#tools of putin

[tomorrowusa]

The murder of Alexei Navalny came during a peculiar week. Putin felt like he could get away with killing off his main opponent after getting winks and nods from his Republican sycophants in the US.

Some people regard Putin as a "savvy genius". But his catastrophic three-day "special operation" in Ukraine, now about to enter Year 3, has demonstrated what s fool he is. Over 400,000 Russians have died so far in his egotistical attempt to become the 21st century version of Peter the Great.

The ramifications of Putin killing off Navalny are only beginning to be felt. It may have speeded up Europe's efforts to further arm Ukraine. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark is donating her country's entire stock of artillery rounds to Ukraine.

Putin may have thought that he's showing the world how strong he is by murdering Navalny. Instead he's sparked another international backlash against his régime.

We need to hold Republicans responsible for their craven backing for Putin. They are holding up aid to Ukraine on the orders of their leader and wannabe dictator Donald Trump.

[porterdavis]

The short answer is yes. So is the long answer.

[vintageseawitch]

i see no lie here. at this point i have no faith in the Green Party. they're all vibes & no substance. they count on leftists & their need for "political purity" & their "principles" to divide them up.

the Green Party sounds great on paper... but they only ever appear like an election cicadas during the presidential election. they never run at local or state levels. they know they will never win. at this point since Republicans are more united than Democrats, it's quite clear that the Green Party isn't there to make sure Republicans lose... it's to make sure DEMOCRATS lose.

your "protest" vote isn't saving shit except maybe giving your ego a pat on the back. you could literally be helping the greater evil to win. do you think anyone will want to take you seriously should Project 2025 be implemented? oh, you sure showed those Democrats! please live in the real world & maybe do a little crash course on American civics to understand how our government works. y'all love theory. but I digress.

please don't stop talking about Project 2025 or Agenda 47. they're the same thing & the reason trump never talks policybis because Project 2025 IS his policy. check your registration status often & vote early if you can. Republicans & other non-Democrats who have decided to vote for Harris - welcome! we got this 💙

[dontforgetukraine]

Signs That You're Looking at Ukraine Through a Russian Prism

by Mariam Naiem

1. Perceiving Russian culture as apolitical Culture is political. Russia weaponizes its heritage, promoting a 'great Russia' myth to normalize the subjugation of other 'lesser' cultures. Literary classics become tools of cultural supremacy. 2. Perceiving this war as 'fraternal' Russian propaganda portrays Ukraine and Russia as inseparably linked peoples. This concept ignores Ukraine's aspirations for independence and self-determination and imposes the idea that, at the core, we are one and the same. 3. Pushing reconciliation with Russian opposition This narrative ignores the power imbalance. Any dialogue must be on Ukraine's terms, if and when Ukrainians choose. External pressure for reconciliation is unacceptable. Ukraine's agency is non-negotiable. 4. Explaining Ukraine to Ukrainians Explaining Putin's motives, Ukrainian history, Dostoevsky's relevance to Ukraine, and so on implies that you possess superior knowledge of the topic compared to Ukrainians, which is not true. Ukrainians have deep insights into Russia's actions based on historical experience and direct impact. Such explanations, even if well-intentioned, might come across as patronizing or dismissive of Ukrainian expertise. 5. Suggesting capitulation Urging Ukraine to yield? It won't end the war. Russia regroups, and casualties mount later. Ukraine's fight is for survival, severely limiting compromise options. Respect Ukrainians' difficult position and right to determine their future. 6. Whataboutism "Other conflicts exist" isn't a reason to help less – it's a call to help more. Each crisis deserves its own focus. Don't use comparisons to justify inaction on Ukraine. 7. Claiming Ukrainians don't deserve help Questioning a nation's worthiness of aid based on alleged issues can be seen as justifying inaction. It's more constructive to focus on the current situation and humanitarian needs. Consider the actions of the aggressor rather than criticizing those defending themselves. 8. Not my war A nuclear-armed autocracy attacking a democracy is everyone's problem. It's not about values – it's about time. This war isn't yours today, but ignore it, and it'll be at your doorstep tomorrow. Ukraine's front line is democracy's front line. P.S. Consider the Ukrainian perspective and try to imagine their experiences. It’s important to avoid assuming how one might act in their situation. What Ukrainians may need most is genuine understanding and support. The key is to listen and empathize.

[omgthatdress]

When you say you're not voting, you're announcing to the rest of us the you don't give a fuck about what will happen to us when Trump makes himself president for life, Palestine has been wiped off the face of the earth and Putin is invading the rest of Europe, mass deportations are going on in the US, and The Handmaid's Tale becomes real life, you just couldn't bring yourself to do something as sad and shameful as vote for someone who isn't 100% as perfect as you like.

Seriously grow the fuck up and do the right thing. If you aren't fighting fascism with every single tool you have, you aren't fighting it at all.

Seriously what the fuck do you expect to happen?

[tomorrowusa]

We need to bring back America and restore the future.

No mo' Putin hos.

