#they also planning on banning foreign news

[former-leftist-jew]

You heard it here, folks. "Jews are just collateral damage," even when multiple communist regimes over the last century have specifically targeted, scapegoated, and murdered Jews because they were Jews.

Shows how little you think Jewish lives are actually worth.

Never mind that literally everything you think you know about Israel, Jews, Palestine, the West, and the Middle East were all directly fabricated by Stalin's antisemetic propaganda team.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: a fake-ass document , while technically printed in 1903 under Imperial Russia, was re-circulated in the 1920's under Stalin and aggressively pushed and printed all over the world, to scapegoat Operation Zarathustra.

State-Sponsored Antisemitism Under Stalin (1924 to 1953)

Joseph Stalin turned antisemitic activity into an official state policy. Although the Soviet Union officially condemned and even banned antisemitism as a “reactionary relic” of Tsarism in the 1920s, Stalin continued using Jew-hatred as a tool for achieving his political goals, mainly the consolidation of power. In the early 1920s, “there was a rapid roundup of the leaders of all Jewish and other nationalists’ undergroun groups,” to concentrate all power in the hands of the Bolsheviks. Many Jewish groups were dissolved and their leaders “either exiled or permitted to immigrate.” In the second half of the 1920s, Stalin deployed antisemitism to discredit the political opposition within the Bolshevik party by spreading propaganda about the opposition’s alleged “Jewish character.” In the late 1930s, after consolidating his power, Stalin cemented antisemitism as an official state policy. According to Gennadiy Kostyrchenko, a Russian scholar of the topic, this policy aimed to systematically eliminate “Jewish influence” in the social, political, and cultural spheres of Soviet society. The Kremlin imposed forced Jewish assimilation, which came into full force in the late 1940s... In support of state-sponsored antisemitism, Stalin and his security services deployed disinformation and propaganda, depicting Jews as outsiders, and, ultimately, as enemies disloyal to the Soviet state. In the 1920s, Soviet authorities justified the arrests of “right-wing Jewish nationalists” by accusing them of cooperating with the Zionist movement and supporting “global imperialism.” One of the KGB’s predecessors, the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), fabricated tens of “counter-revolutionary” cases against the “criminal activities of the nationalist Jewish underground.”

Your hero, ladies and gentlemen.

But wait, there's more!

Witch Hunt against "Rootless Cosmopolitans"

In 1943, Stalin and his propagandists intensified attacks against Jews as followers of “rootless cosmopolitanism,” a nineteenth century term denoting preference for internationalism and foreign influence, in an effort to promote the “new Soviet nationalism” and patriotism. Stalin and his mouthpieces depicted “rootless cosmopolitanism” as an instrument for Western cultural and ideological expansion, and “cosmopolitans” as morally corrupt outcasts with a “national inferiority complex,” who rejected their own culture and subjugated themselves to the interests of foreign nations. “Rootless cosmopolitans” became “synonymous with Jews,” who were accused of sharing “cultural values with Western Jews and therefore were less than completely loyal to the Soviet Union.” False claims accusing Jews of “rootless cosmopolitanism” and of intentions to undermine the Soviet Union are rooted in the “dual loyalty” antisemitic trope. Stalinist accusations of “rootless cosmopolitanism” also echo Adolf Hitler’s charges about a “poison injected by the international and cosmopolitan Jew[s],” who he claimed had concocted aconspiracy to destroy the Aryan race.

That's right, HITLER GOT MOST OF HIS IDEAS OF JEWS being secretive, nefarious, infiltrating outsiders who were planning to secretly amass power and undermine various nations from Soviet Stalin's antisemetic propaganda machine, which he ruthlessly turned out from the 1920's till his death in 1953.

So, yeah, spare me.

I need Western leftist to realise that secular Jews were slaughtered during the Shoah.

I need Western leftists to realise that Jews who converted to Christianity were slaughtered during the Shoah.

I need Western leftists to realise that there were Jews who assisted the Nazis, thinking that this way they'll keep themselves safe.

I need Western leftists to realise that the Shoah wasn't about religion at all.

[northernflame]

btw just so y'all zionists pieces of shit know, democratic countries aren't supposed to pass laws that ban news channels that contradict the state power (x)

[robertreich]

10 Worst Things About The Trump Presidency

Donald Trump left office with the lowest approval rating of any president ever. But some people now seem to be suffering from amnesia.

Let me jog your memory. Here are 10 Worst Things About the Trump Presidency — in no particular order.

#1. Trump fueled division and sparked a record uptick in hate crimes.

#2. Murder went way up under Trump. He presided over the largest ever single-year increase in homicides in 2020. A number of factors might have contributed to that, but a big one is…

#3. Gun sales broke records under Trump, who has bragged about how he “did nothing” to restrict guns as president in spite of…

#4. Under Trump, America suffered more than 1,700 mass shootings.

#5. Trump said there were "very fine people" among the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.

I’m halfway to ten. If you think I’m missing something big, leave it in the comments.

#6. Trump allied himself with the Proud Boys, a violent hate group who helped orchestrate the Jan 6 Capitol attack.

#7. Trump’s not wrong when he says…

TRUMP: I got rid of Roe v. Wade.

It is entirely because of Trump’s judicial appointments that 1 in 3 American women of childbearing age now lives in states with abortion bans.

#8. One of Trump’s Supreme Court justices was Brett Kavanaugh, a man accused of sexual assault by multiple women.

#9. Trump’s White House interfered in the FBI’s investigation of Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assaults.

And now: #10. Trump has been convicted of committing 34 felonies while in office. The criminally false business filings he got convicted for in New York? All of them were committed while he was president.

I’m sorry, did I say the 10 Worst Things About the Trump Presidency? I meant 15.

#11. Trump’s failed pandemic response is estimated to have led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. By the time Trump left office, roughly 3,000 Americans were dying of covid every day. That’s a 9/11-scale mass casualty event every single day. How did Trump screw up so badly?

#12. Trump’s White House discarded the pandemic response playbook that had been assembled by the Obama administration.

#13. Trump disbanded the National Security Council’s pandemic response team.

#14. Trump repeatedly lied about the danger of covid, saying it was no worse than the flu or that it would go away on its own.

But behind closed doors, Trump admitted he knew covid was deadly.

#15. Trump promoted fake covid cures like hydroxychloroquine and even injecting people with disinfectants.

After Trump’s “disinfectant” remarks, poison control centers received a spike in emergency calls.

That’s fifteen things. Should I keep going? Ok, I’ll keep going. The 20 Worst Things About the Trump Presidency.

#16. Trump presided over a net loss of 2.9 million American jobs — the worst recorded jobs numbers of any U.S. president in history.

#17. Trump profited off the presidency, making an estimated $160 million from foreign countries while he was president.

#18. Trump also billed the Secret Service over $1 million for the privilege of staying at his golf clubs and other properties while they protected him. That’s your money!

#19. Trump caused the longest government shutdown in U.S. history when he didn’t get funding for his border wall, which he said Mexico was going to pay for.  

#20. Under Trump, the national debt increased by about 40% — more than in any other four-year presidential term — largely because of his tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.

You didn’t really think I was stopping at 20, did you? We’re going to 25 —

#21. Trump separated more than 5,000 children from their parents at the border, with no plan to ever reunite them, putting babies in cages.

#22. The Muslim Ban. Yes, Trump really did try to ban Muslims from entering the country.

#23. Trump sparked international outrage by moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem while closing the U.S. mission to Palestine.

#24. Trump tasked his son-in-law Jared Kushner with drafting a potential Middle East ��peace plan” with zero Palestinian input.

#25. And finally, Trump recognized Israel’s occupation of the Goh-lahn Heights, which is considered illegal under international law.

So there you have it, folks: The 25 Worst — Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Did I mention the impeachments? We’ve got to do the impeachments. Let’s go to 30.

#26. Trump broke the law by trying to withhold nearly $400 million of U.S. aid for Ukraine in an effort to extort a personal political favor from Ukraine’s Pres. Zelensky. Trump wanted Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 election by announcing an investigation into the Bidens. Delaying this aid to Ukraine weakened Ukraine and strengthened Russia.

#27. Trump personally attacked and ruined the careers of everyone who stood in the way of his illegal Ukraine scheme, including Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman.

#28. To cover up the scheme, Trump ordered the White House and State Department to defy congressional subpoenas.

#29. For these reasons, on December 18, 2019, Trump became the third U.S. president to be impeached. He was charged with Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

#30. Even while he was being investigated for trying to get Ukraine to interfere in the U.S. election, Trump publicly called for China to interfere in the election.

So those are the 30 Worst Things —

I’ll go to 35.

