#Center For Strategic And International Studies

[defencecapital]

Russia-Ukraine conflict is world's first commercial space war, starting point of future Star Wars

By N. C. Bipindra The employment of space assets for military purposes has recently seen an uptick. The Russia–Ukraine war is the most significant space-related development since 2022, given the wide-ranging use of space-based assets by both the warring sides. A Space Threat Assessment by an American think-tank has also concluded that there has been an unparalleled level of transparency on the…

[whatisonthemoon]

Howard Wiarda on the Moonie-Organized “Global Economic Action Institute” (GEAI)

Howard J. Wiarda was an academic, associated with both Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

In the mid-1980s, I contracted with the Global Economic Action Institute (GEAI) to edit a book on development successes and democracy in the Third World. The main case studies were Costa Rica, Hungary, Ivory Coast, and Malaysia, so the project required me to acquire expertise on three countries that I didn't know well (Hungary, Ivory Coast, and Malaysia; Costa Rica I already knew well) — countries whose development I have followed closely over the years. I was not a completely independent actor in doing this small book: GEAI had given me a partially completed manuscript drafted by some of its own personnel and advisers that had a strongly pro-democracy, pro-free market slant. The draft was way too strident and conservative for me, but I could certainly support a moderate democracy/free market position. My assignment from GEAI was to take this draft, rewrite it, and convert it into prose that academics, think tankers, and policy experts could support. A handsome honorarium was involved.

So, I took the draft, started from word one to rewrite, toned down the more ideological language of the original manuscript, and introduced a tone into the report that was social-scientific and academic. The report forced me to do considerable new research; it also got me thinking seriously not just about analyzing development in the Third World but, for the first time in a policy sense, how to achieve development. Some twenty years later, I would return to these themes in my own, single-authored book on the developing nations where the main subject was what works in development and what doesn't.

I was about halfway through the project before I came to realize that GEAI was a front for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. This was a "Moonie" project, and I was working for the "Moonie Church." I hadn't realized this before since all the officials I'd dealt with at GEAI, as well as the individuals who'd done the first draft, were all Americans. What to do? Rev. Moon, he of the karate chop delivery, the mass marriages (in the thousands in a football stadium) of his followers, and some truly bizarre religious and political beliefs, was not my favorite fellow. I didn't want to sell out my academic reputation; on the other hand, the money was good, and I had been assured of complete academic freedom. So, I finished the project. It turned out to be a respectable monograph and was published by GEAI, even though, fearing for my reputation from being associated with the Moonies, I asked that my name not be listed as the author on the front cover.

In the course of doing this project, I got invited to several Moonie events in the Washington area. One was a large, annual Moonie reception for all its friends and hangers-on at the luxurious Marriott Hotel in downtown Washington. Iêda and I were amazed to find over 2,000 people present, the cream of Washington society and politics. We were also invited to other Washington Institute (another front for the Unification Church) sponsored seminars and policy forums; there I was surprised to find such luminaries as intellectual Richard Rubenstein, former Kissinger aide Hal Sonnenfeldt, philosopher and editor Morton Kaplan, and political boy wonder, then head of the Republican Young Americans for Freedom, Ralph Reed. All of these were friends or acquaintances of mine from Washington policy circles; I was as surprised to find them at a Moonie event as they were to find me. Rev. Moon had certainly bought himself access and influence in Washington; I assumed that, like me, they were all on the Unification Church payroll.

Related

Fishing for Respectability - on the Unification Church’s “Global Economic Action Institute”

C-Span videos of Global Economic Action Institute conferences and panels - one of these videos ("Foreign Trade and Domestic Subsidy Policy") features Most Durst

Moon on why he founded the Global Economic Action Institute:

I founded the Global Economic Action Institute to help distribute and re-invest inactive, or "sleeping" money to make it work for the world. A world-level bank is necessary to go beyond the boundaries of any one nation. This bank will not lend to individuals, but only to nations. The world is coming into unity, which means that independent governments will merge into one to be more operable on a global scale. Only global thinking and institutions can solve the world's economic problems.

The Imperial Ghost in the Neoliberal Machine (Figuring the CIA)

Emperor of the Universe video.                                       

[rodspurethoughts]

Spelman College Celebrates the Inauguration of 11th President Dr. Helene D. Gayle

"Congratulations to Dr. Helene D. Gayle on being inaugurated as the 11th President of Spelman College! We're excited to see all the great things she will accomplish. #SpelmanCollege #HeleneDGayle #InvestitureCeremony #HigherEducation

[xtruss]

World: A Growing BRICS Bloc Shows U.S. Is Losing the Battle for the Global South

— BY Tom O'Connor | August 22, 2023

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa Delivers a Speech at the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. © Sputnik/Grigory Sysoev/Go to the Mediabank

While Russian President Vladimir Putin's in-person absence due to international legal troubles looms over the BRICS conference attended by the leaders of fellow member states Brazil, India, China and South Africa, the growing interest in expanding the group to include additional countries from across the globe is likely to cement the bloc's future as a force in global geopolitics.

And with no seat at the table for the United States, the three-day summit that began Tuesday in Johannesburg demonstrates how Washington has struggled to project influence throughout the vast, developing Global South.

"The U.S. is trailing countries such as Russia, India and China in the Global South," Akhil Ramesh, a senior fellow at the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum, told Newsweek. "The Global South does not have this special solidarity it has with nations such as China and India. As victims of Western imperialism/colonialism and having faced similar challenges in reconstruction and development, they have a unique solidarity."

"The U.S. approach continues to be one where they use nations of the Global South as pawns in their future, larger cold/hot conflict with China or Russia," Ramesh added. "This understandably has not helped them win friends."

Such solidarity continues to extend to Putin, who has accelerated his country's outreach to developing nations, especially in Africa, in recent years.

Moscow's overtures have been met with ongoing interest, as evidenced by the recent Russia-Africa Summit in Saint Petersburg. The summit was attended by 16 African heads of state and representatives of 25 additional African countries, even as the West has accused Putin of war crimes, resulting in an International Criminal Court warrant, and of weaponizing food by bombing grain infrastructure and allowing a deal that safeguarded the continued export of Ukrainian grains via the Black Sea to collapse.

U.S. warnings about forging closer economic ties with China have been met with even stiffer resistance, as President Xi Jinping presses on with his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative extending across continents despite a slowing economy at home.

Ramesh argued that nations of the Global South simply "do not view Beijing and Moscow the same way the West does," and instead see new opportunities where traditional mechanisms have failed.

"So, when there was a group presenting an alternative to the Western-led world order/vision of the world," he added, "nations were quick to jump on the bandwagon."

Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. State Department for comment.

Still, obstacles to progress exist within a bloc whose core members already have little alignment in their broader geopolitical goals, while some, especially China and India, have active disputes between them. Such feuds have the potential to only grow as the coalition considers taking on new members, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Others who have applied include Algeria 🇩🇿, Argentina 🇦🇷, Bahrain 🇧🇭, Bangladesh 🇧🇩, Belarus 🇧🇾, Bolivia 🇧🇴, Cuba 🇨🇺, Egypt 🇪🇬, Ethiopia 🇪🇹, Honduras 🇭🇳, Indonesia 🇮🇩, Kazakhstan 🇰🇿, Kuwait 🇰🇼, Morocco 🇲🇦, Nigeria 🇳🇬, the Palestinian National Authority 🇵🇸, Senegal 🇸🇳, Thailand 🇹🇭, the United Arab Emirates 🇦🇪, Venezuela 🇻🇪 and Vietnam 🇻🇳, according to the most recent count offered last week by South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor.