1980s pop culture was filled with reminders of the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union, some of it jingoistic (Rocky IV comes to mind), and some of it deeply chilling, such as the Sting song "Russians" referenced in the first panel.

To support this work and receive my weekly newsletter with background on each cartoon, please consider joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon.

[tomorrowusa]

^^^ The Wizard of Ooze.

This is actually old news and apparent even before Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

From 2021...

‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy

And Trump is not terribly difficult to cultivate. Just flatter him and keep his narcissism in mind. Putin struck it rich with Trump.

[martyr-mayhem]

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, reality checks MAGA and Trump himself:

"So today the United States launched a trade war against Canada, their closest partner and ally, their closest friend. At the same time, they’re talking about working positively with Russia, appeasing Vladimir Putin, a lying, murderous dictator.

Make that make sense.

Canadians are reasonable and we are polite, but we will not back down from a fight — not when our country and the well-being of everyone in it is at stake. At the moment, the U.S. tariffs came into effect in the early hours of this morning, and so did the Canadian response.

Canada will be implementing 25 per cent tariffs against $155 billion worth of American goods, starting with tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods immediately, and tariffs on the remaining $125 billion of American products in 21 days’ time.

Today we will also be challenging these illegal actions by filing dispute resolution claims at the World Trade Organization and through the USMCA.

But in the meantime, our tariffs will remain in place until the U.S. tariffs are withdrawn and not a moment sooner. And should these tariffs not cease, we are in active and ongoing discussions with provinces and territories to pursue several non-tariff measures, measures which will demonstrate that there are no winners in a trade war.

Now, just like I did a month ago, I want to speak first directly to the American people.

We don’t want this. We want to work with you as a friend and ally, and we don’t want to see you hurt either. But your government has chosen to do this to you. As of this morning, markets are down and inflation is set to rise dramatically all across your country.

Your government has chosen to put American jobs at risk at the thousands of workplaces that succeed because of materials from Canada, or because of consumers in Canada, or both. They’ve chosen to raise costs for American consumers on everyday essential items like groceries and gas, on major purchases like cars and homes and everything in between.

They’ve chosen to harm American national security, impeding access to the abundant critical minerals, energy, building materials and fertilizers that we have and that the United States needs to grow and prosper.

They’ve chosen to launch a trade war that will, first and foremost, harm American families.

They’ve chosen to sabotage their own agenda that was supposed to usher in a new golden age for the United States. And they’ve chosen to undermine the incredible work we’ve done together to tackle the scourge that is fentanyl, a drug that must be wiped from the face of the earth.

So on that point, let me be crystal clear: there is absolutely no justification or need whatsoever for these tariffs today. Now, the legal pretext your government is using to bring in these tariffs is that Canada is apparently unwilling to help in the fight against illegal fentanyl.

Well, that is totally false.

Let’s look at the fact our border is already safe and secure. Far less than one per cent of fentanyl flows and less than one per cent of illegal crossings into the United States comes from Canada. But we acted, because we know we can always do better.

We responded to concerns, including from the president, by implementing an ambitious $1.3-billion border plan, a border plan that includes generational investments in new AI and imaging tools to stop the flow of fentanyl in its tracks, stronger co-ordination and information sharing with American agencies, along with the deployment of drones, helicopters and additional personnel to keep our border secure.

You know, a month ago, as part of an agreement with the United States that paused the tariffs, we made further commitments. We appointed Kevin Brosseau as our fentanyl czar, a man who dedicated his multi-decade career in law enforcement to combating organized crime networks and drug trafficking.

We designated seven drug cartels — sick, evil groups who cynically profit off the pain and suffering of people on both sides of the border — as the terrorist organizations that they are.

And just yesterday, we launched a new joint operations partnership, supported by a $200-million investment between Canada’s security and law enforcement agencies, a partnership that will enhance the co-ordination of information and intelligence in order to thwart criminal gangs involved in the illegal fentanyl trade.

And critically, our actions are working as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection just acknowledged there was a 97 per cent drop in fentanyl seizure from January compared to December, to a near-zero low of less than half an ounce seized in January.

Now, I want to speak directly to one specific American.

Donald, in the over eight years you and I have worked together, we’ve done big things.

We signed a historic deal that has created record jobs and growth in both of our countries. We’ve done big things together on the world stage, as Canada and the U.S. have done together for decades, for generations. And now, we should be working together to ensure even greater prosperity for North Americans in a very uncertain and challenging world.

Now, it’s not in my habit to agree with the Wall Street Journal. But Donald, they point out that even though you’re a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do.

We two friends fighting is exactly what our opponents around the world want to see.

And now, to my fellow Canadians. I won’t sugarcoat it. This is going to be tough, even though we’re all going to pull together because that’s what we do.

We will use every tool at our disposal so Canadian workers and businesses can weather this storm. From expanding EI benefits and making them more flexible to providing direct supports to businesses. We will be there as needed to help.

But Canada, make no mistake. No matter how long this lasts, no matter what the cost, the federal government and other orders of government will be there for you.