#31. Long before Election Day, Trump started making false claims that the election would be rigged.

#32. After losing, Trump falsely claimed the election was stolen, even though his own inner circle, including his campaign manager, White House lawyers, and his own Justice Department and attorney general told him it was not.

#33. Trump kept telling his Big Lie even after more than 60 legal challenges to the election were struck down in court, many by Trump-appointed judges.

#34. Trump ordered the Department of Justice to falsely claim that the election “was corrupt.”

#35. Trump and his allies used threats to pressure state leaders in Arizona and Georgia to falsify the election results.

We may go to 40.

#36. When none of the previous schemes worked, Trump and his allies produced fake electoral votes cast by fake electors in multiple swing states. His former White House chief of staff and Rudy Giuliani are among the many members of his inner circle who have been criminally indicted for this scheme.

#37. Trump tried to bully Vice President Pence into obstructing the certification of the election.

#38. Trump invited a mob to the Capitol on Jan 6 with his “be there, will be wild” tweet.

#39. Sworn testimony alleges that when Trump was warned that members of the crowd were carrying deadly weapons, he ordered security metal detectors to be taken down.

#40. Knowing the crowd had deadly weapons, he ordered them to go to the Capitol and…

TRUMP: …fight like hell.

#41 — Yes, yes, I know, bear with me.

Trump betrayed his oath to defend the nation by doing nothing to stop the Jan 6 violence. Instead, according to witness testimony, he sat and watched TV for hours.

#42. On January 13, 2021, Trump became the only president ever to be impeached twice. This time he was charged with incitement of insurrection. It was a bipartisan vote.

#43. The majority of senators — 57 out of 100 — voted to convict Trump, including 7 Republican senators.

So that’s the two impeachments and the Big Lie, but wait, we haven’t dealt with Russia, right? So we’re going to 50.

#44. In a likely obstruction of justice, Trump pressured then FBI Director James Comey to stop the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. This was documented in the Mueller report.

#45. When Comey didn’t bend to Trump’s will, Trump fired him.

#46. Trump tried to shut down the Mueller investigation by ordering White House Counsel Don McGann to fire Mueller. McGann refused because that would be criminal obstruction of justice.

#47. When news got out that Trump tried to fire Mueller, Trump repeatedly told McGann to lie — to Mueller, to press, to public — and even create a false document to conceal Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller.

#48. Trump ordered his staff not to turn over emails showing Don Jr. had set up a meeting at Trump Tower before the 2016 election with representatives of the Russian government.

#49. Trump convinced Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about Trump’s plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, and Cohen served prison time for lying to Congress.

#50. Trump was not charged for criminal obstruction of justice because it’s the Justice Department’s policy not to indict a sitting president, but more than a thousand former federal prosecutors who served under both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter declaring there was more than enough evidence to prosecute Trump.

So those are the 50 Worst Things About the Trump Presidency. Now I could go on…

And I will! The 75 Worst Things About the Trump Presidency.

#51. Trump said he’d hire only the best people, but…

His campaign chair was convicted of multiple crimes.

So was one of his closest associates.

His deputy campaign chair pleaded guilty to crimes.

So did his personal lawyer

His National Security Adviser

The Chief Financial Officer of his business

A campaign foreign policy adviser

And one of his campaign fundraisers.

They all committed crimes, and Trump pardoned most of them.

#52. Trump said he’d drain the Washington swamp. But he appointed more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls to his administration than any administration in history

#53. Trump intervened to get his son-in-law, Jared Kushner top-secret clearance after he was denied over concerns about foreign influence.

#54. Trump hosted a Russian Foreign Minister to the Oval Office, where Trump revealed top-secret intelligence.

Oh, and Trump’s economic policies!

#55 Trump promised that the average American family would see a $4,000 pay raise because of his tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations. How’d that work out? Did you get a $4,000 raise? Of course not! Nobody did!

#56. Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring increased and manufacturing fell.

#57. Trump said he would fix America’s infrastructure, but it never happened. He announced so many failed “infrastructure weeks” they became a running joke.

#58. Trump said he would be “the voice” of American workers, but he filled the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union flacks who made it harder for workers to unionize.

#59. Trump’s Labor Department made it easier for bosses to get out of paying workers overtime, which cheated 8 million workers of extra pay.

#60. Trump repeatedly suggested he might serve more than two terms in violation of the Constitution — and continues to do so.

#61. Trump called Haiti and African nations “shithole” countries.

#62. Trump tried to terminate DACA, which protects immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Luckily this was struck down by the courts.

#63. Trump called climate change a “hoax.”

#64. Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

#65. Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental protections.

#66. Every budget Trump proposed included cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

#67. Trump tried (and failed) to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have resulted in 20 million Americans losing insurance. And striking down the ACA’s protections for the roughly 130 million people with pre-existing conditions could have driven up their insurance premiums or led to a loss of coverage.

#68. Trump made it easier for employers to remove birth control coverage from insurance plans.

#69. By the end of Trump’s term, the number of people lacking health insurance had risen by 3 million.

#70. Trump lied. Constantly. He made 30,573 false or misleading claims while president — an average of 21 a day, according to Washington Post fact-checkers.

#71. Trump allegedly took hundreds of classified documents on his way out of the White House, reportedly including nuclear secrets, which he then left unsecured in various parts of Mar-a-Lago, including a bathroom. He was even caught on tape showing them off to people.

#72. Trump seriously discussed the idea of nuking a hurricane.

#73. When Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, Trump delayed $20 billion of aid and allowed Puerto Rico to be without power for 181 days.

#74. Trump suggested withholding federal aid for California wildfire recovery and said the solution was to “clean” the “floors” of the forest.

#75. Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, placing Iran on a path to developing nuclear weapons.

Honestly, there’s so much more, from exchanging “love letters” with North Korea’s brutal dictator to publicly denigrating a Gold Star military widow and making her cry, to the way he attacked journalists, to late night tweet binges.

Look, I can understand why a lot of people want to block all of this out of their memories. But we cannot afford to forget just how terrible Trump’s time in the White House was for this nation.

And we sure as hell can’t afford to put him back there.

[qqueenofhades]

“U.S. President Joe Biden issued a memorandum on Thursday requiring allies who receive military aid from the U.S. to provide ‘credible and reliable written assurances’ of their adherence to international law including international human rights law,” the Times of Israel reported. Israel will need to supply written assurances within 45 days or risk loss of aid. The report added, “The memo did not mention specific countries who would be held up to the new standard, but came amid increasing calls in the U.S. to condition aid to Israel due to concerns over its military operations in Gaza which were triggered by the Oct. 7 attacks, in which Hamas terrorists murdered some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and kidnapped 253.” No one should underestimate the impact of the decision. The Associated Press explained, “Democratic senators on Friday called Biden’s directive — meant to bring breadth, oversight, deadlines and teeth to efforts to ensure foreign governments don’t use U.S. military aid against civilians — historic.”

[.......]

Biden also pressed on with intense one-on-one diplomacy. After his comment on Thursday evening that Israel had been “over the top” in Gaza, Biden engaged with Netanyahu on Sunday in a 45-minute conversation — unusually long by most diplomatic standards (and even more so given that no time had to be spent on translation with English-fluent Netanyahu). According to the White House readout, Biden insisted Israel make “credible” arrangements to protect civilians before launching a widely criticized military plan for Rafah, where civilian casualties could mount. He also pressed Netanyahu again to increase humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Biden’s patient approach with Netanyahu over months has gradually transformed into a private and public pressure campaign. A Biden official told The Post that the leaders had “a pretty detailed back and forth on that.”

-- Biden delivers tough love, takes historic step: Conditioning aid to Israel

Meanwhile Trump?

Trump has said he would implement travel bans on people from certain countries or with certain ideologies, expanding on a policy upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Trump previewed some parts of the world that could be subjected to a renewed travel ban in a mid-October speech, pledging to restrict people from the Gaza Strip, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and "anywhere else that threatens our security." During the speech, Trump focused on the conflict in Gaza, saying he would bar the entry of immigrants who support the Islamist militant group Hamas and send deportation officers to pro-Hamas protests.

Also: Trump vows to expand Muslim ban and bar Gaza refugees if he wins presidency

Really, really not sure how much clearer I can make it here for y'all, but sure. Something something Trump's actually a better choice on this issue/overall (sarcasm).

[girlactionfigure]

Final Solution, rebranded

After Syria’s 61-year Ba’ath regime was ousted from power last week, harrowing, deeply disturbing images, videos, and testimonies have come out of Sednaya Prison, also known as the “human slaughterhouse.” Many have compared these images to the human rights atrocities that took place during the Holocaust.