Brazil, Lula, arrives, BRICS, summit, South, Africa! Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva arrives in Johannesburg, South Africa ahead of the 15th BRICS summit. The leaders of 67 countries have been invited to join the forum led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Ricardo Stuckert/Presidency of The Federative Republic of Brazil

"Those who are there for the day-to-day negotiations, at least from the Brazilian government side, say it is already very hard to come to consensus when you have China, India and Russia at the table," Ana Elisa Saggioro Garcia, a professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro's Institute of International Relations and general coordinator of the BRICS Policy Center, told Newsweek.

But "there's another side of the story," she said. That's the growing view, including from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, that "a strong BRICS" is necessary, and a "strong BRICS is also a big BRICS."

South Africa, the current chair, is the only nation to have been added to what began as an informal BRIC bloc, born out of a term coined by then-Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill in 2001 to describe emerging economic powers. Russia led the initiative to bring Brazil, China and India together for the first summit in 2009, and South Africa was admitted the following year.

Initially, BRICS was focused on effecting reform within existing, primarily Western-led economic institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.

"The first common agenda that they had, despite their differences, was the reform of the international financial architecture," Garcia said. "So, international financial institutions, those grounded in the Bretton Woods Conference, in the post-war period, they do not represent the world anymore. Those huge economies don't have enough voice in those institutions, they need to be reformed. They need to reflect the new configuration of the world economic power."

© Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Go to the Mediabank

Gradually, the group became more focused on creating alternative mechanisms, most notably in the establishment in 2014 of the Shanghai-based New Development Bank, which today also counts Bangladesh, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as members. With this transformation, Garcia explained, "the geopolitical character of BRICS started to be more important and more relevant than only the economic one."

China, in particular, she argued, "has been very clever and very strategic to use this opportunity to advance and to expand another coalition where China is predominant, where China doesn't have to deal with negotiations with Western powers."

But as evidenced by Brazil's enthusiasm for a more active role for BRICS and the growing list of prospective members, it's not all about Beijing.

"BRICS has become this pole of attraction of all countries now who've seen that they can have more power if they ally with a coalition such as BRICS to face measures that the West has been doing for years now," Garcia said, "and also to face these sorts of constraints and repression in terms of worldview and values."

Ryan Berg, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Americas Program in Washington, D.C., also discussed how countries like Brazil were becoming more interested in the geopolitical nature of BRICS as an exercise in "active nonalignment."

"It can heighten the relevance of a country like Brazil, which is sometimes overlooked and feels overlooked and neglected," Berg said in response to Newsweek's question during a CSIS call held in the leadup to the BRICS summit.

"By pursuing this strategy," he explained, "you can basically make it a competition for the affection or for the attention of major world powers or leading world powers that would otherwise overlook Brazil's position on a particular issue."

BRICS, Summit, South, Africa, 2018! (Left to right) Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Brazilian President Michel Temer pose for a group picture during the 10th BRICS summit on July 26, 2018 at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. South Africa's most populous city against hosts the BRICS summit in 2023, after each of the other four members hosted gatherings, three of which were virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mike Hutchings/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Speaking on the same call, CSIS Africa Program director Mvemba Phezo Dizolele highlighted the importance of the host nation itself, saying BRICS membership "strengthened the position of South Africa among non-aligned countries" at a polarizing time in global geopolitics.

"Non-aligned countries have absolutely been at odds at least with Western countries, particularly ideologically because they do not want to align either with the Russians or with the United States and allies," Dizolele said.

A key goal for the summit's participants "will be discussing their disillusionment with U.S. leadership or at least the U.S.-led coalition around the world and how that world order is affecting adversely the countries of the Global South," he said, noting that "this will be a time when they will be seeking an alternative to that power."

The phenomenon of a competition among major powers to court the Global South was also observed by Mrityunjay Tripathi, a research fellow at the New Delhi-based Public Policy Research Center who previously served as part of India's delegation to the 2018 BRICS Youth Summit in South Africa.

"U.S. attempts to engage the Global South will only benefit the region, as the U.S. will act as a balancing power in the region dominated by China," Tripathi told Newsweek. "This competition will only benefit the developing economies and the multipolarity of the BRICS will ensure that region remains free and open to all."

Here, he said that "the presence of India adds credibility to BRICS and assures the West that India will act as a balancing power in the alliance that consists of Russia and China."

While New Delhi and Washington have strengthened ties in recent years, this does not mean total alignment in their positions. Tripathi argued that the trends apparent in the summit and context surrounding it show that Washington was on the backfoot in this competition over developing nations.

BRICS, Business, Forum, meets, in, South, Africa! (From left to right) Shaogang Zhang, vice chair of China's Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Onkar Singh Kanwar, chair of the BRICS Business Council's India chapter, Sergei Katyrin, chair of the BRICS Business Council's Russia chapter, José Serrador, chair of the BRICS Business Council's Brazil chapter, Busi Mabuza, chair of the BRICS Business Council's South Africa chapter, and Nozipho Tshabalala, CEO of the Conversation Strategist, attend a panel discussion during the 2023 BRICS Business Forum in Sandton, north of Johannesburg, South Africa, on August 22. Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images

"The growing interest in BRICS does suggest that the U.S.' attempts to assert influence, particularly across the Global South, have not always produced desired results," Tripathi said. "The rise of BRICS is indicative of a shift in power dynamics from the traditionally Western-dominated world order to a more multipolar global scenario."

A key part of this shift identified by Tripathi was not only expansion, but the vision of "instituting a common currency," something that "further solidifies the group's commitment to long-term sustainable progress of the Global South."

"A common currency will not only boost intra-BRICS trade," he added," but also eliminate the high dollar conversion costs of international transactions."

Shen Shiwei, a journalist and analyst with a background in Chinese business dealings in Africa and the Middle East, argued that "the only thing that can beat the U.S. dollar is the dollar itself, driven by weaponization from Washington."

"The global trend of increasing the use of multiple currencies, instead of fully relying on U.S. dollars, is not a new idea," Shen told Newsweek. "Three decades ago, the euro was created in part because the majority of the EU wanted to move away from its deep reliance on the U.S. dollar."

"The dollar is still essential to global investments and trade," he added, "but the process of de-dollarization is accelerating, mainly because its weaponization has caused an erosion of confidence and alerted emerging economies to take actions to safeguard economic security."

People walk past a banner outside the venue for the 2023 BRICS Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre in Sandton, Johannesburg, on August 20. The BRICS countries, an acronym of the five members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, meet for three days for a summit in Johannesburg from August 22-24. Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images

The U.S. dollar continues to command a significant lead against competitors, comprising some 59 percent of the world's foreign exchange reserves. The euro constitutes around 20 percent, with other currencies such as the Japanese yen, the United Kingdom's pound sterling and the Chinese renminbi in the single digits.

Still, a number of countries, particularly members of BRICS, have called for conducting bilateral trade in their own national currencies, and the idea of a common currency has been increasingly put forth. In April, Lula delivered an impassioned speech at the New Development Bank headquarters in which he railed against the notion that "all countries are forced to do their trade backed by the dollar."

The message has continued to gain traction among existing and prospective BRICS members.

"But that doesn't mean BRICS is anti-West," Shen said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses BRICS summit in South Africa, August 22, 2023. © Sputnik/Grigory Sysoev

He argued that "the zero-sum game narrative developed in the West that the BRICS was created as competition to the G7 or the Global North is very misleading."

The G7, officially the Group of Seven, is a bloc consisting of the world's largest developed economies, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and the U.K., with participation from the European Union as well. The G7 existed as the G8 until 2014, when it was expelled due to its role in the first major outbreak of conflict in Ukraine.

"All BRICS members have important political and economic cooperation with the G7 countries," Shen said. "More importantly, BRICS doesn't want to copy the Western hegemony in mentality and reality, which has brought too many problems to the Global South."

As opposed to the G7, "the BRICS mechanism has met the demands of the Global South, especially marginalized countries, to advance a collective agenda and push the building of a more inclusive, representative, just and fair global architecture," Shen argued.

"BRICS is not an exclusive club or small circle," he added, "but a big family of good partners."

