps Republicans buy more time to entrench.

Time is a luxury that most poor and marginalized people simply cannot afford. Democratic politicians need to understand what MLKjr meant when he spoke of being wonderfully maladjusted, and the fierce urgency of now! and why he scornfully viewed moderate (centrist) whites as an even greater threat to progress than the KKK.

Minnesota is a solidly midwestern state. Hopefully if nothing else, Minnesota’s impressive list of recent accomplishments will belie the common DNC political “wisdom” that only conservatism-lite will work in middle America.

[lurinatftbn]

Hello! To preface this question: this is truly not intended to be an accusation or anything, I genuinely just want to understand some of the worldbuilding in your novel which I’ve been reading recently. I’m not all the way finished, I think I’m about at chapter 45~? So if this gets brought up later feel free to just let me know and leave it at that.

My question is: why has the gender norm stayed in place in this world? It’s been something I’ve been stuck on since the conversions concerning Fang and Ophelia. In a society where it’s highly recommended that you change the face and general appearance of either yourself or your children to prevent paradoxical incidents, I’m struggling to understand why a firm gender binary would still be socially accepted as correct - wouldn’t a significant amount of people opt for an androgynous presentation anyway to avoid paradoxes from masc/fem instances of the same body? I can understand why the order would have the whole girls to one side guys to the other from a doylist perspective, it helps solidify the conservatism of the order for the reader compared to the protagonists. But I am genuinely struggling with how and why the gender binary persists for any other reason, even in older generations. The way Fang’s talked about is extremely odd considering the casual conversations about sexuality, especially considering the conversation where people tried to figure out what they are that’s mentioned.

Again, very genuine question, and thank you for reading!

Hi, thanks for your question!

To correct what I think might be a misconception first, changing ones appearance in the setting as an adult is not particularly common - when the characters talk about 'distinction treatment', what they're usually referring to is altering their genetics away from that of their seed in utero or early childhood, resulting in them developing a different appearance naturally. Adult distinction treatment or plain cosmetic medicine exists, but is much less common.

As for the rest, the answer is, pretty boringly, that the world of TFTBN is broadly socially conservative, since the cultures in the setting were largely founded by people who rejected the transhumanism of the Imperial Era and then embraced an even more entrenched traditionalism in response to the collapse. I don't think this is an outlook that comes from a necessarily pragmatic or logical place; by nature, social conservatism values the upholding of firm societal roles for their own sake rather than in pursuit of any sort of utility. Obviously even in our own world there are lots of conventions around gender and sexuality that don't really make sense any more, but are upheld for that reason.

There are a lot of ways in which the society of the story is supposed to come across as a little ridiculous in how far it goes to hold on to its perception of a more 'natural' past, and the sort of world that creates when the older generations can never really be forced to cede cultural power in the way they are in reality.

There's more I could say from a doylist angle, but you might be a bit too early in the story for that.

[reading-cards]

Dec 11 2024

Themes of abundance, nurturing, creativity, beauty, and bounty may abound and be predominant today. Beneath that, it is indicated that such abundance can be grown and developed. The advice card for today is the king of pentacles, so while wealth and abundance abound today, you should still practice conservatism, financial wisdom, and pragmatism while enjoying such bounty. Enjoy.

[kiki-de-la-petite-flaque]

In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected. [...] It is clear that none of these versions can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: each involves a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to excrement. Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism. [...] The point about toilets is that they enable us not only to discern this triad in the most intimate domain, but also to identify its underlying mechanism in the three different attitudes towards excremental excess: an ambiguous contemplative fascination; a wish to get rid of it as fast as possible; a pragmatic decision to treat it as ordinary and dispose of it in an appropriate way. It is easy for an academic at a round table to claim that we live in a post-ideological universe, but the moment he visits the lavatory after the heated discussion, he is again knee-deep in ideology.

― Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies

[tmarshconnors]

The Most Qualified US President JFK

As a staunch supporter of right-wing politics, particularly the Reform Party and figures like Nigel Farage, my natural inclination is to align with the Republican Party in the United States. Conservatism, free-market principles, and a strong national identity are values I hold dear, and the modern Republican Party, despite its internal fractures, still embodies many of these ideals. 

However, there is one undeniable truth, even for those of us on the right: John F. Kennedy was arguably the most qualified and capable president the United States has ever had.

Now, before my fellow conservatives scoff at the notion of praising a Democrat, let's take a step back and analyze JFK not through the lens of partisan loyalty, but through merit, leadership, and statesmanship.

A President with Real-World Experience

Unlike many modern politicians who build their careers in the bureaucratic echo chambers of Washington, JFK came from a background that genuinely prepared him for the highest office in the land. His time in the military, particularly as a naval officer during World War II, shaped his resilience, decision-making, and ability to lead under pressure. The famous PT-109 incident, where Kennedy saved his crew after their boat was sunk, showcased his courage and sense of duty qualities sorely lacking in many of today’s career politicians.

Compare this to the political dynasties we see today, where candidates emerge not because of their personal achievements but because of their family name or ideological appeal. JFK may have been born into privilege, but he proved himself through action, not just rhetoric.

A Pragmatist, Not an Ideologue

JFK was a Democrat, yes, but not in the radical progressive sense we see dominating the party today. He was staunchly anti-communist, supported a strong military, and pushed for tax cuts that spurred economic growth positions that would make many modern Republicans nod in agreement. In fact, his economic policies bear more resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than to those of today’s left-wing Democrats.

His approach to the Cold War was another mark of his pragmatism. Instead of blindly capitulating to Soviet pressure or overreacting with reckless aggression, Kennedy took a calculated stance that balanced deterrence with diplomacy. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis remains one of the greatest demonstrations of presidential leadership in history.

A Leader Who Inspired a Nation

One of the greatest failings of modern political leaders, particularly in America, is their inability to unite and inspire their nation. Kennedy, however, had that rare ability to make people believe in something bigger than themselves. His speeches weren’t just empty words they were calls to action. “Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country” is a sentiment that conservatives, especially those who champion personal responsibility and national pride, can respect.

Contrast this with the modern left’s obsession with victimhood and entitlement, and you see just how different JFK was from today’s Democrats. His vision was one of strength, optimism, and American exceptionalism values that, ironically, align more with the modern right than the radical left.

The Tragic Loss of Leadership

One can only wonder what America and indeed the world—would look like had Kennedy not been assassinated. Would he have continued to steer the country away from the bureaucratic stagnation that followed in the decades after? Would he have resisted the extreme leftward shift of his party? We will never know.

What is certain, however, is that John F. Kennedy was a leader of rare ability. His blend of real-world experience, economic pragmatism, and nationalistic spirit set him apart from most presidents before and after him.

So yes, while my allegiance lies firmly with conservative values and right-wing politics, I can recognize excellence when I see it. And in JFK, America had a leader who was truly qualified for the presidency a fact that even Republicans should acknowledge.

[cryptosexologist]

this post has taken so long i suspect it’ll feel entirely disconnected from the LRB which inspired it, good grief. anyways living up to my url again - the orientation ocd inspired essays have been getting way less hard on my anxiety to produce i think i’m getting better at my commitment to reasonableness and attempting to not reproduce structures of systemic oppression to enforce an artificial conservatism of things which i feel so protective of BECAUSE of those same structures of systemic oppression lmao. still not bothering to do a second draft or grammarify things properly though xmx