This is one time that Nazi references are actually relevant. See, the Ba’athist regime hired former Nazi war criminals to advise them on how to set up an “effective system of repression, inspired by the practices of the Third Reich.”

In particular, Bashar al-Assad’s own father, Hafez al-Assad, developed a close relationship with Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann’s right-hand man. Adolf Eichmann is known as the architect of the Final Solution.

This got me thinking about the thousands of Nazi war criminals who escaped to the Arab world, all of whom evaded justice because their host countries refused to extradite them.While many of these Nazis chose to live private lives in their new countries, some were hired by Arab governments, many with one objective in particular...to destroy the State of Israel.

IN 1937, THE NAZIS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TELEGRAM

"The formation of a Jewish state or Jewish-led political structure under British mandate is not in Germany’s interest, since a Palestinian state would not absorb world Jewry but would create an additional position of power under international law..."

The Nazis, of course, wanted Jews powerless, and they rightly assessed that Jewish national autonomy would do the opposite.

THE NAZIS WERE HOSTILE TO THE IDEA OF A JEWISH STATE

As early as 1925, Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle…”

The Nazis supported Palestinian Arab nationalists, most notably the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, in material ways. In November of 1933, the Nazis themselves revealed that they had established a direct contact with the Arab leadership in Palestine, with the hopes of “adapting the Nazi program” to the Holy Land.

Shortly after the Nazis came to power, they began breaking up Zionist meetings in Berlin; for example, a 1934 Jewish Daily Bulletin headline reads, “Nazi Officials Raid Zionist B’nai B’rith Meeting in Berlin.” By 1941, the Nazis officially banned all Zionist activities in Germany.

In November of 1941, al-Husseini met with German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and with Hitler himself. Hitler promised al-Husseini that once the German troops reached the Arab world, “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere…”

THE FINAL SOLUTION WAS NOT FINAL. BUT FORMER NAZIS -- AND NAZI SYMPATHIZERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST -- HAD OTHER IDEAS

Ultimately, the Final Solution failed. The Nazis managed to slaughter nearly 70% of European Jewry during the Holocaust, but they did not succeed in exterminating Jewry in its entirety. Instead of admitting defeat, however, many former Nazis shifted their objective: instead of exterminating Jews, they’d exterminate the Jewish state -- or the prospect of the Jewish state.

Following the vote on the 1947 Partition Plan, the Arab Higher Committee warned the British not to intervene in their violence against the Jews. The Arab Higher Committee published a leaflet stating: “The Arabs have taken the Final Solution to the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out.” 

Between 1948-1949, 1000 former Bosnian Muslim SS members joined the Palestinians in their fight against the Jews. Hundreds of members from the 13th and 23rd SS Divisions volunteered as well.

In early 1948, 30,000 army veterans from various fascist forces created an army known as Black International. Some of the members included Nazi soldiers, a pro-Nazi renegade Soviet battalion, and pro-Nazi Poles and Yugoslavs, as well as the Muslim members of a brigade that al-Husseini had organized to fight alongside the Nazis. Black International attacked Jewish towns and kibbutzim.

A source close to the group commented: “These Poles, Russians, Germans and Yugoslavs…are the Arabs fighting for national liberation…Actually their cynical joy is unbounded at the double gift which has been handed them — the opportunity to butcher Jews, and get paid for it.”

Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, and in 1949, it signed armistice agreements with its Arab neighbors.

But the Arab-Nazi alliance to annihilate the Jewish state did not end there.

NAZI WAR CRIMINALS IN THE ARAB WORLD

Over 4000 Nazi war criminals found refuge in the Arab world after the fall of Nazi Germany (in contrast, it’s estimated “only” 180 to 800 Nazi war criminals fled to South America). Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal estimated in 1967 that between 6000-7000 former Nazis had found refuge in the Arab world. Not a single Arab country ever expelled these war criminals or prosecuted them. Among them were:

FROM EXTERMINATING JEWS TO EXTERMINATING THE JEWISH NATION

During World War II — and shortly afterward — the Palestinian Arab leadership considered the idea of annihilating Jews and annihilating the prospect of a sovereign Jewish state virtually synonymous.

In 1957, a top secret document came to light, which revealed that Germany and Italy recognized the right of the Arabs to “solve the Jewish question” in Palestine and other Arab nations. During the meeting, Hitler told the Mufti: “Germany is resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.”

For Nazi war criminals, who’d served under Hitler to exterminate world Jewry, the idea of joining the Arab countries in their quest to exterminate the world’s only Jewish state was deeply appealing. Likewise, many Arab governments accepted such “help” from Nazi war criminals because they, too, held deep disdain not just for Israel and Zionism, but for their own local Jewish communities, which they’d all but decimated in the wake of the 1948 war.

In this way, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question did not end but was simply rebranded. Instead of exterminating Jews, they’d be working to exterminate the Jewish state...where, today, half of the world’s Jews live.

For a full bibliography of my sources, please head over to my Instagram and  Patreon. 

rootsmetals

“death to Israel” is just the Final Solution rebranded 🤷🏻‍♀️ honestly kinda wild only South America has a reputation for being a Nazi haven when at least 5x as many Nazi war criminals were given a safe haven in the Arab world…

[nikalaeva]

And yet Feyre is the High Lady?

I already wrote - I don't hate Feyre. In ACOTAR she was a little bit silly and smug, but good character.

If you are reading this, you know Prythian's rules. Not me or you or anyone else, but the author wrote it. Wives/mates of the High Lords have a title Lady of the Court.

Now the question is - if Rhysand is a true feminist, why didn't he change laws for his darling Feyre? Then he could have said to Helion: "It is now the LAW of the Night Court that High Lord's wife is his equal." "Because I love her" is not something to reason your political decisions with. And one more question - why should the other High Lords call Feyre High Lady? Rhysand's decision has no legal force even in the Night Court, much less outside of it.

Why does Feyre need to be a High Lady, for SJM Rhysand's pride? What exactly does Feyre want to do that can't be done without "High Lady" title? Does Feyre want to change some laws or introduce new ones? Does she want to change the social hierarchy, democratize society or, maybe, prepare it for an absolute monarchy? She is not interested (and does not understand anything) in politics at all, but the title is important for politics. I doubt very much people would want a ruler who is only interested in art - not finances, not diplomacy, not domestic and foreign trade.

Charity work is not main duty of ruler.

Being able to read and write is not enough to control the Court's tax system and fight poverty. Feyre's fans would probably agree that people with same level of education would plan the country's budget or, idk, calculate their salaries and pays.

Banning service for fairies of the CoN 'cause you don't like them personally is illegal - they are also citizens of the NC.

Refusing to communicate with one of the High Lords 'cause he is your toxic ex is blatant political illiteracy.

Feyre's feelings don't matter on political arena. And the meeting of the High Lords is such a scandal, which proved - Feyre's title is a "mask" of feminism, just a check mark for "girl boss" trope. There is nothing but incompetence under it.

Update: oh yeah, all of Feyre's achievements after getting title are belong to fighting/war. And while we see the High Lords fighting on the front lines, their main job is to govern and support society, the citizens in peacetime, not only fight villains.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A Nazi rally held in Madison Square Garden, February 20th 1939

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 21, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 22, 2024

On Saturday, September 7, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump predicted that his plan to deport 15 to 20 million people currently living in the United States would be “bloody.” He also promised to prosecute his political opponents, including, he wrote, lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, and election officials. Retired chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “a fascist to the core…the most dangerous person to this country.” 

On October 14, Trump told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that he thought enemies within the United States were more dangerous than foreign adversaries and that he thought the military should stop those “radical left lunatics” on Election Day. Since then, he has been talking a lot about “the enemy from within,” specifically naming Representative Adam Schiff and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats from California, as “bad people.” Schiff was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee that broke the 2019 story of Trump’s attempt to extort Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s first impeachment. 

Trump’s references to the “enemy from within” have become so frequent that former White House press secretary turned political analyst Jen Psaki has called them his closing argument for the 2024 election, and she warned that his construction of those who oppose him as “enemies” might sweep in virtually anyone he feels is a threat.

In a searing article today, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer of The Cycle explored exactly what that means in a piece titled “What (Really) Happens If Trump Wins?” Bitecofer outlined Adolf Hitler’s January 30, 1933, oath of office, in which he promised Germans he would uphold the constitution, and the three months he took to dismantle that constitution.

By March, she notes,  the concentration camp Dachau was open. Its first prisoners were not Jews, but rather Hitler’s prominent political opponents. By April, Jews had been purged from the civil service, and opposition political parties were illegal. By May, labor unions were banned and students were burning banned books. Within the year, public criticism of Hitler and the Nazis was illegal, and denouncing violators paid well for those who did it.