[zvaigzdelasas]

You can’t buy the Seagull in the US. But I bet you wish you could.

A small hatchback around the size of a Mini Cooper, the Seagull is a fast-charging electric car and claims a range of up to 250 miles [...] BYD, its Chinese manufacturer, claims it can go from 30 percent to 80 percent charged in a half-hour using a DC plug. It’s hardly a luxury car but it’s well-equipped, with a power driver’s seat and cruise control. “If I were looking for an inexpensive commuter car … this would be perfect,” veteran car journalist John McElroy said after taking a drive.

The best part? Its base model costs about $10,700 in China.

That’s about a third of the cost of the cheapest EV you can buy in the US. In South America, it’s a little pricier, but still fairly affordable, at under $24,000 for a top-trim version. Even in Europe, you can get an entry-level BYD for under €30,000. These are absolutely screaming deals — exactly the kind of products that could turbocharge our transition away from gas and toward electric vehicles.[...]

The problem for Americans? The Biden administration is hell-bent on preventing you from buying BYD’s product, and if Donald Trump returns to office, he is likely to fight it as well.

That’s because the BYD cars are made in China, and both Biden and Trump are committed to an ultranationalist trade policy meant to keep BYD’s products out. [...] Shipments to Europe have increased astronomically; Chinese companies sold 0.5 percent of EVs in Europe in 2019 but they’re already over 9 percent as of last year. Companies like BYD make cheap, reasonably good-quality cars people are eager to buy.

In 2018, Trump imposed, and Biden has since continued, a special 25 percent tax on Chinese-made autos, on top of the ordinary 2.5 percent tax on foreign-made cars.

That has so far prevented BYD and its Chinese peers from trying to enter the US market. US customer tastes are different enough that Chinese manufacturers would probably prefer to make cars tailored to them — but US policy has been so hostile toward cheap Chinese EVs that so far, the companies haven’t wanted to bother.

So, the result is that we’re left out of the bounty of cheap EV options created by BYD and others. “If you’re a consumer right now, the best place to be right now is China, because you have the best choice of EVs,” Ilaria Mazzocco, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an expert on Chinese EVs, says.[...]

Still, China’s price advantage is big enough that even the extreme Trump-Biden import tax might not be enough to deter companies like BYD from entering the US market. Even with the tariffs, Chinese cars might be cheaper than their rivals. “​​Subsidies most likely won’t be enough; Mr. Biden will need to impose [more] trade restrictions,” climate journalist Robinson Meyer predicted recently. The Biden administration is already making noise about imposing even more draconian taxes or trade restrictions against these vehicles. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has described Chinese-made cars as a national security threat, and recently announced an investigation into the vehicles’ data collection abilities and the possibility they could send movement data to Beijing.

On the one hand, Biden is offering Americans up to $7,500 per vehicle to buy EVs (provided they meet certain made-in-North America rules). On the other hand, he’s imposing massive taxes to keep Americans from buying EVs. It’s a bizarre policy that makes no sense from a climate perspective.[...]

[The Biden Administration] has proven shockingly willing to sabotage its own climate policy if it gets to stick it to the Chinese in the process.

“There’s almost an across-the-board apprehension about Chinese EVs, even though they would make an important contribution to [lower] CO2 emissions,” Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a veteran trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, says.[...]

Realistically, Helveston argues, BYD might not sell something like the Seagull in the US because it’s smaller than most cars Americans buy. They’d probably build plants in the US instead, or its free-trade zone partners Canada and Mexico, to build vehicles tailored for Americans. “If you’re going to really enter a market, you have to make it locally,” Helveston explains. “US automakers like GM sell and make millions of cars in China to sell in China.” BYD would do the same. Indeed, it’s already reportedly scouting sites for factories in Mexico.

If they ever were to set up shop in North America, BYD and other Chinese car companies would still have a major price advantage versus American EVs. They have years more experience and a much more successful track record of building batteries and EVs at low cost.

“Part of why they’re so successful is they’ve been thinking outside the box on cost reduction for a long time,” Mazzocco says. They took the “opposite of the Tesla approach”: starting not with luxury vehicles but ultra-cheap cars fit for taxi fleets and not much else, and constantly improving their early inexpensive prototypes. The result is that Chinese firms have gotten extremely good at making inexpensive EVs, at a time when Ford, by contrast, lost $28,000 for every EV it sold in 2023.[...]

“If you have more affordable EVs in the United States, no matter where you come from,” Gopal says, “that’s better for the climate.”

Still, the Biden administration reportedly wants to restrict Chinese car companies’ access to the US even if they do set up shop in North America. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that the Biden administration is formulating rules that would limit US sales of Chinese-made parts, even if they’re in vehicles ultimately assembled in the US or Mexico.[...]

But the Biden administration’s objections to Chinese EVs are also ideological. The Biden administration represents the victory of a protectionist, trade-skeptical wing of the Democratic party that was relegated to the sidelines during the Clinton and Obama years.[...]

[O]ver 90 percent of American households have a car, and surging car prices were a huge contributor to the 2021–2023 rise in inflation.

Barriers to importing cheap cars make inflation worse and reduce the real incomes of the middle class.

Not only are the administration and other left-leaning institutions opposed to Chinese EVs, but hardline conservatives at places like the Heritage Foundation are calling for outright bans on Chinese EVs as well. Their rationale is security, another theme the Biden administration evokes often. On Thursday, the Commerce Department announced it was beginning a process to “investigate the national security risks of … PRC-manufactured technology in [internet-connected] vehicles.”

6 Mar 24

[yaksha-lover]

TWST x ASOIAF/Medieval AU

Introduction (Part 1)

this au will center around seven different kingdoms, with one representing each dorm. the stories for each kingdom all happen in the same universe, and thus the reader is a different ‘character’ in each part

cw: arranged marriages, political hostages, slightly yandere in malleus’ part, gn!reader

Kingdom #1 - Queendom of Roses

Riddle Rosehearts is the crown prince of this kingdom, with his mother being the current ruling monarch.

You are from another prominent noble family. There have been discussions of a potential arranged marriage to unite the two families, and so you are sent to live in Riddle’s castle to see if this deal can be made.

Riddle is initially internally opposed to the idea of being in an arranged marriage, but as he gets to know you, he begins to realize that the world he’s grown up in - full of rules and empty of care - is far from what he could have with you.

Unfortunately, Riddle’s mother quickly becomes opposed to your union, seeing it as you attempting to change Riddle and pulling him away from her and their ‘perfectly good’ way of life.

It will be a challenge for the two of you, forced to try and convince his mother to still let you marry, while helping Riddle break free from the restrictive life he’s been forced to live.

Kingdom #2 - Sunset Savanna

Leona Kingscholar, the second prince of the kingdom of Sunset Savanna, has studied and worked his entire life to be the best version of himself. A great leader, a strong swordsman, someone politically astute and aware of more than what goes on in his own castle.

Still, no matter what Leona does, he has practically no way to use his skills to better the Sunset Savanna. His brother, the king, has offered him positions on the high council, but his advice is hardly taken seriously.

Practically resigning himself to live a meaningless life, Leona is suddenly faced with a choice when you come to the Sunset Savanna to offer your hand in marriage.

The future heir to the royal kingdom of the Shaftlands, you’re looking to form a strong alliance between your family and Leona’s.

Leona has, so far, resisted any of his brother’s attempts to set up marriages for him, and so Falena thinks it will be the same. He finds himself suprised when Leona accepts your offer.

By marrying into your kingdom, Leona will become the prince consort, and you’ve promised him actual power and influence. The two of you will govern your kingdom together, and Leona will finally be able to do something with his talents.

The fact that you and Leona were once childhood friends certainly helped in his decision to agree as well. Now that you’ve both grown up, Leona is eager to rekindle your relationship. However, he’s up for a challenge when he realizes you aren’t exactly the agreeable child you once were.