the desire to bring up how a decent chunk of “radical genderfuckery” in the queer space is at a philosophical level based more on countering the counterculture (due to internet-enabled perceivable narrative saturation & homogeneity of ‘regular’ queer identity) (which, like, the saturation is bc yer at the soup store, but the homogeneity IS actual a reasonable fucking problem to find in it dont get me wrong) and therefore is extremely predictable in how it fails to properly address the more basal systems of transmisogyny and homophobia and other such things - to the point of outright hindering some causes from a purely rhetorical POV (coughs in the general direction of feminist criticism of the foundations of manhood versus ‘oh but i’m undeniably part of the outgroup-to-men-as-engineered-by-Manhood while still being a man!’ individual arguments which like. true, but just specifying ‘CIS men!’ or ‘TME’ in cases of discussing the systemic privileges of patriarchy will fail to properly deconstruct the basii if manhood itself if we accept that men can be things other than cis ya know like -. god sorry fuck this is getting away from me. yes i’m mostly still just failing to internally digest bigender lesbian stuff with my own worldviews’ enzymes thats what this is turning into. to be clear i aint trying to invalidate anything besides my own analytical (or pragmatic capacity to just stop being analytical) skill, if i rip myself away from the rhetorical zeal buzzer i can mostly get it lmao. also yes even away from the buzzer i will still insist that peoples identities are informed by their philosophical mindset towards the community in a way that informs their politics and vice versa i don’t really think that should be controversial. (mine included!!!my internal definition of ‘lesbian’ is a goddamn rube goldberg machine of allowances for shit like my tacit acceptance that our species is a coincidental hivemind or that gender is an unavoidable illusion cast on how humans process data and that any personal sense or identity is held ransom by the extremely specific societal microconditions under which its person is subject to) like if we’re willing to accept that concepts like “genital preference” or any of the particular ways people try to identify themselves as the Truer/Purer/Realer incarnation of their label has a (in these cases more uncomplicatedly negative) causal relationship with the systems of bigotry and catergorization they are born under then i see no reason to hold identity itself as uniquely stagnant from causation like that. (VITALLY IMPORTANT: CRITIQUE OF THESE SORTS OF HEAVILY PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SELF RELATIVE TO SYSTEM MUST ONLY BE DONE IN RELATION TO AND IN CONTEXT OF BROADER CULTURAL PATTERNS, IF YOU WALK UP TO SOMEONE AND GO “well i think your identity is based on a bourgeoise alienation from the conditions under which sexuality arises! just identify as bi!!!” THATS WHATS GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS “BEING A DICK” AND DOES NOTHING TO JUSTIFY YOUR ANALYSIS OF BROADER IDENTOLOGICAL TRENDS AND HOW THEY MAY BE INFORMED BY QUEER HISTORY AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY COULD INFORM THE QUEER FUTURE (INCLUDING QUALITATIVE JUDGEMENTS THEREOF)

ok i swear tangent over

VERSUS the understanding that what i refer to with such a description of “radical genderfuckery in the queer community” is merely a subset of lgbt+ people (getting tired if repeating the q word sorry i’m using them interchangeably with no intent to color your presumptions of like, the subset being inherently different than a more “traditionally named” set or anything lmao) being quirky and experimental in a way only differentiable from longstanding cultural dynamics by the way its behavior is informed by extremely online bullshit, with relatively little differentiating the end results except for bad takes on internet discourse and having the most annoying headcanons imaginable. like for instance the actual difference between, like, a lesboy? and like one-seventh of butches out there in general from an internal experience of gender standpoint is PROBABLY (my estimate i’m not a mind reader) way fucking less than the terminology makes it seem. which does invite argument as to whether such precise-of-detail yet imprecise-of-relational-dynamic-to-related-concepts-(orientation-systemic-privilege-etc) is warranted or necessary or if not necessary than a net good in any case, but should not, MUST not foster contempt nor scorn towards other fucking people who just fucking use that language because it works for them or they believe in it. except maybe if its some phenomenally misinformed clown nose bullcrap but lets face it all of us are terrible at identifying whats actually a farce produced out of malign ignorance and whats just some fucking kid playing around with language

also, and this goes for pretty much any fucking faction, arguments towards tradition or precedent for ANYTHING are easily exploited, functionally incomplete, and can only at best proove a phenomenon is not recent. like yes in years past we all used more lumpy labels without the same sense of internal division, or YES in years past we moved past using such lumpy labels and found more precise means of identification. those both are literally true, non contradictory, and yet despite each half swaying in opposite directions as to the goodness of this change of language each says jack shit to emphasize WHY that change may have been good or bad, besides that this was going on a while ago