Bitecofer writes that Trump has promised mass deportations “that he cannot deliver unless he violates both the Constitution and federal law.” To enable that policy, Trump will need to dismantle the merit-based civil service and put into office those loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And then he will purge his political opponents, for once those who would stand against him are purged, Trump can act as he wishes against immigrants, for example, and others.

Ninety years ago, as American reporter Dorothy Thompson ate breakfast at her hotel in Berlin on August 25, 1934, a young man from Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, “politely handed me a letter and requested a signed receipt.” She thought nothing of it, she said, “But what a surprise was in store for me!” The letter informed her that, “in light of your numerous anti-German publications,” she was being expelled from Germany.

She was the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany, and that expulsion was no small thing. Thompson had moved to London in 1920 to become a foreign correspondent and began to spend time in Berlin. In 1924 she moved to the city to head the Central European Bureau for the New York Evening Post and the Philadelphia Public Ledger. From there, she reported on the rise of Adolf Hitler. She left her Berlin post in 1928 to marry novelist Sinclair Lewis, and the two settled in Vermont.

When the couple traveled to Sweden in 1930 for Lewis to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature, Thompson visited Germany, where she saw the growing strength of the fascists and the apparent inability of the Nazi’s opponents to come together to stand against them. She continued to visit the country in the following years, reporting on the rise of fascism there, and elsewhere. 

In 1931, Thompson interviewed Hitler and declared that, rather than “the future dictator of Germany” she had expected to meet, he was a man of “startling insignificance.” She asked him if he would “abolish the constitution of the German Republic.” He answered: “I will get into power legally” and, once in power, abolish the parliament and the constitution and “found an authority-state, from the lowest cell to the highest instance; everywhere there will be responsibility and authority above, discipline and obedience below.” She did not believe he could succeed: “Imagine a would-be dictator setting out to persuade a sovereign people to vote away their rights,” she wrote in apparent astonishment.

Thompson was back in Berlin in summer 1934 as a representative of the Saturday Evening Post when she received the news that she had 24 hours to leave the country. The other foreign correspondents in Berlin saw her off at the railway station with “great sheaves of American Beauty roses.” 

Safely in Paris, Thompson mused that in her first years in Germany she had gotten to know many of the officials of the German republic, and that when she had left to marry Lewis, they offered “many expressions of friendship and gratitude.” But times had changed. “I thought of them sadly as my train pulled out,” she said, “carrying me away from Berlin. Some of those officials still are in the service of the German Government, some of them are émigrés and some of them are dead.” 

Thompson came home to a nation where many of the same dark impulses were simmering, her fame after her expulsion from Germany following her. She lectured against fascism across the country in 1935, then began a radio program that reached tens of millions of listeners. Hired in 1936 to write a regular column three days a week for the New York Herald Tribune, she became a leading voice in print, too, warning that what was happening in Germany could also happen in America. 

In an echo of Lewis’s bestselling 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, she wrote in a 1937 column: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance…. He always represents himself as the instrument for expressing the Incorporated National Will. When Americans think of dictators they always think of some foreign model. If anyone turned up here in a fur hat, boots and a grim look he would be recognized and shunned…. But when our dictator turns up, you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.” 

In less than two years, the circulation of her column had grown to reach between seven and eight million people. In 1939 a reporter wrote: “She is read, believed and quoted by millions of women who used to get their political opinions from their husbands, who got them from [political commentator] Walter Lippmann.” The reporter likened Thompson to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, saying they were the two “most influential women in the U.S.”

When 22,000 American Nazis held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden in honor of President George Washington’s birthday on February 20, 1939, Thompson sat in the front row of the press box, where she laughed loudly during the speeches and yelled “Bunk!” at the stage, illustrating that she would not be muzzled by Nazis. After being escorted out, she returned to her seat, where stormtroopers surrounded her. She later told a reporter: “I was amazed to see a duplicate of what I saw seven years ago in Germany. Tonight I listened to words taken out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler.” 

Two years later, In 1941, Thompson returned to the issue she had raised when she mused about those government officials who had gone from thanking her to expelling her. In a piece for Harper’s Magazine titled “Who Goes Nazi?” she wrote: “It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi,” she wrote. “By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.”

Examining a number of types of Americans, she wrote that the line between democracy and fascism was not wealth, or education, or race, or age, or nationality. “Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi,” she wrote. They were secure enough to be good natured and open to new ideas, and they believed so completely in the promise of American democracy that they would defend it with their lives, even if they seemed too easygoing to join a struggle. “But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis,” she wrote. “Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi.”

In Paris following her expulsion from Berlin, Thompson told a reporter for the Associated Press that the reason she had been attacked was the same reason that Hitler’s power was growing. “Chancellor Hitler is no longer a man, he is a religion,” she said.

Suggesting her expulsion was because of her old article disparaging Hitler, in her own article about her expulsion she noted: “My offense was to think that Hitler is just an ordinary man, after all. That is a crime against the reigning cult in Germany, which says Mr. Hitler is a Messiah sent by God to save the German people…. To question this mystic mission is so heinous that, if you are a German, you can be sent to jail. I, fortunately, am an American, so I merely was sent to Paris. Worse things can happen….” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - May 15, 2023

🐕 - Now It's a Paw-ty

1. World's oldest ever dog celebrates 31st birthday

Bobi was born on 11 May 1992, making him 31 years old, in human years. A big birthday party is planned for Bobi today, according to Guinness World Records.

It will take place at his home in the rural Portuguese village of Conqueiros in Leiria, western Portugal, where he has lived his entire life.

2. The FDA has officially changed its policy to allow more gay and bisexual men to donate blood

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that they’ve eased restrictions on blood donations by men who have sex with men in an effort to address blood shortages. The new policy recommends a series of individual risk-based questions that will apply to all donors, regardless of their sexual orientation, sex, or gender. Gay or bisexual men in monogamous relationships will now be permitted to donate blood.

3. Illinois passes bill to ensure community college credits transfer to public universities

The Illinois General Assembly has passed a bill that would help community college students transfer to public universities.

It would ensure that certain classes taken at community colleges could be transferred to any higher education institution in the state. Some schools currently only count community college coursework as elective credits.

4. Brazilian President Lula recognizes 6 new indigenous territories stretching 620,000 hectares, banning mining and restricting farming within them

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has decreed six new indigenous reserves, banning mining and restricting commercial farming there. The lands - including a vast area of Amazon rainforest - cover about 620,000 hectares (1.5m acres).

Indigenous leaders welcomed the move, but said more areas needed protection.

5. More than 1,000 trafficking victims rescued in separate operations in Southeast Asia

More than 1,000 trafficking victims were rescued in separate operations in Southeast Asia over the last week, officials in Indonesia and the Philippines said. 

Indonesian officials said Sunday they freed 20 of their nationals who were trafficked to Myanmar as part of a cyber scam, amid an increase in human trafficking cases in Southeast Asia. Fake recruiters had offered the Indonesians high-paying jobs in Thailand but instead trafficked them to Myawaddy, about 567 kilometers (352 miles) south of Naypyidaw, the capital, to perform cyber scams for crypto websites or apps, said Judha Nugraha, an official in Indonesia's Foreign Affairs Ministry.

6. A peanut allergy patch is making headway in trials

An experimental “peanut patch” is showing some promise for toddlers who are highly allergic to peanuts. The patch, called Viaskin, was tested on children ages one to three for a late-stage trial, and the results show that the patch helped children whose bodies could not tolerate even a small piece of peanuts safely eat a few.

After one year, two-thirds of the children who used the patch and one-third of the placebo group met the trial’s primary endpoint. The participants with a less sensitive peanut allergy could safely tolerate the peanut protein equivalent of eating three or four peanuts.

7. Critically endangered lemur born at Calgary Zoo

The Calgary Zoo has released pictures of its newest addition, a baby lemur. The zoo says its four-year-old female black-and-white ruffed lemur, Eny, gave birth on April 7. The pup’s father is eight-year-old Menabe. The gender of the pup has not been confirmed but the Calgary Zoo says the pup appears bright-eyed and active and is on the move.

The black-and-white ruffed lemur is registered among the 25 most endangered primates in the world, due mostly to habitat loss and hunting.

----

That's it for this week :)

This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

Also don’t forget to reblog.

SUBCRIBE HERE for more good news in your inbox

[sugarprincessbitch]

Imagine if rhaenyra had a younger sister, one that in appearance is very similar to her mother, Aemma. She is not very close with the other members of her family and often is cast outside because of their differences in attitude, she appears to not have that supposed "blood of the dragon" thing that most of Targaryen have or had.