We will defend Canadian jobs. We will take measures to prevent predatory behaviour that threatens Canadian companies because of the impacts of this trade war, leaving them open to takeovers. We will relentlessly fight to protect our economy. We will stand up for Canadians every single second of every single day. Because this country is worth fighting for.

You know we’ve been through tough spots before, but every time we’ve faced long odds and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, we’ve not only survived, we’ve emerged stronger than ever.

Because when it comes to defending our great nation, there is no price we all aren’t willing to pay.

And today is no different. Thank you."

[redarmyscreaming]

Trump is Putin's tool.

Talks on track and so is the bombing. Schrödinger's cease fire, apparently.

[mugiwara-lucy]

Do you guys remember when I posted that article of Trump wanting to invade Mexico last week?

Now you think him and his team would realize “hey that’s fucked up attacking a SOVEREIGN NATION.”, right?

This dumb old buzzard REALLY thinks he’s Whitebeard pulling into Marineford!

Claudia Sheinbaum is NOT someone to fuck with. He really thinks he’s dealing with these weak MAGA bitches like this cunt 😂

Nope President Sheinbaum will fuck him HARDER than Vice President Harris after their debate.

And need I remind you all? Mexico is our ALLY.

This dumb old fucker wants to be the American Putin and make Mexico into Ukraine. Good luck 👍

All you motherfuckers that voted Third Party, didn’t vote at all or voted for this dumb old tool are culpable in whatever happens.

[mariacallous]

As the world marks 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, one of Germany’s most prominent Holocaust scholars says twisting the facts about the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews is far more harmful than outright denial — and that such distortion is “a stepping stone from antisemitism into the mainstream.”

Kathrin Meyer, secretary-general of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, said she considers Holocaust distortion particularly dangerous, especially as the number of survivors dwindles with each passing year. This week, when the world focuses on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, only 50 survivors took part in ceremonies at the Nazi death camp in Poland – down from 300 just five years ago.

“Obviously, it’s an insult to the victims, but it’s also a threat to our democracy because you will not find a single radical, anti-democratic, nationalistic, imperialistic group ideology that does not have a distorted view of the Holocaust,” Meyer said about distortions that are often disguised as differing opinions rather than outright lies.

Tracking Holocaust denial and distortion is part of its wider mandate to address “contemporary challenges related to the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma people,” according to its website.

One example Meyer offered is that of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s constant vilification of neighboring Ukraine as a “Nazi government” despite the fact that Ukraine’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was democratically elected.

“It’s always those who attack freedom, liberal views, diversity and pluralistic societies,” said Meyer, who is stepping down from her position after two decades. “They use Holocaust distortion for their political gain.”

Meyer, who is not Jewish, has led the Berlin-based IHRA as the definition of antisemitism it developed became a flashpoint in political debates.

While many Jewish groups and a number of governments and municipalities have adopted the definition as a useful tool in identifying and fighting antisemitism, some critics say it could stifle free speech by chilling or criminalizing legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.

Meyer recalled that it took IHRA three years to adopt a definition of antisemitism that satisfied all its members, which include 35 member states, eight observer countries and nine global partners including the United Nations, the European Union, UNESCO and the Claims Conference. 

That definition, Meyer said, is now “one of the most important tools ever” in the fight against Jew hatred.

“Before the adoption of this definition, I was confronted time and again with statements like ‘Oh, in our country, there is no antisemitism.’ We don’t have this discussion any longer,” said Meyer. “We discuss what should and shouldn’t be considered antisemitism, but antisemitism as such is acknowledged as a problem in all our societies.”

IHRA defines antisemitism as having a “certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred” toward them. That perception includes certain kinds of rhetoric and action aimed at Israel and its supporters — for example, denying Jews the right to self-determination or calling Israel a “racist endeavor.”

Proponents of the definition see those examples as an important response to events like the sharp rise in vandalism of synagogues and cemeteries, verbal and physical attacks against Jews and “anti-Zionist” incitement since the Oct. 7, 2023, invasion by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza.

“The events of Oct. 7 have tragically proven us right. There cannot be a debate on antisemitism without looking into the completely biased criticism of Israel that we often see,” Meyer said. “This dramatic increase in antisemitic incidents came right after the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. The fact that this didn’t lead to more solidarity but to more antisemitism shows how deep this hatred goes, and how irrational it often is.”

Meyer, 60, knows a thing or two about deep and irrational hatred of Jews — and about the power of pushing back against it. She was born and raised in Celle, a village in Lower Saxony, just a few kilometers from the infamous Bergen-Belsen concentration camp where Anne Frank died.

“This really picturesque little town, with these medieval houses and a castle, looks almost like a Disneyland film set. It wasn’t affected by the war. No bombings, no nothing,” she recalled. “I was born in 1964, only 19 years after World War II ended. But there was a big silence in my town about Bergen-Belsen.”

That silence extended to her own family, said Meyer, describing her “liberation” at facing the facts of what her country had done to the Jews.