[aviewofthejames]

Hoover's NeoConservatism Can't Last

…For decades, the Hoover Institution stood as a conservatism's intellectual wing, but in 2025, it feels like a time capsule of a bygone era. Forty years ago, the Hoover Institution staffed the Reagan Revolution. Many of its leading scholars still champion aggressive foreign policy, believing that the American military must be used to shape the world. Even after the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, Hoover’s scholars still push for more intervention, not less.

One particularly striking example came when Hoover-affiliated figures advocated for a dramatic increase in U.S. military aid to Ukraine, insisting that no settlement should leave Russian forces in place. This maximalist stance insisting on rejecting compromises and favoring intervention ignores the risk of a broader war, or even nuclear escalation, in favor of an idealized victory scenario.

Ferguson’s recent Ukraine critique follows the same tired script. He lambasts Trump and Vance for seeking a negotiated end to the war, dismissing realism as weakness. In Hoover’s world, it’s always 1938, every enemy is Hitler, and any restraint is “appeasement.” But outside the ivory tower, conservatives have become far more skeptical of interventionist crusades.

This isn’t just about Ukraine. 

Hoover has been out of sync with the conservative base for years. On trade and globalization, its economists cling to pre-Trump free-trade absolutism. One Hoover-published article recently called Trump’s tariffs a “tragedy” that undermines decades of progress. But GOP voters no longer buy the old gospel. After decades of offshoring and economic hollowing-out, today’s conservatives care more about factories at home than trade pacts abroad. Yet Hoover’s scholars still talk as if “protectionism” is heresy.

From foreign wars to trade policy, Hoover keeps defending a dead consensus. The Institution is still operating under the assumption that Republican voters will automatically back wars and globalist economics if wrapped in patriotic rhetoric. That assumption has collapsed under Trump. But Ferguson acts as if the assumption is true. 

The conservative movement has undergone a sea-change over the past decade. Trump’s rise in 2016 was the catalyst, but the transformation is much deeper than one individual. A new “America First” ethos has taken hold, one that is skeptical of foreign wars, wary of globalization, and focused on national interests. This isn’t a fringe phenomenon. Poll after poll shows that Republican support for Ukraine aid has collapsed. In early 2022, 80% of Republicans backed U.S. military assistance; by 2024, that number dropped to 45%. Even economic aid for Ukraine has fallen to just 40%. The party that once reflexively backed every foreign intervention is now openly questioning them.

And it’s not just voters—Republican politicians have adjusted too, with many GOP lawmakers now warning against “blank checks” to Ukraine. Other conservative institutions have adapted, too. The Heritage Foundation, once a hawkish stalwart, now emphasizes border security and foreign policy restraint. But Hoover? Hoover sounds like Washington from decades ago.

Throughout the mid-20th century, Hoover's scholars produced groundbreaking research that challenged prevailing paradigms and offered fresh perspectives on governance, economics, and international relations. Their work not only enriched academic discourse but also translated into actionable policies that shaped national and global strategies. This era of intellectual vigor and practical impact solidified Hoover's reputation as a powerhouse of bold, pragmatic conservatism. If Hoover wants to remain relevant, it must relearn the lessons of its own past.

Now at one-hundred-and-five years of age, Hoover must adapt. This doesn’t mean abandoning conservatism—but it does mean rethinking how conservative principles apply to 2025. Right now, the conservative movement is prioritizing strategic restraint, economic nationalism, and domestic security—not endless interventions and multinational trade deals.