Kingdom #3 - Coral Sea

Azul is a famous travelling merchant, known for his ability to grant practically any wish - at a cost, of course.

When you make a deal with him to save your younger sibling, and find yourself unable to hold up your end of the contract, the fine print comes into play: you’ll have to serve as his assistant and travel with him across the seven kingdoms.

Unfortunately, the mask of Azul’s benevolence seems to decay before your eyes, as he forces you to uptake all sorts of demeaning tasks.

However, you find the mask of his charm slipping off just as fast. The real Azul is hardly as confident as he presents, and you think this may finally be your opportunity to take advantage of a flaw and escape this situation - then you start to feel bad.

For the rather strategic and unfeeling side you’ve seen of Azul, returning to his home kingdom of the Coral Sea, you begin to realize by the way he’s treated that his demeanour may be more reactionary than you first believed.

For better or for worse, the two of you are forced to become a team when an unruly customer begins to hunt the both of you down. The two of you escape the kingdom together, but it won’t be long before you’ll have to go on the run again.

‘Partner in crime’ wasn’t exactly on the job (contract) description, but Azul is lucky that you’ve grown fond of him.

Kingdom #4 - Scalding Sands

Kalim is the prince of the Scalding Sands, with Jamil as his retainer.

You are sent by your family to marry Kalim, but it’s Jamil that seems to capture your interest more.

You wed Kalim, but the feelings between you and Jamil boil over until you begin a secret relationship.

Both of you are hesitant - if anyone were to find out, Jamil and his family would suffer endlessly, and you would lose your status, being disowned by your family.

Things only become more confusing after you begin to see Kalim in a different light, thinking that perhaps you sized him up too quickly.

However, Kalim may be less oblivious than you and Jamil both realize, and he may be more okay with the two of you than you think.

While things may still be dangerous if anyone were to find out, things are certainly much easier with the three of you to cover up any rumours.

The relationship between Jamil and Kalim even improves as a result - you come to get Jamil to have a more kindly outlook of Kalim, while being able to make Kalim more aware of Jamil’s needs so he doesn’t continue to be overlooked.

The three of you still have lots of work to do, but as the future of this kingdom, you hope Kalim will do well with both yourself and Jamil behind him.

Kingdom #5 - Shaftlands

Vil Schoenheit is the son of a prominent noble family in the shaftlands.

Known as the ‘Knight of Oleander,’ Vil is famous for both his swordsmanship and his great beauty.

Due to his family’s involvement in a current political skirmish, Vil is taken as a very valuable political hostage.

You are a knight who works for the side that has taken Vil hostage.

You are eventually told to take him and travel back to his family, in order to try and come to a resolution of this conflict.

Vil is eager to escape and get back himself, so that his family will not have to give in to the demands necessary to get him back.

The two of you seem to fight and bicker every second of the trip back, but when it becomes dangerous for the both of you, you’ll both end up seeing a different side of each other.

While Vil has tried to take advantage of your insecurity and the fact that you are often made fun of by the others for your looks to escape, he begins to see a different, attractive side when he sees how truly good you are, so different from the other knights he has met.

Conversely, you’ve only ever thought of Vil as a shallow noble, unable to understand what it’s like to be imperfect in any way. When his beauty is taken away and he feels like he’s left with nothing else, you teach him that he’s so much more than his looks.

If you’re a asoiaf fan, Vil will have a similar story/character arc to Jaime, with dynamic with the reader being that of Jaime/Brienne.

Kingdom #6 - Island of Woe

Idia’s family are nobles who have been outcasted from the main kingdoms because of their perceived threat and treachery.

Idia is sent as a political hostage to stay as the ward of the reigning noble family of the Island of Woe, in order to prove his family’s loyalty and rejoin the rest of the kingdoms.

You are the child of the reigning family, and the one who helps him adapt to his new circumstances as best as possible.

You know he’s hardly responsible for his family’s problems, and you want to lessen Idia’s suffering as much as possible.

When others in your kingdom begin to harass Idia for being a ‘traitor,’ you impulsively decide to announce your marriage to him, making him royalty and therefore practically untouchable to others (unless they are willing to face severe punishment from the royal family).

Idia, while somewhat thankful for your help, is less than thrilled with this development. He’s going to be a royal? Don’t you know what kind of responsibility this means for him? Why would you force him into the spotlight like this?

Even more than that, Idia knows, no matter how sympathetic, you still believe the narrative set by your family that the Shroud family did betray the kingdom, when that’s far from the truth.

When he confronts you with this, you become frustrated with him, stuck in between the truth and the lie your otherwise kind family has always told you.

Neither of you are able to give up loyalty to your families, and this makes for a very difficult marriage indeed.

Kingdom #7 - Briar Valley

Malleus, the future ruler of the most powerful of all the kingdoms, has nobles travelling to Briar Valley from all over the world to ask for his hand in marriage.

To the annoyance of his grandmother, he turns down every proposal. Partially because he knows they only wish for his throne, that they do not know him nor do they really care to…and partially because of you.

You are part of his Kingsguard, alongside Silver and Sebek, trained in both swordsmanship and magic to keep him safe at all costs.

Unlike your fellow knights, you actually approach and converse with him. Perhaps foolishly, if he’s being honest. You would hardly have known his temper beforehand; many think him to be cold and quite scary.

You already spent time around him when it was your rotation to guard his current whereabouts instead of the castle perimeter, but you begin to do so even more when he requests that you stay on this rotation.

Flattered and thankful, you remain oblivious to the true reason Malleus desires you close to him at all times. It would be unthinkable for anyone of your station to believe that Malleus would have any kind of romantic interest in you.

Thus, you continue to remain unconvinced of the prince’s casual touches, of the way he favours you above all his other guards.

When you begin to reciprocate his feelings but believe them to surely be unrequited, you request to be dismissed from his service, it being unprofessional and too difficult to continue with your love for him.

Malleus, also unaware of your feelings, takes this as you trying to escape him. He knows you’re confused but in time you’ll see; he’ll take care of you, just like he’s always wanted.

You just need to stay in the dungeon until you’ve gotten over this little tantrum of yours. He keeps your cell decorated with luxuries and comfort that you’d never experienced in your time as one of his guards, not wanting you to suffer unnecessarily.

When you wisen up and decide to be his, all will be well again - but you won’t be returning to your previous position.

[sayruq]

The Vietnamese leadership measured the impact of its military actions by their political effects rather than by conventional military measures such as men and materiel lost or territory gained. Thus Henry Kissinger’s 1969 lament: “We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition; our opponents aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.” That logic has Jon Alterman of the not-exactly-dovish Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., to see Israel as being at considerable risk of losing to Hamas: Hamas’s concept of military victory…is all about driving long-term political outcomes. Hamas sees victory not in one year or five, but from engaging with decades of struggle that increase Palestinian solidarity and increase Israel’s isolation. In this scenario, Hamas rallies a besieged population in Gaza around it in anger and helps collapse the Palestinian Authority government by ensuring Palestinians see it even more as a feckless adjunct to Israeli military authority. Meanwhile, Arab states move strongly away from normalization, the Global South aligns strongly with the Palestinian cause, Europe recoils at the Israeli army’s excesses, and an American debate erupts over Israel, destroying the bipartisan support Israel has enjoyed here since the early 1970s.

[usafphantom2]

There is nothing that amuses me more than a secret inside of a secret.

Here’s an article that I wrote that my friend Dario Leone owner of Aviation Geek Club shared about the YF 12 and the secret SR 71 tail number 951.

Most people when they think of the YF 12 think of it as an experimental airplane that never really flew, but that is wrong. It did fly for many years. The last flight was in 1979 when it was flown to the Air Force Museum near Dayton, Ohio you can find it next to the XB-70.

The so-called YF-12C was really the SR-71A 61-7951, modified with a bogus tail number 06937 belonging to an A-12.