Because of her tranquil and soft nature, she is very close to her mother never leaving her side, specially when she was with child.

Viserys sort of neglected her as a child, being too occupied with his kingly duties and also with rhaenyra, the apple of his eyes, giving all his attention to her. That is not a factor for the sisters to create resentment with each other or have a bad relationship, in fact they're very close with each other.

When Aemma dies giving birth (cof cof when she was literally murder) everything changes. She snap at her family, specially her father, blaming him of the death of her mother. Claiming in front of everyone that he is a murderer, creating a fracture beyond repair in their relationship (Viserys tried to fix it, but his daughter threw venomous words at him each time he dare to come closer). Her relationship with her sister also went cold, because Rhaenyra was to occupied with her new duties as heir and also due that she didn't want to talk with rhaenyra or anyone at that hurtful time. She close herself to her family, and spent most of her time secluded in her chambers not wanting to talk with anyone.

When the marriage between Alicent and her father was announce (She was angry that viserys married without having at least mourn a year Aemma's death being that super disrespectful, in her opinion, to her mother's memory), that was the straw that broke the camel, and in that same night she escaped from Kings landing at the back of her dragon after robbing eggs from the dragon pit and some expensive jewelry. Viserys was heartbroken at knowing he was guilty of her daughter escape (Also two very angry Rhaenyra and Daemon guilt trip him), but Otto convince him to get angry at his daughter instead, banning her from Kings landing forever. This was part of Otto's plan to get rid of any potential threat. Without his sister as a possible ally, Rhaenyra was more vulnerable at court.

She went to Essos, at first jumping from place to place in were they let her stay for a time. She finally decided to stay in Qohor as the wife of a merchant prince who didn't want to pass the opportunity to have as a wife a Targaryen princess.

When Viserys became old and ill, his last wish was to know the parade of his younger daughter, wanting to see her one last time before he was gone. That was the reason that made her came back to Westeros, but not as the sweet princess that her family and the court remeber, instead as a powerful and ferocious merchant woman (Due to her husband early passing she begun to run his business and exploited it to its maximum potential, making her social status to grow equal as her richness, due to this she became part of a select group of powerful merchants in Essos) known in all the free cities as the "Golden dragon".

Her sudden arrival after 15 years of not knowing nothing about her was a surprise to her family, a glad one (only for the blacks, because the greens where not that happy that she came back). The children of alicent didn't know about her existence, so for them it was a bigger shock to know that they had another sister all this time (Viserys didn't want anyone to talk about her deserter daughter, acting as if she never existed in the first place), and also an exotic one (due to her foreign accent and way of dressing). For aemond and specially Aegon (he is a pervert and likes to see women in little clothes) this was super attractive (Also whe know that Aemond likes older women, Soo...).

[projectreclaim]

As Biden & Co. leave, they’re doing their best to do as much damage as possible to America before they are finally gone.

Just look at the dirty-laundry list Joe (or whoever’s actually making the decisions) has rammed through as his last days tick down.

More senseless bans on drilling for oil and gas, even after his war on domestic energy helped cripple America strategically and inflict massive price pain at the pump and elsewhere.

Heck, he even moved to squeeze natural-gas exports.

That’s as the administration agreed to yet another insane Paris Accord climate goal to drive down US emissions by close to 70% by 2035.

The White House also loosened visa requirements for foreign workers while inking a labor agreement with federal union that will let more than 40,000 Social Security Administration employees stay hybrid.

Plus, the clemency avalanche, starting with the blanket pardon for crooked son Hunter that Joe promised he would never give, followed by hundreds of commutations for vile bribe-takers, con artists and other sleazoids — as well as letting literal child murderers dodge the death penalty.

Don’t forget the $4.28 billion in student debt relief Biden OK’d just before Christmas (a present for the affluent paid for by the poor: classic progressivism!). 

Or the veto of a bipartisan bill to expand the federal judiciary to un-clog key courts, which the Bidenites turned against because they wouldn’t get to pick the new judges.

It’s clear from the scope and energy of these plans that Joe himself (who can barely stay awake for a full workday) isn’t the chief force behind any of it: It’s staffers driving the car here.

The same staff who’ve been calling most shots for four disastrous years, and so led to a historic and humiliating defeat for Democrats.

Yet hasn’t prompted them to change direction. 

They lost and lost hard — and now they’re taking it out on you.

So Joe can blather all he wants about his love of America.

In these final days of his failed administration, he (and/or his lackeys) are only delivering more failure, showing themselves not just petty and corrupt, but filled with hate for the country they were supposed to serve.

New York Post 01/04/2025

[mariacallous]

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a major fight over Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, conservatives defending the law plan to point to an unexpected place as a model: Europe.

Two decades ago, Republicans appeared allergic to foreign influence on the U.S. legal system, decrying Supreme Court decisions that looked abroad — often to Europe — for guidance on culture-war issues like gay rights and the death penalty.

Now, that aversion seems to have eroded. Lawyers and legislators on the right are embracing recent moves to restrict some types of care for transgender minors in four European countries. And these American conservatives are using them as evidence that new bans or limits on such treatment in Tennessee and 25 other states are not only prudent — but also consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

“Systematic reviews by national health authorities in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Norway have all concluded that the harms associated with these interventions are significant, and the long-term benefits are unproven,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti wrote in defense of the state’s ban on transition-related medical care for minors.

The law, passed last year, bans hormone treatments or surgeries for minors that would allow them “to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” Challengers to the law, along with the Biden administration, asked the high court to declare the measure unconstitutional after a federal appeals court upheld it. The challengers say the law discriminates on the basis of gender in violation of the 14th Amendment.

A brief from Tennessee state officials defending the law quotes no fewer than three times a passage from the appeals court ruling that upheld the law, saying: “Some of the same European countries that pioneered these treatments now express caution about them and have pulled back on their use.”

The conservatives’ sudden affection for European medical standards and judgments rankles some transgender advocates, who say it’s a hypocritical about-face.

“I think it’s rich that folks that don’t look to Europe for anything, especially socialized medicine, for the guideposts on how to move forward with public policy, are citing any kind of medical policy” from Europe, said Sasha Buchert of Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ rights advocacy group.

Conservatives combat foreign influence on U.S. law

The conservative crusade against U.S. judges taking note of legal developments overseas reached a fever pitch in the 2000s.

“It certainly was extreme for a while,” said Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California at Irvine law school. “You had Supreme Court justices that were being threatened with death threats. ... There was this great pushback on anything foreign, because somehow it was giving up on American sovereignty, and we had to chart our own path.”

In 2005, as the anti-foreign-law frenzy was at its height, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) suggested at confirmation hearings for John Roberts as chief justice that U.S. judges who cited foreign precedents should be subject to impeachment. Roberts pledged not to rely on foreign law himself but said removing judges who did would be a step too far.

“I’d accuse them of getting it wrong on that point, and I’d hope to sit down with them and debate it and reason about it,” Roberts said.

That same year, Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer even faced off in a public debate that aired arguments for and against its use.

Justice Clarence Thomas also weighed in, declaring in a 2002 opinion a distaste for foreign influence that seemed to extend beyond legal rulings. “This Court … should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans,” he wrote in a death penalty case.

In the court’s seismic 2022 ruling overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion, the conservative majority tiptoed around the foreign law issue. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion noted that the Mississippi legislature that passed the abortion restriction at issue in that case found that the U.S. was one of only seven countries that permitted elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. He then relegated further discussion of that issue to a footnote.

The court’s liberal minority unapologetically embraced international practice as a reason to preserve Roe v. Wade. “American abortion law has become more and more aligned with other Nations,” Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote, adding that the nuances of those laws are important. “Most Western European countries impose restrictions on abortion after 12 to 14 weeks, but they often have liberal exceptions to those time limits, including to prevent harm to a woman’s physical or mental health.”

Some European countries rethink gender-affirming care

Complaints that some doctors were handing out puberty-blocking medication too widely have triggered reexamination of treatment practices in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Norway in recent years.

The highest-profile retreat came in the U.K., following a broad review of gender-affirming care by the National Health Service. The head of the review, Dr. Hilary Cass, concluded that studies about treatment for gender dysphoria were unreliable, that doctors were often not tending to patients’ other issues and there was a lack of attention to patients seeking to “detransition.”

“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint,” Cass wrote. “The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

After the findings in the so-called Cass review, released in draft form in 2022 and finalized in April, NHS stopped prescribing puberty blockers for those under 18 and closed the main NHS clinic in England offering gender-affirming care for minors.