“I was among the first Germans for whom the Holocaust was part of the school curriculum,” she said. “My mother’s side of the family was very much opposed to the Nazi system, but my grandmother on my father’s side was a very committed Nazi. I grew up with her views as well, and I’ve had to fight that my entire lifetime.”

Later on, she earned a master’s degree in educational science and a PhD in history from Berlin’s Technical University, specializing in denazification and reeducation in Germany after 1945.

“For me, it was liberating to face the facts, to step up to the responsibility I have as a German of this generation — and to not shy away from it,” she said.

IHRA was founded as a temporary task force by then-Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson. Along with Britain’s Tony Blair and U.S. President Bill Clinton, he organized a Stockholm forum held 25 years ago — on Jan. 27, 2000, that was attended by 46 heads of state and foreign ministers. There, they signed the Stockholm Declaration and committed their countries to support Holocaust education remembrance and research.

“That was revolutionary, because until then, it was mainly Jewish organizations that had commemorated the Holocaust, but it was never really seen as a governmental responsibility,” she said. “This is where we started. We had very few member countries at that point, but the others were invited. The snowball effect started, and soon it became an international institution with 35 member countries and global impact.”

Besides Jewish victims, IHRA also advocates on behalf of the Roma people, the minority ethnic group which Meyer said “are definitely the most discriminated group in Europe when it comes to hate crimes on a daily level.”

During World War II, the Nazis operated a concentration camp near Prague specifically for slaughtering the Roma. For years after the war, Czech farmers used the camp as a pig pen. Eventually, local authorities erected a small memorial.

“However, when I visited this place in 2016, I was astonished,” she said. “You see these plaques and rebuilt barracks, and some references to the Roma community that was destroyed, and then in the background, you hear these pigs screaming and you smell ammonia. It was so terrible.”

Thanks to IHRA’s then-president, Romanian diplomat Mihnea Constantinescu, Czech authorities moved the pig farm elsewhere and constructed a proper memorial site.

One of Meyer’s biggest concerns is the immense power of Big Tech, she said, citing “the problems we face just with Meta getting rid of fact-checking” on Facebook, and the increasing virulent hate speech spread on platforms like Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

A recent UNESCO study of 4,000 pieces of content collected in June and July 2021 showed that 10% of such content on Facebook, 15% on Twitter (now X) and nearly half on Telegram either denied or distorted Holocaust history.

“These tech giants do whatever they want, and I have the feeling this is so unbalanced. It’s something that worries me tremendously,” Meyer said, though she’s not necessarily concerned that artificial intelligence will worsen those problems.

“There’s no question AI brings huge risks, but it also brings great opportunities, because AI cannot only be used by the bad guys. It can be used by us too—for example, in keeping the memory of survivors alive,” she said. “It’s not a curse. It’s in our world, and we need to use it.”

Asked about her legacy, Meyer said she’s proud to have helped turn IHRA into a “global player” while putting Holocaust distortion on the agenda.

“Making that a major topic was definitely one of the big passions I brought to this job,” she said. “We live in a world of deep divisions within our societies, and since we’re a consensus-based organization, we need to keep the consensus alive to confront antisemitism, extremism, hate speech and the challenge posed by AI and social media. This is a huge challenge, but I think that’s also the only way to go.”

Meyer’s successor at IHRA is Michaela Küchler, a veteran German diplomat who chaired the organization in 2021, and who currently serves as Germany’s consul-general in Chennai, India.

“She brings the drive we need to move this organization ahead and to not shy away from challenges,” Meyer said of Küchler, adding that “after 20 years in this business, I need a break.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michelangelo Signorile at The Signorile Report:

I ordered four free Covid tests from the government last night after reading that the Trump administration was shutting down the program—in which tests are distributed to Americans—and was considering destroying 160 millions tests. Until the story blew up after the Washington Post began reporting on it, they were planning to stop taking orders at 8 p.m., “transitioning away from government-distributed at-home tests to the commercial market just as we have in the past,” said a Department of Health and Human Services spokesman. Even if “transitioning away” from the free distribution was a good idea, why would you destroy all the tests you have? We, the American people, paid for those tests! Trump and his lieutenants claim they’re about stopping waste and fraud, but here they were, about to destroy $500 million in tests that we may urgently need if there is a Covid surge. Sure, it costs money to stockpile them. But it actually costs more to destroy them—and even more to buy new ones if you need them. We all remember when, under Trump’s first term, they didn’t have enough tests. Now they were talking about destroying what they had. Sheer lunacy. Why? It seems pretty simple. Trump hates them. He hates the idea of them. He hates the mere presence of of them. He hates what they imply: That testing is important, and that the government should have enough tests—and that he completely bungled it himself, and did not make that a priority in his first administration. Trump’s dire mismanagement of Covid was highlighted by the shortage of tests early on (and their really haphazard plans to get them), which would have helped slow the transmission of the virus. And, in his mind, Trump lost the election in 2020 because of the pandemic. After the Washington Post revealed the plan to destroy the tests—having obtained documents and emails—the administration reversed course in a rare turnaround, and said it will continue to take orders and stockpile the tests. I’m sure the reversal was more about the optics of destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded medical tools while they’re claiming to cut waste than anything else.