Taken in 1975, the interesting photos in this post show NASA Blackbirds carrying the ” Cold wall” heat transfer pod on a pylon beneath the forward fuselage.

The Blackbirds portrayed in these photos are usually referred to as YF-12s, but actually one of them was an SR-71 as Linda Sheffield Miller (Col Richard (Butch) Sheffield’s daughter, Col. Sheffield was an SR-71 Reconnaissance Systems Officer), who runs Born into the Wild Blue Yonder Habubrats Facebook page, told to The Aviation Geek Club: ‘In case anybody asked the pictures with the two NASA Blackbirds the one on the top is a YF-12 but the one on the bottom is an SR-71!

‘Another interesting thing about those pictures is that NASA was not allowed to have an SR-71 but they did and they passed it off as a YF-12!

In fact, the “YF-12C” was a then-secret SR-71A (serial no. 64-17951, the second production SR-71A) given the NASA tail no. 60-6937. The reason for this bit of subterfuge lay in the fact that NASA while flying the YF-12A interceptor version of the aircraft, was not allowed to possess the strategic reconnaissance version for some time. The bogus tail number actually belonged to a Lockheed A-12 (serial no. 60-6937), but the existence of the A-12 remained classified until 1982. The tail number 06937 was selected because it followed the sequence of tail numbers assigned to the three existing YF-12A aircraft: 06934, 06935, and 06936. Isn’t that amazing?’

The Coldwell project, supported by Langley Research Center, consisted of a stainless steel tube equipped with thermocouples and pressure sensors. A special insulating coating covered the tube, which was chilled with liquid nitrogen.

Given that the US Air Force (USAF) needed technical assistance to get the latest reconnaissance version of the A-12 family, the SR-71A, fully operational, the service offered NASA the use of two YF-12A aircraft, 60-6935 and 60-6936.

Eventually, with 146 flights between Dec. 11, 1969, and Nov. 7, 1979, 935 became the workhorse of the program while the second YF-12A, 936, made 62 flights. Given that this aircraft was lost in a non-fatal crash on Jun. 24, 1971, it was replaced by the so-called YF-12C SR-71A 61-7951, modified with YF-12A inlets and engines and a bogus tail number 06937.

The SR-71 differed from the YF-12A in that the YF-12A had a round nose while the SR-71 had its chine carried forward to the nose of the airplane. The SR-71 was longer, nearly 8 feet longer as it had an extra fuel tank that the YF 12 didn’t have. There were other differences in internal and external configuration, but the two aircraft shared common inlet designs, structural concepts, and subsystems. Also of note the SR 71C is really a combination of a static display of the SR 71 for the front half and the back half is the crashed YF-12!

In my study of all the Blackbirds, I have found other secrets inside of secrets. Such as the test SR-71 plane the 955. Everyone was told often that this airplane never left the United States, but that is not true.

When it comes to reconnaissance airplanes and War, even if it was a Cold War, Rearranging the facts is fair.

There will always be mystery in the SR 71 program.

Don’t believe that all of the secrets have been told.

I know that is not true.

Linda Sheffield, Daughter of a Habu

@Habubrats71 via X

Tap Title bar to view👇

[mariacallous]

ADRÉ, Chad—Abdussalam Mustapha and his friends used to play soccer for hours after school in El Geneina, a city in the West Darfur region of Sudan. But the 10-year-old can’t play anymore.

In April 2023, war came to Sudan. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary wing of Sudan’s army, allied with other militia groups to perpetrate an ethnic cleansing campaign against non-Arab populations in and around El Geneina. Abdussalam and his entire extended family were forced to flee their homes on foot late at night, carrying only what they could hold in their hands.

On the way, the group was attacked. Abdussalam clutched the hand of his 5-year-old brother and ran. Suddenly, he felt a searing pain, and blood began pouring out of a gunshot wound in his stomach. The little fingers gripping his hand went slack. His brother had been shot in the head and died instantly. Now he was seated next to his mother on the floor of the family’s tented shelter in a refugee settlement in Chad.

Nearly 2 million Sudanese people have escaped to neighboring countries since the war started, and approximately 600,000 of them have fled to Chad. About 88 percent of the refugees are women and children. Some new arrivals have physical wounds. Almost all have emotional scars. After they cross the border, they are dependent on United Nations agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to provide water, food, shelter, medical care, and basic supplies, such as soap, blankets, and buckets.

Despite efforts to raise money to respond to the crisis, the international community is falling far short of fundraising goals. On April 15, one year after the start of the war, world leaders and humanitarians met in Paris for an event intended to raise funds to support all U.N. agencies and aid organizations involved in the Sudan conflict response. $2.7 billion would go toward helping people in Sudan and an additional $1.4 billion would go toward supporting five refugee-hosting neighbors: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, the Central African Republic, and Chad. Of the total $4.1 billion required, only $2 billion was committed in Paris, an amount that was “really worrying” when considering that the amount of money that actually comes in is always less than what is committed at a pledging event, said Harpinder Collacott, executive director of Mercy Corps Europe.

Around the world, the need for humanitarian funding is outstripping the money that can be raised. Experts say that the problem is the funding model itself. A small handful of donor countries determine who and what gets the funding, which means that funding is based on the generosity of governments with political agendas. The system is voluntary, and governments sometimes make commitments that they don’t follow through on. Some crises captivate public attention more than others, and are therefore better funded, experts say. Others, like protracted conflicts in African countries, receive scant media attention and far less funding.

“I always go back to the [idea of the] tin can. Government and the UN, on behalf of the people in crisis, have to ask every single time for money,” said Michelle Strucke, director of the humanitarian agenda at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. In terms of which crises get funding, “it almost seems whimsical from the outside.” The results are anything but.

The perpetrators murdered 38 members of Abdussalam’s family that night. “We were all running for our lives,” 30-year-old Mounira Oumar Mahamat Abdallah, Abdussalam’s mother, said tearfully. “Abdussalam was also shot. And was found by other people.” Those people brought Abdussalam to his mother. She hoisted him onto her back and started walking west. Abdussalam was delirious, drifting in and out of consciousness. The following day, they reached Adré, the Chadian border town that has become the busiest crossing point for refugees fleeing Darfur.

Abdussalam required multiple surgeries, so the family stayed in Adré while Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), a nongovernmental organization that provides medical care in crises, operated on him six times. MSF has established a large clinic in the Adré refugee settlement, providing everything from medical checkups and vaccinations to mental health counseling for 300 to 500 refugees per day. It has also embedded in the Chadian government hospital in Adré, where surgeons can perform lifesaving surgery on patients like Abdussalam.

MSF’s medical and humanitarian programs in eastern Chad had expenses of approximately $22 million in 2023 and have a planned budget of about $41.5 million in 2024. To fill the gap left by other underfunded U.N. agencies and NGOs, MSF has rapidly deployed across the region, digging latrines, drilling boreholes, and serving hundreds of thousands of Sudanese as well as local Chadians. “We’ve responded massively in eastern Chad because the needs are acute, but we’re overstretched and carrying a heavier load than we should within the humanitarian aid sector,” said Avril Benoît, executive director of MSF USA.

At MSF’s pediatric ward in the hospital, dozens of emaciated babies and toddlers receive treatment for severe acute malnutrition, which affects brain development and increases mortality in children under five years. Despite the best efforts of doctors and nurses, three to four of these children die each week from malnutrition, said Sachin Desai, an MSF pediatrician.

Malnutrition has become one of the top concerns of humanitarians working in Chad. Before the war, Sudan was considered the “breadbasket” of Africa: Farming accounted for 60 percent of total national exports in 2022. But scorching, dry weather combined with missed harvests due to conflict means there is almost no food available in parts of Sudan today. Nearly 18 million Sudanese are facing acute hunger, and more than 5 million are experiencing emergency hunger levels in the worst conflict-affected areas, the World Food Program (WFP) says.