Hoover’s best days were when it championed ideas that both reshaped American policy and stayed in touch with where policymakers and the public stood. It could be that again—but only if it stops rehashing yesterday’s playbook. If it doesn’t? Then Hoover becomes a museum of neoconservatism—a place for out-of-touch donors and think pieces that trend on Twitter but influence nothing in the real world.

The world has changed. The conservative movement has changed. It’s time for Hoover to catch up—or fade into irrelevance.

—Abhi Desai, Stanford Review (21 Feb 25)

[pomoculture]

The Beginning

Post-modern philosophy has a lot to answer for in the reformation of western culture. Spear-headed by the famous philosopher, Jacques Derrida, post-modernism, or POMO, makes a series of logical steps to reduce reality to all be social construction. Since our minds are wired in a mostly consistent way with each other, we manage to ascribe reason and likeness similarly. But “Nay!” says Derrida, these natural constants are just arbitrary paradigms that could’ve been so rearranged as to undo truth itself. “Perception is reality” is the word on the street, and like most catch phrases, it has its place where its very applicable, but I take issue when I hear people say this as if it’s a universal truth (which I have more than I want to count). Reality is only found by the exchange between minds, not in the unchecked opinions or fantasies of individuals. Undermining that understanding can often produce some very funny results, but its begun harming people and shifting the very Overton Window of our culture. If you’re already in a camp similar to mine, I’ll be posting some thoughts of how we got here. If you’re undecided or all for it, I’ll be making arguments for why it’s wrong, harmful, and maybe if I’m feeling frisky, even posit what I think is right in its stead.

[mchiti]

The American black and white thinking is so crazy and the worst part is that it seems like it’s infecting every online space. Like even for minor things like football opinions or music/film reviews you see it. It’s even worse when it’s serious things like what’s happening with Liam. I’m 100% convinced that if Britney Spears were going through her breakdown today, young “progressive” Americans would try to find some problematic thing she said or did to justify bullying her. They like to pretend that they’re better than previous generations but they’re not, they just their cruelty under a progressive veneer.

right? ... just to give you an idea one of my fave korean artists had a minor incident months ago, he fell off an electric scooter by himself (was proceeding pretty slow on the cycle lane and all). he had drank something tho (not much but right enough to exceed) and so had his license revoked and a whole mess followed. now you would expect south korean media to be quite harsh on it because artists there are supposed to be perfect 24/7 (it's ugly but it is what it is) but if you go on certain dominantly american sites (redd*t, ohnoth*ydidnt, any other gossipy-starbiz dedicated forum like that) is full of american lashing their cruelty because "well doesn't matter it was an e-scooter, still ugly, still fucked up, still messed from him, so fuck him, there's no excuse for..." and fuck him fuck him fuck him etc.

like bruh at some point we need to address this toxicity for real and when I say it is embedded in their culture it's because it truly is. USA literally created a bipartisan system, they only have two political parties competing, they divided the whole world into the good side (them + the west) and the bad (ussr + allies) and they keep doing it now (christians vs muslims, west vs east, capitalism vs communism, conservatism vs progress...). it's a very pragmatic culture after all, always has been. you either do good or you do bad, you're either socially acceptable or you're fucked. one single mistake, one single word said wrong and you're fucked for life. this punitive thinking dressed as being progressive and woke... when in fact it sounds pretty fascist to me. extremely fascist.

of course not all americans are like that but in general I don't think usa (and in a minor stance the brits tbh) ever got rid of their inner catholic puritanism tbh. Human beings are complicated and complex and nuanced and deep and sometimes contradictory. they can be beautiful, they can also be terrible, but they are still humans. Cancelling someone over one single word out of place or one single mistake...of course in the case of LP he did way more than that. Of course he had to pay. but what part of me showing some sadness for a young life ended like that means siding with the "oppressor" ? all these big words pronounced and not an once of empathy towards anything or anyone. what world is this really? might work in the individualist capitalist bubble they live in but I'm not into that.