Sweden, Finland and Norway have guidelines that reject certain treatments, such as surgery, for adolescents. But all three countries have some means for teenagers to access puberty blockers, often through clinical trials, according to briefs filed by outside parties with the Supreme Court.

“None of those countries have banned care in the way that Tennessee has,” said Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, who is set to argue against the law at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “None of those countries have taken away every pathway for adolescents to access the medical care that they need.”

While some transgender advocates have been highly critical of the Cass review and other steps that have limited treatments, Strangio was relatively positive about efforts by the European medical community to refine standards for gender-affirming care.

“I think the examples of Europe are often very distorted in the press,” Strangio told reporters on a video conference Monday. “What they’re actually showing us is tailored responses to ensure that people who need treatment get it.”

Strangio acknowledged some risks to puberty blockers and other treatment, but said that alone doesn’t justify an all-out ban on the use of those drugs for minors with gender dysphoria. He noted the same drugs remain available for use in other situations.

“In all other contexts, what Tennessee does and what other governments do when there is beneficial care that carries risk is to inform patients and to attempt to minimize risks. That is what is going on in Europe. That is not what is going on in Tennessee,” he said.

Some judges were unimpressed by Europe examples

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, who blocked Tennessee’s law last June, found similar flaws in the state’s arguments about new limits on transition-related medical care abroad. He said the recalibration of treatment in various countries isn’t akin to the flat prohibition on hormone treatment for transgender minors that Tennessee and other states have imposed.

“Defendants’ reliance on the practices of European nations is not an apt analogy where none of these countries have gone so far as to ban hormone therapy entirely,” Richardson said.

Richardson, an appointee of President Donald Trump, used language that harkened back to earlier conservative skepticism about the relevance of foreign examples to a U.S. court case.

“There is the additional problem that the Court can put only so much weight on the practice of other nations,” he wrote. “After all, the Court cannot outsource to European nations the task of preliminarily determining … the extent to which the treatments at issue are safe.”

Federal judges in Indiana and Florida also rejected similar arguments as they blocked gender-affirming care bans in those states.

A spokesperson for Skrmetti declined to comment for this story, but in a recent op-ed the Tennessee AG repeatedly and prominently invoked Europe’s moves on transition-related medical care.

“Medical research and practices in Europe support a cautious approach,” Skrmetti wrote.

Are conservatives invoking foreign law, or experience?

One scholar who has criticized some efforts to banish foreign law from the U.S. legal system noted that Tennessee isn’t invoking foreign statutes or court rulings.

“There has been this kind of hardcore talk of ‘no foreign law in American courts,’ which I think mostly stems from people not really thinking very hard about when it is you need to use it,” said Eugene Volokh of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Volokh said he views the conservative states’ claims as more factual than legal.

“If the question is: Is youth gender medicine really likely to be effective? That’s something that you shouldn’t ignore … If the English and the Swedes and the Dutch say one thing, then that’s certainly evidence. It’s not dispositive evidence, but it’s certainly evidence,” he said.

Conservatives’ references to Europe at the Supreme Court in the current legal fight point not to court rulings or laws, or to facts or studies, but to medical practice guidelines and standards.

Those amount to national policy in some countries — particularly those with government-run health services, some legal experts say. And they note that urgings from judges like Thomas that U.S. courts ignore “foreign moods, fads or fashions” expressed a sentiment that appeared to go beyond rejecting black-letter law or judicial rulings.

“I definitely see the same thing playing out,” Seattle University law professor Sital Kalantry said.

“There was a big debate where conservatives freaked out about it when the liberals were using it. But now, if it seems to be conveniently supporting their ends, then they’re willing to make reference to international practice. ... We’re now at this place that both perspectives are selectively using international law and practice to support their predetermined end point.”

[bisphenol-a]

Tomorrow, Friday November 17, the German Bundestag will vote on a draft law that could decide that naturalization for residents would be dependent on a commitment to Israel’s right to exist.

The bill, which includes a law that would change the criminal code, was submitted by the Christian Democratic Party’s (CDU) parliamentary group.

It would impact individuals seeking residency, asylum, and naturalization, and its intent is to “provide better protection against the further entrenchment and spread of antisemitism that has “immigrated from abroad.”

“Since the day of the attack,” the law states in its introduction, “disgusting rallies and demonstrations have also taken place on German streets, expressing unconcealed joy at the deaths of Jews and revealing an alarming level of antisemitism.”

A majority of protests across Germany have not only been peaceful but have only called for the German government to back a ceasefire to stop the genocide of the Palestinian people.

I attended multiple demonstrations across Germany, and the only visible threat to public safety has been from the police. In fact, I was a witness to one demonstration in Frankfurt where the police banned it from taking place mere minutes before it was about to begin. Hundreds of people were met with water cannons, extreme levels of police presence, and kettling by law enforcement that led to the detainment of over 300 people.

In another I attended in Mannheim, the only act of antisemitism committed was a man on the sidelines of our protest raising his hand in a Nazi salute to antagonize and intimidate pro-Palestinian demonstrators. He was arrested soon after, and local publications reported he was, in fact, not a part of our planned demonstration.

In 2022, over 80 percent of all antisemitic crimes in Germany were committed by the German far right, according to the federal police. However, the new draft bill does not include these statistics. Instead, it attributes violent antisemitism with sympathy with “Hamas terrorism,” which they claim is “cheered and propagated on German streets and schoolyards.”

The bill clearly singles out Arabs and migrants, claiming antisemitism in Germany is now only “imported.”

“A significant portion of those are obviously immigrants from countries in North Africa and the Middle East, where antisemitism and hostility towards Israel have a particular breeding ground,” the draft law states, backed by no concrete evidence for such remarkable claims.

It continues: “as well as their descendants, the instruments of residence, asylum and citizenship law must be used more consistently than before- in addition to general means such as criminal law- in order to combat antisemitism in Germany more effectively.”

In summary, the law not only creates a prerequisite where a citizenship application will only be granted if the individual declares a commitment to Israel’s right to exist and swears that they did not pursue any endeavors directed against Israel, but it can also strip the residency status and the citizenship of dual nationals who have been convicted of an antisemitic crime. This would also include a prison sentence of at least one year.

“Maintaining the legal status quo is not an option,” the draft law says, “as the current legal situation is clearly not suitable for effectively combating the specific antisemitism that is widespread among some foreigners in Germany.”

In Germany, what constitutes an “antisemitic crime” is extremely ambiguous. In 2017, the federal government officially adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. Advocates, scholars, and legal experts at the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) as well as other organizations for example, have long criticized the IHRA definition, arguing it redefines antisemitism by wrongly conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish racism.

According to a report conducted by ELSC and published earlier this year, the invocation of the definition almost exclusively targets Palestinian rights advocacy, harming Palestinian and Jewish activists in particular.

Now that Germany has specifically labeled the protests as examples of antisemitism that should be criminalized, there is much cause for concern for pro-Palestinian activists. Already, there have been examples such as the stripping of refugee status from a Palestinian activist from Syria and denying residency to Palestinian doctors who have only been a part of a Palestinian cultural group.

...

“Violent excesses at demonstrations- such as the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in October 2023- must be appropriately sanctioned. However, the increasing abuse of the right to demonstrate can often not be adequately punished,” the draft law says. “The regulation of breach of the peace is too narrow.

We have already witnessed banned demonstrations in cities and violent police arrests detaining people only carrying flags and wearing keffiyehs or simply holding anti-war signs. In Berlin, home to one of the largest Palestinian diasporas in Europe, there have been regular police presence and clear examples of racial profiling, and harassment against anyone who might “look” like they are attending a previously banned demonstration. 

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alex Samuels at Daily Kos:

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that he will, at least for now, hold off on his egregious threat to impose tariffs on Colombia after the nation agreed to accept deported migrants, who were being returned to the country by U.S. military planes. Notably, this move represented a turn from Trump’s plan just hours prior. Earlier on Sunday, he vowed to impose steep tariffs and visa restrictions on Colombia after it turned away two deportation flights.  At one point, it looked like we were headed toward a trade war. That was narrowly averted, though, after Colombian President Gustavo Petro agreed to accept the deportees. Trump, of course, claimed victory and said that the South American nation had caved to his authoritarian demands.  The clash reflects how the Trump administration is ready to make examples of foreign countries that attempt to impede on his plans, specifically those that will likely target immigrants seeking asylum or shelter in the United States.  So how did we get here—and is a trade war looming? Trump hasn’t been shy about his intent to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, announcing a flurry of executive actions targeting immigrants on Day One of his second term. But foreign nations aren’t necessarily on board with Trump’s hardline plans. On Sunday, Petro refused to let two U.S. military aircrafts, which were carrying deported Colombian immigrants, land on Colombian soil, as he demanded the deportees to be treated humanely instead of as political props.