Today, both hunger and violence are driving migration. Once refugees reach Chad, they are registered and given WFP food ration cards. WFP organizes massive monthly food distributions, serving between 15,000 to 20,000 people per day. The April distribution was delayed by several weeks due to lack of funding, which also affected the quantity of the food the refugees received. They should get 2,100 calories per refugee per day, but in April, they got only 1,700 calories.

On a scorching April morning, thousands of women wearing colorful laffayas, traditional Sudanese dresses, sit patiently in long lines to receive their food rations. Maryam Ibrahim Saif Addine, stands out in a tattered black laffaya. The 35-year-old lost her husband to violence in Sudan and depends on rations to feed her seven children. Addine carefully measures out her portion of oil, beans, soap, salt, and cereals, which she will grind into flour to make porridge.

“I came here to wait for food early in the morning. I didn’t even take tea,” Addine said. “It’s still not enough. Sometimes, we have to sell our food to get some money and buy other things.”

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are now camped out in Adré along the border with Sudan. The newest arrivals have no shelter and sleep beneath scarfs propped up with sticks. They are exposed to the harsh desert elements, and lack food, water, medical care, and basic goods. With the rainy season fast approaching, aid workers say the conditions are ripe for a compounded humanitarian disaster. The rains will destroy the flimsy shelters, wash out the roads, and bring malarial mosquitoes, cholera, and other diseases. Getting refugees into semi-permanent shelters as quickly as possible is crucial to ensuring their safety.

Between July and December 2023, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) relocated approximately 150,000 refugees from Adré to newly established settlements inland from the border.

“Finally, I was seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Adré was starting to look again like a normal place,” said Laura Lo Castro, UNHCR’s Chad country director. Then, new waves of refugees began fleeing fresh outbreaks of violence. “Today, it looks the same as it did last July,” she said.

Today, another 170,000 refugees in Adré are waiting to be relocated. UNHCR has moved only 30,000 refugees in 2024 because of budget constraints. The agency wants to open a new site and relocate another 50,000 refugees, but it would cost approximately $17 million to build the necessary housing, water and sanitation infrastructure, and schools. “To be completely honest with you, I have no money to do that,” Lo Castro said.

Lo Castro is familiar with humanitarian emergencies. She helped refugees fleeing the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Still, Lo Castro said the refugee crisis in Chad is one of the worst-funded emergencies she has ever worked on. The 2024 Sudan refugee response plan is only 8 percent funded. For Chad alone, $630 million is needed, but its part is only 6 percent funded. These numbers are in line with other major crises in the region: the Democratic Republic of Congo is also 8 percent funded, South Sudan is only 5 percent funded.

The problem is the international humanitarian funding model itself, which emerged from the ashes of World War II, when powerful nations came together to establish rules and institutions to regulate the global monetary system. The model, which was intended to help rebuild Europe, gave concentrated power to key stakeholder countries. Today, most international humanitarian responses are bankrolled by these influential top donors, including the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.

“When you’ve got bilateral donors funding international humanitarian response, it’s always dependent on the political priorities of the donors on which one they will give to rather than others,” Collacott of Mercy Corps said.

The money often goes to the conflicts that suck up the most media attention. “When it bleeds it leads,” Strucke of CSIS explained. “If it’s a really high-profile conflict, or it’s a sudden onset disaster, like a catastrophic hurricane or earthquake situation, those get a lot of immediate attention, and that means the response plans are typically better funded.”

Inflation, rising costs, an increase in climate related disasters, and an increase in protracted conflicts around the world have created greater demand for humanitarian funding than ever before. The money feels less in part because of inflation and also because leading humanitarian donors are changing how they are using their dollars for assistance. Strucke said that some countries are repurposing parts of their budget that they would have used for development assistance towards border security instead. “And they think of it all as migration, but they’re actually doing a very dramatic shift in where the money is going,” Strucke said.

Diversification is key to improving the model, Collacott said. Receiving funding from more emerging market governments, such as India and Indonesia, private sector companies, and international NGOs could help combat the issue of not enough funding being concentrated in the hands of a few agenda setting countries. Funding must also be proactive, rather than reactive.

“We know every year there are going to be at least three new major global crises that we’re going to be fundraising for,” Collacott said. “We don’t want to be seeking funding after the crisis hits, but already have funding secured.”

Collacott floats the idea of a new humanitarian funding model based on three principles: all contribute, all benefit, all decide. “Until you make the connection that something happening miles away has a knock-on effect on your shores, people won’t see that this is a global conflict,” she said. “Crisis financing needs to be built on global public good, or we’re going to see the world destabilizing.”

[nasa]

Calling Long-Distance: 10 Stellar Moments in 2022 for Space Communications and Navigation

Just like your phone needs Wi-Fi or data services to text or call – NASA spacecraft need communication services.

Giant antennas on Earth and a fleet of satellites in space enable missions to send data and images back to our home planet and keep us in touch with our astronauts in space. Using this data, scientists and engineers can make discoveries about Earth, the solar system, and beyond. The antennas and satellites make up our space communications networks: the Near Space Network and Deep Space Network.

Check out the top ten moments from our space comm community: 

1. Space communication networks helped the Artemis I mission on its historic journey to the Moon. From the launch pad to the Moon and back, the Near Space Network and Deep Space Network worked hand-in-hand to seamlessly support Artemis I. These networks let mission controllers send commands up to the spacecraft and receive important spacecraft health data, as well as incredible images of the Moon and Earth.

The Pathfinder Technology Demonstration 3 spacecraft with hosted TeraByte InfraRed Delivery (TBIRD) payload communicating with laser links down to Earth. Credit: NASA/Ames Research Center

2. Spacecraft can range in size – from the size of a bus to the size of a cereal box. In May 2022, we launched a record-breaking communication system the size of a tissue box. TBIRD showcases the benefits of a laser communications system, which uses infrared light waves rather than radio waves to communicate more data at once. Just like we have upgraded from 3G to 4G to 5G on our phones, we are upgrading its space communications capabilities by implementing laser comms!

3. The Deep Space Network added a new 34-meter (111-foot) antenna to continue supporting science and exploration missions investigating our solar system and beyond. Deep Space Station 53 went online in February 2022 at our Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex. It is the fourth of six antennas being added to expand the network’s capacity.

4. You’ve probably seen in the news that there are a lot of companies working on space capabilities. The Near Space Network is embracing the aerospace community’s innovative work and seeking out multiple partnerships. In 2022, we met with over 300 companies in hopes of beginning new collaborative efforts and increasing savings.

5. Similar to TBIRD, we're developing laser comms for the International Space Station. The terminal will show the benefits of laser comms while using a new networking technique called High Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking that routes data four times faster than current systems. This year, engineers tested and proved the capability in a lab.

6. In 2021, we launched the James Webb Space Telescope, a state-of-the-art observatory to take pictures of our universe. This year, the Deep Space Network received the revolutionary first images of our solar system from Webb. The telescope communicates with the network’s massive antennas at three global complexes in Canberra, Australia; Madrid, Spain; and Goldstone, California.

7. Just like we use data services on our phone to communicate, we'll do the same with future rovers and astronauts exploring the Moon. In 2022, the Lunar LTE Studies project, or LunarLiTES, team conducted two weeks of testing in the harsh depths of the Arizona desert, where groundbreaking 4G LTE communications data was captured in an environment similar to the lunar South Pole. We're using this information to determine the best way to use 4G and 5G networking on the Moon.

8. A new Near Space Network antenna site was unveiled in Matjiesfontein, South Africa. NASA and the South African Space Agency celebrated a ground-breaking at the site of a new comms antenna that will support future Artemis Moon missions. Three ground stations located strategically across the globe will provide direct-to-Earth communication and navigation capabilities for lunar missions.