[mswyrr]

In the minds of neoliberal and conservative world leaders, western civilization is a collapsing box. Inside the box, we have habitable land and intact supply lines. Basically, we have the means of survival divvied up by the norms of capitalism. As habitable land decreases and supply lines break, the capitalist solution is not to help the land or displaced people recover. It’s to push more people out of the box as it collapses. From the neoliberal perspective, this will be framed as a matter of pragmatism and inevitability. From a fascist perspective, it will be framed as a recovery of the natural order. Borders are one of the primary mechanisms by which people are boxed out of potential realms of survival. But even within those habitable realms, mechanisms of carcerality also subdivide our access to resources and livable conditions through various modes of containment, including house arrest, institutionalization, and the use of jails and prisons. Deprivation and debilitation are imposed externally and internally by leaders whose primary role is the maintenance of capitalist norms. As mass migration leads to increased conservatism, and mass death and mass murder are further normalized, we will need resistance movements grounded in an ethics of care and a refusal to abandon one another. Antifascist and anti-authoritarian politics must exist in opposition to ideas about human disposability that will be adopted as common sense by the majority of the public. The pandemic has already widened the scope of normalized disposability in the US, with those who cannot survive COVID infections being deemed expendable for the sake of capitalist normalcy.

[cosmiccannibalcamille]

What Venus in Capricorn Means for YOU

What: Venus in Capricorn

When: Nov. 11 - Dec. 7, 2024

Who’s Impacted: EVERYONE, but esp. Cardinal signs and earth signs. 

Takeaway: the love & pleasure planet moves into the sign of rules, limits, and tradition, making this the ultimate time for “work first, play later.”

     Remember Venus in Sagittarius? Well, the careless spending and hapless flirting we’ve enjoyed during the love planet’s travels through the fire sign are soon to be a thing of the past. On Nov. 11, Venus, the planet of love and money, moved into conscientious Capricorn, where it will stay until Dec. 7. If you’ve begun to notice yourself  prioritizing work over play, then you’re already seeing how Venus in Capricorn is unfolding. 

     Ruled by Saturn, the stern planet of limits, Capricorn doesn’t like to waste time on anything. Because time is money. So, when Venus, the planet of money, transits this economical and organized earth sign, you can bet money—particularly the investment and/or earning of—will be on your mind. So too will relationship regulations. Indeed, Venus in Capricorn sees us seeking the rules of a situation, be it friendly, familial, creative or romantic. When? Where? How? And why? During this time, we want to know the limits, the confines, the expectations and the desired outcome before we get too invested in anything. 

Want to learn more about the astrology of romance and compatibility? Check out my Love & Relationships Workshop & Astrology Compatibility Guidebook! Learn what ignites your romantic side, find out which signs are your best match, and set powerful intentions for love.

     Now, this doesn’t mean Venus in Capricorn isn’t a romantic transit, because it definitely has the potential of being so. In fact, even though it is the penultimate sign of practicality and pragmatism, Capricorn is also highly sensual; it loves good food, fine wine, luxurious perfumes and designer duds, but it prefers to delay those gratifications. To Venus in Capricorn, the best pleasures are the ones you’ve earned. That said, Venus in Capricorn also sets a pretty high bar for romance. Rather than hooking up with anyone who breathes, we’ll save our interest for the people, parties, and things we believe are worth the wait. 

    While it’s known (infamous?) for being materialistic, Venus in Capricorn isn’t a time when we’re spending cash like it’s going out of style. No, Venus in Capricorn instead inspires fiscal and relational conservatism. In plain English, that means: Rather than splurging on flashy trinkets, wasting your time on flirty thrills with jobless poets, or fleeting from one creative project to the next, Venus in Capricorn urges you to save your cash, budget your affections for those who deserve them, and guard against wastefulness in all forms. 