“A migrant is not a criminal and should be treated with the dignity a human being deserves,” Petro posted on social media. “We will receive our nationals in civilian airplanes, without treating them as criminals. Colombia must be respected.” In a separate post, Petro shared a video of immigrants, who were reportedly sent back to Brazil, walking on an airplane tarmac with restraints around their hands and feet. It’s important to note that Petro didn’t refuse to take back the Colombian immigrants. According to data from Witness at the Border, an advocacy group that tracks flight data, Colombia accepted 475 deportation flights between 2020 and 2024, making it the fifth country to accept the most deportation flights behind Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and El Salvador.  Petro’s issue with accepting deportation flights this go-around was how these immigrants were brought back. Petro wanted them to be returned via presidential plane or nonmilitary flight, arguing that it would be more dignified than how Trump and his cronies preferred to operate.

[...] Trump also said that he would impose “visa sanctions” and a “travel ban and immediate visa revocations” on Colombian government officials and their allies while enforcing even stricter border inspections of all Colombian nationals and cargo. In response, Petro posted a series of defiant messages, in which he promised a retaliatory 25% tariff on all U.S. goods.  “Your blockade does not scare me, because Colombia, besides being the country of beauty, is the heart of the world,” he wrote. The two sides have reached—at least for now—what reads like a shaky agreement. 

Late Sunday, Colombian Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo said the two nations have “overcome the impasse.” As a result, Colombia would accept its citizens who are deported from the United States via military planes. But in the future, Murillo noted that Colombia’s presidential aircraft would be available to facilitate the return of immigrants. Of course, the Trump administration put its own spin on the news. In a statement on Sunday, the White House said that, since Petro had agreed to all of Trump’s terms, the tariffs and sanctions Trump once threatened would be “held in reserve.” The visa sanctions, however, would remain in effect until the first planeload of deportees arrive in Colombia.

Trump bullied Colombia into accepting immigrant deportation flights after initially refusing them.

[simply-ivanka]

What Kamala Harris Believes

The Vice President’s political record reveals the views of a California progressive.

Wall Street Journal

Democrats are rapidly unifying behind Kamala Harris as their party nominee, yet the Vice President remains relatively unknown to most Americans. That means it’s important to look at her record to see what she believes.

As VP she’s closely identified with the Biden agenda, for better or worse, and she embraced that record in remarks on Monday. She said President Biden’s first term has “surpassed the legacy” of most Presidents who have served two.

So mark her down as endorsing the spending blowouts that caused inflation, the Green New Deal, entitlement expansions and student loan forgiveness. Until she says otherwise, we should also assume she’s in favor of Mr. Biden’s $5 trillion tax increase in 2025.

The Vice President’s four years as a Senator from California are another window on her worldview. She sponsored a bill to create a $6,000 guaranteed income for families making up to $100,000. Another Harris proposal: A refundable tax credit that would effectively cap rents and utility payments at 30% of income. Liberal economists panned the subsidy because it would drive up rents.

She co-sponsored legislation with Bernie Sanders that would pay tuition at four-year public colleges for students from families making up to $125,000. This is more honest than the Administration’s back-end student loan cancellation. But it would cost $700 billion over a decade and encourage colleges to increase tuition.

Another Bernie mind-meld: Single-payer healthcare. Ms. Harris co-sponsored his Medicare for All legislation paid for by higher income taxes. She tweaked Bernie’s plan when running for President in 2019 by extending the phase-in to 10 years from four and exempting households making less than $100,000 from the “income-based premium.” But it would still put government in charge of all American healthcare over time.

As a San Francisco Democrat, Ms. Harris shares the state’s hostility to fossil fuels. She used her power as California Attorney General to launch an investigation into Exxon Mobil over its carbon emissions. In 2019 she endorsed a nationwide ban on oil and gas fracking, which would cost tens of thousands of jobs and cause power outages like those that often occur in her home state. Expect this to be a GOP talking point in Pennsylvania.

One question to ask is whether the Vice President wants to restructure the Supreme Court. She said in 2019 she was “open” to adding more Justices, but that idea doesn’t poll well. Does she agree with Mr. Biden’s mooted plan to endorse “reforms” to the High Court that would make the Justices subject to Congressional supervision?

Mr. Biden famously put Ms. Harris in charge of border policy, and we know how that has turned out. Rather than push for border policy changes, her first instinct was to blame the rush of migrants on “root causes” in developing countries, including corruption, violence, poverty and “lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience.”

Climate change makes the U.S. border a sieve? Apparently so. “In Honduras, in the wake of hurricanes, we must deliver food, shelter, water and sanitation to the people,” Ms. Harris declared. “And in Guatemala, as farmers endure continuous droughts, we must work with them to plant drought-resistant crops.” These “root causes” take decades to address, and in the meantime she had nothing to say about actual border security.

Ms. Harris’s foreign policy views aren’t well known, or perhaps even well formed, apart from promoting Mr. Biden’s policies. While she has backed the Administration’s military assistance to Ukraine, she has equivocated about support for Israel. In March she chastised Israel for not doing enough to ease a “humanitarian catastrophe.” Leaks to the press say officials at the National Security Council toned down her speech’s criticism of Israel.

She lambasted the Trump Administration for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, claiming it could lead to bigger war in the Mideast. The killing chastened Iran’s rulers instead, at least until the Biden Administration began to ease sanctions and tried to repeat the 2015 nuclear deal.

It will be especially important for the press to ask Ms. Harris about her national security views. If her handlers control her as much as White House advisers have Mr. Biden, we’ll know they’re afraid that the Vice President might not be able to handle the scrutiny.

A fair conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Harris is a standard California progressive on most issues, often to the left of Mr. Biden. Perhaps as she reintroduces herself to the public in the coming weeks, she will modify some of those views. She would be wise to do so if she wants to win.

Given the rush by Democrats to anoint Ms. Harris as their nominee, the press has a particular obligation to tell the public about who she is and what she really thinks. Does she believe California is a model for the country?

[justforbooks]

Bertrand Blier

Director of Get Out Your Handkerchiefs and Trop Belle Pour Toi! who saw his role as ‘attacking society: hard, repeatedly and below the belt’

Bertrand Blier, who has died aged 85, had the appearance of a placid, pipe-smoking academic and the disruptive spirit of an imp. “My films are an aggression against people, against logic, against good sense,” the director said. He saw his role as “attacking society: hard, repeatedly and below the belt”.

His pictures, tinged with Buñuelian mischief and often starring Gérard Depardieu, tended to begin with an outré idea which he then pursued doggedly to its conclusion. His masterpiece was Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (1978), which won that year’s Oscar for best foreign language film. It starts with a man (Depardieu) offering his doleful wife to a stranger in a restaurant in a bid to lift her spirits. She eventually finds fulfilment in the arms of a 13-year-old boy.

“I put my characters in a certain situation without truly understanding why,” Blier explained. “I write the first scene and the rest is an attempt to understand why I wrote it and what it’s all about. I must have in my head the same madness that I express in them, but since I’m an intellectual I transport it through my writing and images – which is why I’m not in prison yet.”

In Tenue de Soirée (1986), a burglar (Depardieu) becomes obsessed with a mousey, unassuming married man whose wife effectively agrees to pimp him out. The two men finally take to the streets as cross-dressing sex workers.

Depardieu was back in Trop Belle Pour Toi! (1989) as the manager of a car dealership who cheats on his glamorous wife with his dowdy secretary. The picture won the Grand Prix at Cannes.

“These films with Blier are of the utmost importance to me,” the actor said. Blier, who described Depardieu as his “half-brother” and later defended him publicly in 2023 against accusations of sexual harassment and assault, said: “When I write a film that isn’t for him, he tends to sulk.”

They made nine movies together, beginning in 1974 with Les Valseuses (the title is a slang term for “testicles”). This scandalous road-trip comedy, also known as Going Places, followed two young louts scything their way through women and property with equal disregard for both. Widely considered misogynistic, the film had an incendiary effect, kickstarting the careers of Depardieu, Isabelle Huppert and Blier himself, whose two previous features had made scant impact. Le Figaro called for it to be banned.

“There was something in Les Valseuses to offend everyone,” said the director Chris Petit. “It was a pre-punk movie – morally and philosophically far more successfully so than the later ones, like [Jean Jacques-Beineix’s] Diva, which drew a wider public.”

The actor-director John Turturro remade it in 2019 as The Jesus Rolls. When Turturro sought permission to make the main characters middle-aged, Blier told him: “OK, as long as they’re stupid.”