9. Quantum science aims to better understand the world around us through the study of extremely small particles. April 14, 2022, marked the first official World Quantum Day celebration, and we participated alongside other federal agencies and the National Quantum Coordination Office. From atomic clocks to optimizing laser communications, quantum science promises to greatly improve our advances in science, exploration, and technology.

10. We intentionally crashed a spacecraft into an asteroid to test technology that could one day be used to defend Earth from asteroids. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test, or DART, mission successfully collided with the asteroid Dimorphos at a rate of 4 miles per second (6.1 kilometers per second), with real-time video enabled by the Deep Space Network. Alongside communications and navigation support, the global network also supports planetary defense by tracking near-Earth objects.

We look forward to many more special moments connecting Earth to space in the coming year.

Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space!

[antifainternational]

Genuine question here.

If being Anti-fascist, yet trying to dictate what others can do or vilifying / condoning violence towards people who have different views, is that not a derivative of fascism? Trying to dictate what others say or do because you believe it to be in everyone else’s best interest? Although we are all individuals with our own goals and beliefs.

As it seems you are forcibly trying to oppress the opposition or people with alternative views even if they do not forcibly oppress others but wish to live their life in their own ways. As you believe what you want is in everyone’s best interest but it is almost impossible to be completely neutral and not have some sort of bias due to your own beliefs and upbringing.

Ah yes, the old “anti-fascists = fascists” line of reasoning.

We're going (very generously) assume that you are being genuine and are just this ignorant about fascism and anti-fascism, Anon, because we know a lot of people out there are. First off: you seem to think fascism = "telling people what to do" or "being violent." That's like saying that fascists often wear pants, so wearing pants = fascist. Yes, fascists are fond of "telling people what to do" and "being violent." So is every other state and governing structure in existence. If that's all that fascism was, then every society with both rules + a way to enforce those rules (which inevitably falls back on violence/"forcible oppression" = "derivative of fascism," rendering the category of fascism meaningless and, quite frankly, insulting the victims of fascism by equating what they suffered with, say, speed limits. So from jump, you clearly don't have a useful understanding of what fascism is. Not to worry, Anon, a lot of people don't and we can help you with that. Let's start with this poster from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

If reading is your thing, we’d also recommend The Anatomy of Fascism by Columbia University historian Robert O. Paxton; if reading is not your jam this video by Philosophy Tube is a useful starting point for understanding what fascism actually is. If you’re going to espouse your opinions about fascism and anti-fascism, Anon, these learning resources are not optional for you. Next, let’s talk about violence. If you think the fascists’ take on/use of violence is the same thing as anti-fascists’ take on/use of violence, you’re once again demonstrating a real ignorance on the matter.

For fascists, violence isn’t just a tactic or strategy; it is the tactic/strategy. Fascists consistently and repeatedly glorify, prioritize, and valorize violence as a legitimate and desirable means to accomplish their goals. By contrast, violence employed by anti-fascist is always in defense of ourselves and our communities. Anti-fascist violence is typically employed as a last resort and is typically proportional to the threat being confronted. A few examples to illustrate: 1) The Proud Boys reserve the highest level/rank within their gang/terror group for those members willing to commit acts of violence.

We defy you to name and provide evidence of an anti-fascist group that does this.

2) The Center for Strategic and International Studies looked at 900 acts of politically motivated violence in the US that resulted in deaths. Here’s what they found when they compared violence committed by antifa, the left in general, Islamic extremists, and the far right:

As you can see, the overwhelming number of deaths from political violence is caused by far-right extremism. 3) Maybe you heard about the “violent” Black Lives Matter protests “burning down our cities” a while back. Researchers at Harvard looked at over 7300 BLM protests and discovered that less than 4% of those protests saw any vandalism or property damage and in less than 3% was anyone injured. In that 3% of protests where someone was injured, as the researchers note, “when there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.”

Now let’s talk about your mischaracterization of fascist ideology as a “differing view” or “opinion.” Let’s be absolutely clear that the “viewpoint” or “opinion” of fascists is that people who differ from the fascists in terms of ethnicity/race, religion, language spoken, geographic origin, migration status, gender or sexual identity, or disability should be dehumanized, scapegoated, persecuted, driven from the community, and eliminated, preferably by force.  The viewpoint/opinion of anti-fascists, in contrast, is that people should be allowed to live their lives free of fear of persecution and violence being directed at them because of their ethnicity/race, religion, language spoken, geographic origin, migration status, gender or sexual identity, or disability. The anti-fascist position is captured by the slogan Respect Existence of Expect Resistance. We’d go so far as to argue that the fascist position isn’t even an opinion because (as any first-year philosophy student could tell you) opinions must be defensible; something the fascist position clearly is not. Look Anon, if fascists were arguing about whether pineapple belongs on pizza or how much tax money libraries should receive, we’d happily debate them on those opinions or viewpoints. But whether or not certain groups of people deserve basic human rights or if they should instead be persecuted, forcibly removed, enslaved, and/or murdered is not a matter up for debate and people trying to spread that ideology must be stopped. If you think that they should instead be defeating in the free market of ideas through vigorous debate, please consider a couple what Michael J. Dolan succinctly explained; that "when you argue that fascists should be defeated in debate what you're actually suggesting is that vulnerable minorities should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist and that at no point should the debate be considered over and won." If fascists want to “live their lives in their own ways,” they should fuck off to some part of the planet no one else lives in or holds claim to and do it there (maybe Elon Musk go lead them on a Mars colonization project?); so long as they continue attempt to do it in communities other people live in, they pose a clear threat to those communities and need to be shut down by any means necessary.

[adropofhumanity]

The US military says it has spent about $1 billion in an unsustainable campaign to fight the Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces in the Red Sea, the Wall Street Journal reported on 15 June.

Since November, Yemeni forces have targeted Israeli-linked commercial ships traveling through the Red Sea, the world's most important commercial sea route, in response to Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza.

After US and UK naval warships began carrying out attacks on the Yemeni navy and sites in the capital, Sanaa, Yemeni forces began targeting warships as well.

The US Navy has conducted more than 450 strikes and intercepted 200 drones and missiles, in an attempt to contain Yemen's operations, that US officials worry is not sustainable.

"Their supply of weapons from Iran is cheap and highly sustainable, but ours is expensive, our supply chains are crunched, and our logistics tails are long," said Emily Harding of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "We are playing whack-a-mole, and they are playing a long game."

The Wall Street Journal provided details of a Yemeni operation targeting a US naval destroyer on 9 January, one of 80 operations overall, which illustrated the difficulties US personnel face.

"It was just after 9 p.m. when radar operators aboard this U.S. Navy destroyer in the Red Sea spotted a tiny arrow on their screens: a missile hurtling toward them at five times the speed of sound," The Journal reported.

"The crew of the warship with 300 sailors aboard had just seconds to shoot it down. As the projectile closed in, the Laboon launched an interceptor from silos beneath its deck, destroying the incoming missile in flight."

Yemeni forces launched 18 drones and cruise missiles, along with the ballistic missile, at four American destroyers, a US aircraft carrier, and a UK warship throughout the 12-hour battle that day.

[whatisonthemoon]

The U.S. Global Strategy Council

Excerpted from The "Terrorism” Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror by Edward S. Herman and Gerry O'Sullivan

The council was incorporated in 1981 as a "tax-exempt educational research foundation." Former deputy director of the CIA Ray S. Cline is currently its chair (with the aid of co-chairs Jeane Kirkpatrick, Morris Leibman, J. William Middendorf, Donald Rumsfeld, and retired Lieutenant General Robert L. Schweitzer). Cline also serves as co-director, with Yonah Alexander, of their program on the topic "Low-Intensity Conflict and Terrorism."