Get the FULL SCOOP on Venus in Capricorn on The Cosmic Almanac:

[the-microphone-explodes]

In my opinion, radical anything, isn’t good. That’s why I dislike posts like “what radicalized you” or “[blank] radicalized me”. Any ideology that refuses to examine nuance and build itself towards pragmatic solutions can very quickly turn dangerous and often, I would say, fascist. This goes for both radical leftism and radical conservatism. Radicalization is not a good thing.

[mariacallous]

Back in September, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that the Kremlin was hoping for a Harris victory in the U.S. presidential election. Though the statement drew widespread skepticism, there may be some logic behind it, given the Kremlin’s expectations of what could unfold if she won. Kremlin insiders told Meduza that Putin’s political team was banking on Republicans refusing to accept the results and sparking protests that could lead to civil unrest — conveniently diverting attention from the war in Ukraine. For more insight into how Putin’s administration views Trump’s victory, Meduza special correspondent Andrey Pertsev spoke with sources inside the Kremlin.

In the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election, the Kremlin’s political team hoped the results might spark protests reminiscent of the January 2021 riot at the Capitol, insiders told Meduza.

“Society there is even more polarized now, and back then, protests escalated to the point of storming the Capitol. Protests could have been a logical outcome of that polarization [after this election]. The main bet wasn’t so much on any particular candidate winning but on the losing side refusing to accept the results,” said a source close to Putin’s administration. Another Kremlin insider confirmed this account.

According to these sources, the Kremlin hoped such a crisis would force American authorities to focus on domestic issues rather than their standoff with Russia. However, that bet doesn’t seem to have paid off, as U.S. media reports show Democrats are preparing to concede defeat.

For a long time, Kremlin insiders told Meduza, Russian officials saw Kamala Harris’s victory as the most likely, “baseline” scenario, and expected Republicans to reject the outcome and stage protests. Yet a few weeks ago, they shifted their view toward Trump, citing Harris’s “lackluster campaign,” despite U.S. experts and polls indicating both candidates had roughly equal chances.

Both sources close to the president’s office noted that Russian elites generally have a “soft spot” for Trump. One of them explained:

It’s not exactly rational. He’s just a familiar type, a flashy guy — no, not just a guy, more like our kind of guy. He talks about conservatism, he’s rich, successful, and he doesn’t insult Russia. A decent guy. It was the same eight years ago. Sure, the optimism waned after some of his actions [like the sanctions he imposed during his first term], but the fondness remained. Trump is still somewhat ‘our guy’ — in the sense that he’s like us.

In comparison, Kamala Harris “was perceived as someone totally incomprehensible,” the source added.

A senior regional official who spoke to Meduza on condition of anonymity said that he’s also sympathetic to Trump, whom he sees as a “flashy politician” who “might try to resolve the conflict [with Ukraine].” A State Duma deputy from the United Russia party echoed this sentiment: “The mood is like, what if? What if he really tries? The current president [Joe] Biden or [Vice President Kamala] Harris certainly wouldn’t make any gestures towards Russia.”

However, a source close to the Russian government and one of the sources close to the Kremlin expressed doubt that Trump’s election can drastically change the relationship between Russia and the U.S.

“The [reason for optimism] is not very clear. Trump is an impulsive person — he wants to get his way,” said the source close to the government. “Maybe he’ll have some impact on Ukraine, but a deal means making concessions, including from Russia. And so far, it doesn’t look like President [Putin] is ready for any concessions. Trump may have a businessman’s approach, guided by pragmatism. But the people on our side aren’t businessmen — that’s the issue.”

A source close to the Kremlin summed up the situation like this:

The [Russian] president is building an anti-Western coalition, including with people who Trump considers enemies — like China, for example. This is no longer the Putin we had in 2016. Concessions are no longer part of his approach.