And it exposes what a madman Trump truly is, someone in continued cognitive decline who, like other dictators, is obsessed with reconfiguring the world—carving it up with Vladimir Putin, and, perhaps, President Xi of China, his fellow authoritarians—while letting Elon Musk slash and burn everything domestically. The cruel, frightening action of removing transgender people and the “T” in LGBT from the National Stonewall Monument website was right out of the playbook of deranged, controlling, and compulsive fascists—as is the destroying of Covid tests simply because of what they represent. It’s similar to his drive in cutting off of foreign aid, causing millions of people in what Trump has called “shithole” countries to suffer and die of disease. Musk is behind many of the cuts in funding, and he surely is down with the transgender erasure—he’s a transphobic hatemonger who berated his own daughter who came out as trans—but Trump is the president, making the decisions. He clearly likes these ideas when they’re brought to him. And we know many of the most horrendous actions are driven by Trump and his own racist impulses, which have led his charge against diversity, equity and inclusion.

This is cruelty in action by the Trump Regime.

[saruvanthewhite]

And tools they are!

Putin has been receiving the same government briefing as Trump!

[thelostdreamsthings]

"Putin is isolated."

BRICS, 50% of the World population is telling a big "fuck off" to the arrogant, declining and decadent G7 amounting to 10% of the World's population.

🇺🇳🇷🇺 UN Secretary General Guterres respectfully bows and shakes the hand of Putin in Russia’s Kazan at the BRICS summit.

A lot of people start crying and scream hysterically when they see this picture, for some reason.

[BRICS Currency Looms Large: Could This Be the Beginning of the End for U.S. Dollar Dominance?

For decades, the U.S. dollar has been weaponized as a tool of global dominance, wielded by the American empire to enforce its geopolitical will.

Through sanctions, coercive financial practices, and the threat of exclusion from the dollar-based system, the U.S. has effectively terrorized nations across the world.

The pretense of a “free market” economy has long been shattered by Washington's aggressive use of the dollar as a weapon to cripple economies, isolate adversaries, and exert control over global trade.

But the world is growing tired—sick and tired—of this financial tyranny. And now, with the rise of BRICS, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end for U.S. dollar supremacy.

BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—represent a bloc of nations that together account for nearly half of the global population and a significant chunk of the world’s GDP.

For years, these nations have been quietly collaborating to counterbalance the West's stranglehold over international finance, and now, they are inching closer to launching their own currency.

The creation of a BRICS currency signals an outright challenge to the dollar-dominated global economy, and it is nothing short of a revolt against American financial imperialism.

Why is this happening? The answer is simple: countries are fed up with being bullied. The U.S. has used its currency like a sledgehammer, smashing nations that dare to defy its hegemony.

Whether through sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, or Russia, or by financially suffocating smaller nations into submission, the dollar has become a tool of coercion rather than commerce.

Nations who once played by the rules of the so-called “global order” have found themselves punished, their economies crippled, and their people starved—merely for refusing to kowtow to Washington's dictates.

But BRICS is offering an alternative. The creation of a BRICS currency, backed by the economic strength of its member nations, offers the world a way out of the suffocating grip of the dollar.

This is not just about financial autonomy—it’s about reclaiming sovereignty, independence, and the right to conduct trade without the constant threat of U.S. interference.

Russia and China have been leading the charge in this effort, driven in part by the U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow following the Ukraine conflict and the ongoing trade war with Beijing.

Both countries have moved aggressively to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar, increasing trade with each other and with other BRICS members in their local currencies.

They are laying the groundwork for a currency that could be based on a basket of commodities, potentially gold-backed, further weakening the grip of the U.S. dollar on the global market.

The U.S. has long prided itself on its role as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, but this dominance was never guaranteed to last forever.

The BRICS currency threatens to dismantle the global financial architecture that has allowed the U.S. to live far beyond its means.

For decades, the U.S. has run massive deficits, printing money at will, secure in the knowledge that the world would continue to rely on the dollar.

But as BRICS nations move to establish their own currency, that privilege could evaporate overnight.

The implications for the U.S. are dire. If the dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. economy could face a severe reckoning.

The artificial demand for dollars that has kept interest rates low and allowed the U.S. to run massive debt could vanish, leading to inflation, higher borrowing costs, and potentially a fiscal crisis.

The American empire, propped up for so long by its control of global finance, could find itself in rapid decline.

For the rest of the world, however, the rise of a BRICS currency represents hope—a chance to escape the iron grip of U.S. financial imperialism. No longer will countries have to fear the punitive measures of the U.S. Treasury.

No longer will they have to worry about being cut off from the global financial system for standing up to American bullying.

The creation of a new currency could usher in a multipolar world, where nations are free to trade without being subject to the whims of a single superpower.