Depardieu was loyal to the last, starring in some of Blier’s less popular later films, including Les Acteurs (2000), in which he and performers including Jean-Paul Belmondo and Michel Piccoli played exaggerated, vain or ill-tempered versions of themselves, and Heavy Duty (2019), a meta-comedy about two men whose lives have been scripted in advance.

He was also in Blier’s last great film, Merci La Vie (1991), which began as an attempt to reproduce Les Valseuses for a new generation. This time, the outlaws were female and played by Charlotte Gainsbourg and Blier’s then-partner Anouk Grinberg. The movie switched between colour and monochrome, while the plot involved time travel and equated fascism with Aids. A planned appearance by Bob Dylan failed to materialise when the producers became bogged down in negotiations with the singer’s lawyers.

Blier intended Merci La Vie to show cinema being “taken by the throat and given a shaking”. Depardieu, who played a doctor exploiting the spread of Aids, called it “a punch in the stomach of society”.

The director was born in Paris, to Gisèle (nee Brunet), a former pianist, and Bernard Blier, an actor who was in the middle of shooting Marcel Carné’s Le Jour se Lève when his son was born. He described himself as a sensitive child, often cowed by his father’s volatility; it was said that Bernard had once punched a fellow cinemagoer who was jeering at a screening of Jean Renoir’s La Règle du Jeu.

The family home was filled with actors. “All the French postwar theatre and cinema stars I met as a child were extremely entertaining,” Blier recalled. “They laughed a lot, went to each other’s houses and stayed up all night drinking. There were the days of Pierre Brasseur, Louis Jouvet, Jean Gabin. Huge, huge talents … There was a kind of collective conviviality which does not really exist any more.”

He decided to become a film-maker after meeting his father’s friend Henri-Georges Clouzot, director of Les Diaboliques and The Wages of Fear, at the age of 16. After working as an assistant director, Blier made his directing debut in 1963 with Hitler, Connais Pas (Hitler, Never Heard of Him), a documentary portrait of modern French teenagers. He followed this with Si J’Étais un Espion (1966), a thriller starring his father as an innocent doctor caught up in espionage.

Blier also cast his father in the twisted noir comedy Buffet Froid (1979), which starred Depardieu. And there is a discreetly magical moment at the end of Les Acteurs, during which Blier, appearing as himself, is shown shooting a scene that is then ruined when a mobile phone starts ringing. “It’s for you,” someone says, handing it to the director. Speaking into the device, Blier says: “Hello Papa”. In fact, his father had died a decade earlier. The scene suggests that cinema can bestow immortality.

After the relative failure of his first two films, Blier wrote the novel on which Les Valseuses would later be based. The director went for shock value again in Calmos (AKA Femmes Fatales, 1976), in which a gynaecologist joins an army to fight women. The film ends with him seeking sanctuary in a giant vagina.

Outrageous material could be offset by a surprisingly sober or even gentle approach. This was the case in Beau-Père (1981), in which an adolescent girl asks her stepfather to be her first lover. La Femme de Mon Pote (My Best Friend’s Girl, 1983) featured Huppert in a ménage-à-trois comedy set in a Swiss ski resort. Alain Delon and Nathalie Baye starred in Notre Histoire (1984), which, with its stories nestling, Russian-doll-like, within other stories, found Blier at his most Buñuelian.

Mon Homme (1996), about a sex worker who becomes obsessed with an unhoused, penniless stranger whom she encourages to become her pimp, was greeted with puzzlement, weariness and more accusations of misogyny. Reflecting on the final line (“Women, forgive me”), Blier told the Guardian: “All men should apologise to women for what they have done to them.”

In 2022, he published the autobiographical novel Fragile des Bronches, which fictionalised scenes from his life.

Blier despised cliche and aestheticism, and sought instead “to raise the level of debate with the public. And to make films which are original, even if they might be difficult. I often finish writing and think: ‘That’s it. I’ve done it now. That’s the end of my career. This will clear the cinemas.’ And sometimes I’ve been right.”

The frisson between his inner and outer selves lasted his entire career. “I look like – I am – an entirely respectable citizen. But I have never stopped thinking of the other life that I could have had, on the road, smashing things up.”

He is survived by his third wife, Farida Rahouadj, who starred in Heavy Duty, and their daughter, Leïla, as well as by two other children, Béatrice and Léonard, from earlier relationships.

🔔 Bertrand Blier, film director, born 14 March 1939; died 20 January 2025

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[bruceburgdorf]

The German resistance to the Nazis and Hitler

A common criticism of the now well known 20th July plot was that many of the German conspirators were opposed to how Hitler was leading the war but not the Nazi regime as a whole or only opposed the Nazis once the fate of the war had already been decided. This was however certainly not the case for all who resisted Hitler within Germany.

These two men form part of the exception to this criticism and were consistent in their opposition from the early days of the 1930‘s and throughout the Nazi rule in Germany.

For me one of the greatest tragedies was learning of their names through wartime fiction and not through school, TV documentaries or books about WW2.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906 -1945

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a pastor and theologian who was part of a well educated and connected family. In his early years he travelled and had witnessed the poor treatment of black Americans.

He returned to Germany in the early 1930’s and spoke out against the Nazis before they were elected and became a founding member of the Confession Church. This new church opposed the Nazi interference in religious teachings which sought to revise the bible to exclude Jewish influences and also remove pastors of Jewish descent.

When Bonhoeffer drew the attention of the Nazi party he was banned from public speaking and later banned from the city of Berlin but continued to gather support to oppose the Nazi influence on the church in secret.

He was informed of the 1938 plot to arrest Hitler by his brother in law Hans von Dohnányi who use his position in the Abwehr to keep him informed of the Nazi atrocities and to also get Dietrich himself a position in the Abwehr which protected him from conscription and allowed him to continue his work. He became aware that his brother in law had moved to conspiring to kill Hitler not just arrest him which as a pastor Bonhoeffer was originally against but eventually agreed that they needed to stop Hitler at any cost.

His role was to be a courier, assigned to engage in covert talks with foreign church leaders who could communicate with the Allies. He had hoped his position could allow for peace terms for Germany to be discussed however Allied wartime policy would ignore resistance from with Germany. This was party due to the allies needing to remove any ambiguity when it came to placing the blame on the Germans for the war but also because they had been fooled in the past by an SD agent pretending be be with the resistance and passing on false information. It was nethertheless unfortunate that communication from the real German resistance would be then be ignored.

Bonhoeffer was eventually arrested on grounds of sedition and sent to Tegel prison where he used his teachings and faith to comfort other prisoners and he even impressed some of the guards with his courage and strength and a few of these guards were persuaded to assist him by allowing letters to be sent to his family and one even offered to help him escape although he refused as he was worried of the consequences it may have on his family.

When the diaries of Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr (another key member of the resistance) were discovered he was found to be linked to the 20th July plot and was moved to Buchenwald and eventually Flossenburg concentration camp where he was hanged on 9th April 1945.

Hans von Dohnányi 1902 - 1945

Hans von Dohnányi was like his brother in law, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, well educated. He was a lawyer and also someone who opposed the Nazis before they had come to be elected. He began to write down the Nazi parties crimes which he planned to use as evidence if they were overthrown.

He was recruited into the Abwehr, the military intelligence service, by Hans Oster, a Wehrmacht colonel at that time and later a general but more importantly someone who also opposed the Nazis before the war had began and worked under Admiral Canaris.

The Abwehr had recruited a number of opposers to the Nazis who would work legitimately within the intelligence service but who would secretly also work against their own government. Hans would have access to their archives and he soon learned of Hitler’s military plans for Europe as well as atrocities which were being perpetrated against the Jews and on the eastern front. He became part of the active resistance to arrest Hitler in 1938 along with Hans Oster and others and would later be involved in an assassination attempts on Hitler’s life including in 1943 where a bomb was smuggled onto Hitler's plane but unfortunately didn't detonate.

The previous year Hans had taken part in a secret Abwehr operation to smuggle 13 Jews out of Germany and had illegally transfered government funds to support the Jews who were now living in Switzerland. This transfer of money would then led to his arrest in 1943 and eventual transfer to Sachsenhausen. Hans had worked to bring together civilians and military personnel who opposed the government in an effort to establish a more organised resistance. This lead to his conviction for his involvement in planning of the 20th July plot.

He was executed in Sachsenhausen likely on the same day as Bonhoeffer was executed in Flossenbürg, 9th April 1945 . He is now recognised as one of the righteous among Nations by Israel.

One more note in this great man's legacy is that his grandson is actor Justus von Dohnányi who I admire very much.