Of course, the U.S. will not go quietly. Washington will likely pull out all the stops to crush the BRICS currency before it can gain traction. The playbook will be the same: propaganda, financial sabotage, and even the threat of military intervention.

But this time, the world may not be so easily intimidated. The BRICS nations, backed by their vast resources and burgeoning economies, are prepared to stand their ground.

In the end, the creation of a BRICS currency is not just an economic development—it’s a revolutionary act. It’s a declaration that the age of American financial dominance is coming to an end, and that a new world is on the horizon.

The U.S. dollar, once seen as the bedrock of global stability, has become a symbol of oppression, and the world is ready to move on.

The question now is not whether the U.S. dollar will fall, but when. And as BRICS moves closer to launching its own currency, that day may be sooner than anyone expects.

The empire, long propped up by its financial manipulation, is facing a reckoning—one that could change the course of history.]

IMF Growth Forecast: 2024

🇮🇳India: 7.0% (BRICS)

🇨🇳China: 4.8% (BRICS)

🇷🇺Russia: 3.6% (BRICS)

🇧🇷Brazil: 3.0% (BRICS)

🇺🇸US: 2.8% (G7)

🇸🇦KSA: 1.5% (invited to BRICS)

🇨🇦Canada: 1.3% (G7)

🇿🇦RSA: 1.1% (BRICS)

🇬🇧UK: 1.1% (G7)

🇫🇷France: 1.1% (G7)

🇮🇹Italy: 0.7% (G7)

🇯🇵Japan: 0.3% (G7)

🇩🇪Germany: 0.0% (G7)

‼️ 159 out of 193 countries have signed up to use the new BRICS settlement system.

US and European Union will no longer be able to use economic sanctions as a weapon.

This system allows countries to settle trades and payments in their own currencies, reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar, which has long been the dominant global currency.

[misfitwashere]

Rejected Cabinet Nominees

Some historical guidance

TIMOTHY SNYDER

JAN 16

Historically, nominees for cabinet positions have been rejected by the Senate or have withdrawn their candidacies in order to prevent that outcome. It is not common, but nor is it abnormal. The power of "advice and consent" granted to the Senate by the Constitution has been exercised in practice. 

A number of Trump's appointments are simply outrageous by historical, ethical, strategic, or any other standards. The ongoing confirmation hearings tend to normalize the bizarre (although Democrats and a couple of Republicans have asked meaningful questions.)

So a few examples of failed nominations might serve as one tool among others to keep the events of the moment in perspective.

Secretary of Defense

John Tower was the first George H.W. Bush nominee for secretary of defense. He has served in the Senate for more than twenty years, and had chaired its Armed Services Committee. He was an author of the Tower Commission report on the Iran-Contra Affair. He was questioned by Senators about his past alcohol use and womanizing.

Pete Hegseth, unlike Tower, has zero knowledge, experience, or qualifications for the of running the Department of Defense. His program, judging from his books, is to ignore foreign enemies, politicize the armed forces, and carry out a "Holy War" against Americans. Pete Hegseth's womanizing and alcohol use, by his own account, far exceed Tower's. Unlike Tower, Hegseth paid off a woman who filed a police report accusing him of sexual assault in circumstances that, by her account, strongly suggest the use of a rape drug. Hegseth had to resign from both of the advocacy groups he ran because of incompetence and drunkenness. He regularly had to be physically carried away from events because he was too drunk to stand. In once case he had to be prevented from joining strippers on a stage. He also displayed total financial and budgetary incompetence. In this connection it is worth mentioning that the Department of Defense has the largest budget of any government in history.

There is a disturbing tendency to forgive Hegseth everything because he is a veteran. This seems unfair to veterans who do not display his failures of character. But it also contains within itself the troubling idea that soldiers can do no wrong: an idea that Hegseth himself seems to hold. That way lies military dictatorship. In any event: Tower served in the Pacific Theater during the Second World War and was in the reserve for decades.

The Senate rejected Tower.

Director of National Intelligence.

This position was created relatively recently and elevated to cabinet rank still more recently. It is meant to oversee the work of all American intelligence agencies. So a relevant historical comparison will be to the position of director of central intelligence.

Anthony Lake was second-term Bill Clinton's nominee for the position of director of central intelligence. Lake was eminently qualified. He is one of the most accomplished American diplomats of the post-1945 period. Among many other positions he was Director of Policy Planning in the State Department under Carter, and National Security Advisor during Clinton's first term. His nomination ran into trouble because of two occasions when his deputies on the National Security Council failed to inform him of discussions with the chairman of the Democratic National Committee about donor access to the White House.

Tulsi Gabbard has no qualifications to be Director of National Intelligence. A very long list of Americans with national security experience regard her as a danger to the safety of Americans. She is known abroad as a supporter of two of the world's most violent dictators, Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. As a congresswomen she consistently made excuses for Assad, whose regime killed something like half a million people before it was overthrown. She proposed that the Russo-Ukrainian war could be ended "in the spirit of aloha" and repeats Russian propaganda tropes. Russian media refer to Gabbard as "comrade" and "girlfriend" and "our agent."

Under Senate pressure, Lake withdrew his candidacy.

Attorney General

Zoe Baird was nominated by Bill Clinton for attorney general at the beginning of his first term in 1993. She was eminently qualified professionally for the job. She had however hired undocumented immigrants in her household and had not paid Social Security taxes for them.

Pam Bondi is Donald Trump's nominee for the same position. As part of Donald Trump's legal team, she sought to justify his attempt to overturn the results of an election. As Florida attorney general, she accepted luxurious perks from relevant parties in cases she was considering. In that capacity she also failed to pursue a case against Trump University after a political group supporting received a check, an illegal donation, from Trump's foundation signed by Trump. As a lobbyist she represented a Russian money manager convicted in Kuwait and served as a public relations representative for the government of Qatar. She was paid more than $100,000 a month just for that assignment, which she left in order to defend Trump from conviction after his first impeachment. Then she went back to working for Qatar.

Under Senate pressure, Baird withdrew her candidacy.

Succeeding events created the closest thing we have to a historical standard for rejecting cabinet nominees by Republican Senators: the employment of undocumented workers.

After Baird withdrew, Clinton nominated Kimba Wood. She too was eminently qualified to serve as attorney general. It emerged that she too had hired an undocumented worker as a nanny. Wood did so at a time when this was legal, and she paid the appropriate taxes. Nevertheless, the mere fact that she had employed one undocumented person, entirely legally, stopped her candidacy. in 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Linda Chavez to be secretary of labor. She then withdrew her candidacy after it emerged that she had paid an undocumented person to work in her household.

So one might move beyond the obvious point that Bondi's scandals dwarf Baird's (and Hegseth's those of Tower, and Gabbard's those of Lake) and propose a pragmatic line of questioning that would apply to Trump's other nominees. Have they or their companies employed undocumented workers? It seems a reasonable question to ask, especially of the billionaires. Given the coming administration's oft-declared hard line on illegal immigration, this would seem to be a minimum standard for its cabinet nominees.

The Senate has a constitutional role, and in the past has exercised it. Some of the nominees presented to them this month are wildly inappropriate to the point of risking the integrity of American national security and calling into question basic principles of the rule of law. The history of failed nominations reminds us just how far some of these people fall below any reasonable standard.

[qqueenofhades]

Hello! This is kind of a weird ask, I'm sorry to bother you, but seeing as you're a very intelligent studied historian that I deeply respect, I was hoping you could offer some advice? Or like, things i could read? Lately, i feel like my critical thinking skills are emaciated and its scaring the shit out of me. I feel very slow and like I'm constantly missing important info in relation to news/history/social activism stuff. Thats so vague, sorry, but like any tips on how i can do better?

Aha, thank you. There was recently a good critical-thinking infograph on my dash, so obviously I thought I remembered who reblogged it and checked their blog, it wasn't them, thought it was someone else, checked their blog, it also wasn't them, and now I can't find it to link to. Alas. But I will try to sum up its main points and add a few of my own. I'm glad you're taking the initiative to work on this for yourself, and I will add that while it can seem difficult and overwhelming to sort through the mass of information, especially often-false, deliberately misleading, or otherwise bad information, there are a few tips to help you make some headway, and it's a skill that like any other skill, gets easier with practice. So yes.

The first and most general rule of thumb I would advise is the same thing that IT/computer people tell you about scam emails. If something is written in a way that induces urgency, panic, the feeling that you need to do something RIGHT NOW, or other guilt-tripping or anxiety-inducing language, it is -- to say the least -- questionable. This goes double if it's from anonymous unsourced accounts on social media, is topically or thematically related to a major crisis, or anything else. The intent is to create a panic response in you that overrides your critical faculties, your desire to do some basic Googling or double-checking or independent verification of its claims, and makes you think that you have to SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE NOW or you are personally and morally a bad person. Unfortunately, the world is complicated, issues and responses are complicated, and anyone insisting that there is Only One Solution and it's conveniently the one they're peddling should not be trusted. We used to laugh at parents and grandparents for naively forwarding or responding to obviously scam emails, but now young people are doing the exact same thing by blasting people with completely sourceless social media tweets, clips, and other manipulative BS that is intended to appeal to an emotional gut rather than an intellectual response. When you panic or feel negative emotions (anger, fear, grief, etc) you're more likely to act on something or share questionable information without thinking.

Likewise, you do have basic Internet literacy tools at your disposal. You can just throw a few keywords into Google or Wikipedia and see what comes up. Is any major news organization reporting on this? Is it obviously verifiable as a fake (see the disaster pictures of sharks swimming on highways that get shared after every hurricane)? Can you right-click, perform a reverse image search, and see if this is, for example, a picture from an unrelated war ten years ago instead of an up-to-date image of the current conflict? Especially with the ongoing Israel/Palestine imbroglio, we have people sharing propaganda (particularly Hamas propaganda) BY THE BUCKETLOAD and masquerading it as legitimate news organizations (tip: Quds News Network is literally the Hamas channel). This includes other scuzzy dirtbag-left websites like Grayzone and The Intercept, which often have implicit or explicit links to Russian-funded disinformation campaigns and other demoralizing or disrupting fake news that is deliberately designed to turn young left-leaning Westerners against the Democrats and other liberal political parties, which enables the electoral victory of the fascist far-right and feeds Putin's geopolitical and military aims. Likewise, half of our problems would be solved if tankies weren't so eager to gulp down and propagate anything "anti-Western" and thus amplify the Russian disinformation machine in a way even the Russians themselves sometimes struggle to do, but yeah. That relates to both Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine.

Basically: TikTok, Twitter/X, Tumblr itself, and other platforms are absolutely RIFE with misinformation, and this is due partly to ownership (the Chinese government and Elon Fucking Musk have literally no goddamn reason whatsoever to build an unbiased algorithm, and have been repeatedly proven to be boosting bullshit that supports their particular worldviews) and partly due to the way in which the young Western left has paralyzed itself into hypocritical moral absolutes and pseudo-revolutionary ideology (which is only against the West itself and doesn't think that the rest of the world has agency to act or think for itself outside the West's influence, They Are Very Smart and Anti-Colonialist!) A lot of "information" in left-leaning social media spaces is therefore tainted by this perspective and often relies on flat-out, brazen, easily disprovable lies (like the popular Twitter account insisting that Biden could literally just overturn the Supreme Court if he really wanted to). Not all misinformation is that easy to spot, but with a severe lack of political, historical, civic, or social education (since it's become so polarized and school districts generally steer away from it or teach the watered-down version for fear of being attacked by Moms for Liberty or similar), it is quickly and easily passed along by people wanting trite and simplistic solutions for complex problems or who think the extent of social justice is posting the Right Opinions on social media.

As I said above, everything in the world is complicated and has multiple factors, different influences, possible solutions, involved actors, and external and internal causes. For the most part, if you're encountering anything that insists there's only one shiningly righteous answer (which conveniently is the one All Good and Moral People support!) and the other side is utterly and even demonically in the wrong, that is something that immediately needs a closer look and healthy skepticism. How was this situation created? Who has an interest in either maintaining the status quo, discouraging any change, or insisting that there's only one way to engage with/think about this issue? Who is being harmed and who is being helped by this rhetoric, including and especially when you yourself are encouraged to immediately spread it without criticism or cross-checking? Does it rely on obvious lies, ideological misinformation, or something designed to make you feel the aforementioned negative emotions? Is it independently corroborated? Where is it sourced from? When you put the author's name into Google, what comes up?

Also, I think it's important to add that as a result, it's simply not possible to distill complicated information into a few bite-sized and easily digestible social media chunks. If something is difficult to understand, that means you probably need to spend more time reading about it and encountering diverse perspectives, and that is research and work that has to take place primarily not on social media. You can ask for help and resources (such as you're doing right now, which I think is great!), but you can't use it as your chief or only source of information. You can and should obviously be aware of the limitations and biases of traditional media, but often that has turned into the conspiracy-theory "they never report on what's REALLY GOING ON, the only information you can trust is random anonymous social media accounts managed by God knows who." Traditional media, for better or worse, does have certain evidentiary standards, photographing, sourcing, and verifying requirements, and other ways to confirm that what they're writing about actually has some correspondence with reality. Yes, you need to be skeptical, but you can also trust that some of the initial legwork of verification has been done for you, and you can then move to more nuanced review, such as wording, presentation of perspective, who they're interviewing, any journalistic assumptions, any organizational shortcomings, etc.

Once again: there is a shit-ton of stuff out there, it is hard to instinctively know or understand how to engage with it, and it's okay if you don't automatically "get" everything you read. That's where the principle of actually taking the time to be informed comes in, and why you have to firmly divorce yourself from the notion that being socially aware or informed means just instantly posting or sharing on social media about the crisis of the week, especially if you didn't know anything about it beforehand and are just relying on the Leftist Groupthink to tell you how you should be reacting. Because things are complicated and dangerous, they take more effort to unpick than just instantly sharing a meme or random Twitter video or whatever. If you do in fact want to talk about these things constructively, and not just because you feel like you're peer-pressured into doing so and performing the Correct Opinions, then you will in fact need to spend non-social-media time and effort in learning about them.

If you're at a university, there are often subject catalogues, reference librarians, and other built-in tools that are there for you to use and which you SHOULD use (that's your tuition money, after all). That can help you identify trustworthy information sources and research best practices, and as you do that more often, it will help you have more of a feel for things when you encounter them in the wild. It's not easy at first, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes more so, and will make you more confident in your own judgments, beliefs, and values. That way when you encounter something that you KNOW is wrong, you won't be automatically pressured to share it just to fit in, because you will be able to tell yourself what the problems are.

Good luck!