Among those who have served on the council's board of directors and "strategy board" are Arnaud de Borchgrave and retired General E. David Woellner. Woellner became president of the Moon organization, CAUSA World Services, in January 1985 (to be succeeded in that post by Philip Sanchez, Nixon's ambassador to Honduras and Ford's ambassador to Colombia). The Unification Church's input into USGSC is impressive, and the organization is regarded by investigative journalists Louis Wolf and Fred Clarkson as "yet another CAUSA operation."  Current board members include L. Francis Bouchey;" Robert Pfaltzgraaf of the IFPA; Lawrence Sulz, affiliated with the Hale Foundation (see below); Richard Pipes of Harvard University and the Heritage Foundation; and a large set of retired military officers also affiliated with ASC (Moorer, Graham, Lemnitzer, Stilwell, Wedemeyer, etc.).

The aims of the Global Strategy Council are to promote "global strategic planning" and "to act as a catalyst to help define national strategy" along the lines desired by its hard-line-right board and officers. In accord with these aims it sponsors strategy formulation and outreach programs, as well as research and conferences on various international issues. Its Caribbean and Latin American studies director is Roger W. Fontaine, former Latin America specialist for the Reagan National Security Council, also affiliated elsewhere with the Moon system and Bouchey's Council for Inter-American Security.  We mentioned earlier the program on low-intensity conflict and terrorism co-directed by Cline and Alexander. Most revealing, perhaps is the program on Geopolitics of Southern Africa, directed by Stephen A. Halper, a former operative in the Nixon White House and Ray Cline's son-in-law, who was involved in the Debategate scandal, brought to light during House hearings in 1984. The featured political subdivision of the program is "African Insurgencies Supported by the Soviet Union."

The council links together individuals connected with the Unification Church and other far-right operations (ASC, CIAS, and IFPA), to CSIS and the omnipresent Yonah Alexander. It has former officials Cline, Kirkpatrick, and Rumsfeld to lend respectability-to its terrorism studies. With this political cast, that South African viewpoints would be put in the frame of Soviet support and insurgent "terrorism" is a foregone conclusion.

Related

CSPAN video: Philippines Update from the U.S. Global Strategy Council on October 13, 1987, pushing for stronger counterinsurgency efforts against the New Peoples Army, leading to years where thousands were killed. These anti-communist murders continue, taking the lives of clergy, activists, teachers, social workers, and anybody who speaks up for justice and human rights.

On Arnaud de Borchgrave, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington Times and Friend of Gladio Terrorists The WACL and CAUSA’s Role in the Ruthless Violence of US-Philippines Counterinsurgency

CAUSA and Colonia Dignidad and more FBI FOIA documents reveal that the Moonies funded “85% of WACL” and that Sun Myung Moon sought to “discretely” fund “radical anti-communist groups” around the world Unification Church, WACL and CAUSA Were Involved In CIA Operations

It is reasonable to believe that Moon was involved in the drug trade into the 2000s

What Is Sun Myung Moon’s And Hak Ja Han’s Legacy? On Joseph Churba and the International Security Council (ISC)

[covid-safer-hotties]

Hospital caseload strain may have contributed to 1 in 5 COVID deaths - Published Sept 10, 2024

Strain from hospital caseloads played a role in one in five COVID-19 deaths, even after facilities had weathered and learned from earlier virus waves, researchers based at the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Center reported today.

One of their goals was to examine if fatal outcomes for COVID patients varied by different hospital types, from larger, more advanced facilities to smaller hospitals. Reporting in the Annals of Internal Medicine, they found that high caseloads had a negative impact on survival across all four hospital types they looked at.

Using information from a large database of hospitals, they analyzed COVID patient load and outcomes at 620 hospitals during the Delta variant wave, which occurred from June to December 2021. The team classified hospitals into four types: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) capable, ones with multiple intensive care units (ICUs), facilities with a single large ICU, and those with one small ICU.

They also used a validated surge index that factored in severity of COVID caseload relative to hospital bed capacity. They examined how the surges affected hospital deaths and discharges to hospice.

Impact seen across all facility types Despite improvements in patient care by the time the Delta wave hit, the probability of death rose 5.51% (95% confidence interval, 4.53% to 6.50%) per surge index unit increase, which suggests that the workload strain was a contributing factor in one in five COVID deaths.

The authors noted that the findings held steady across the four facility types, even when adjusting for factors such as patient transfers. They said their investigation is the first to examine the effect of hospital type and infrastructure on the quality of care for COVID patients amid caseload stress.

Study findings yield insights for ongoing staff shortages at US hospitals and underscore the importance of minimizing caseload surges during future public health crises.

"These findings underscore the importance of strategic redistribution of patients between hospitals during public health emergencies, including routine surges, so U.S. hospitals already struggling amid staffing crisis have mechanisms for decompression and personnel redistribution," the group wrote.

Study Link: www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M24-0869

[chamerionwrites]

Trump-administration officials insisted for a whole year that family separations weren’t happening. Finally, in the spring of 2018, they announced the implementation of a separation policy with great fanfare—as if one had not already been under way for months. Then they declared that separating families was not the goal of the policy, but an unfortunate result of prosecuting parents who crossed the border illegally with their children. Yet a mountain of evidence shows that this is explicitly false: Separating children was not just a side effect, but the intent. Instead of working to reunify families after parents were prosecuted, officials worked to keep them apart for longer.

Over the past year and a half, I have conducted more than 150 interviews and reviewed thousands of pages of internal government documents, some of which were turned over to me only after a multiyear lawsuit. These records show that as officials were developing the policy that would ultimately tear thousands of families apart, they minimized its implications so as to obscure what they were doing. Many of these officials now insist that there had been no way to foresee all that would go wrong. But this is not true. The policy’s worst outcomes were all anticipated, and repeated internal and external warnings were ignored. Indeed, the records show that almost no logistical planning took place before the policy was initiated.

It’s been said of other Trump-era projects that the administration’s incompetence mitigated its malevolence; here, the opposite happened. A flagrant failure to prepare meant that courts, detention centers, and children’s shelters became dangerously overwhelmed; that parents and children were lost to each other, sometimes many states apart; that four years later, some families are still separated—and that even many of those who have been reunited have suffered irreparable harm.

It is easy to pin culpability for family separations on the anti-immigration officials for which the Trump administration is known. But these separations were also endorsed and enabled by dozens of members of the government’s middle and upper management: Cabinet secretaries, commissioners, chiefs, and deputies who, for various reasons, didn’t voice concern even when they should have seen catastrophe looming; who trusted “the system” to stop the worst from happening; who reasoned that it would not be strategic to speak up in an administration where being labeled a RINO or a “squish”—nicknames for those deemed insufficiently conservative—could end their career; who assumed that someone else, in some other department, must be on top of the problem; who were so many layers of abstraction away from the reality of screaming children being pulled out of their parent’s arms that they could hide from the human consequences of what they were doing.

Congress, too, deserves blame, because it failed for decades to fill a legislative vacuum that anti-immigration officials moved to exploit. For too long, an overworked and underequipped border-police force has been left to determine crucial social, economic, and humanitarian policy. It should be no surprise that this police force reached for the most ready tool at its disposal: harsher punishments.

What happened in the months that led up to the implementation of Zero Tolerance—the Trump administration’s initiative that separated thousands of families—should be studied by future generations of organizational psychologists and moral philosophers. It raises questions that have resonance far beyond this one policy: What happens when personal ambition and moral qualm clash in the gray anonymity of a bureaucracy? When rationalizations become denial or outright delusion? When one’s understanding of the line between right and wrong gets overridden by a boss’s screaming insistence?

In reporting this story, I talked with scores of Trump-administration officials whose work was in some way connected to the policy. Very few were willing to speak on the record, for fear that it would affect their employment prospects. A number of them told me they were particularly nervous because they had children to think about and college tuitions to pay. During interviews, they asked to call me back so that they could run and pick their children up from school; they sat their children down in front of homework or toys so that we could speak privately in their homes. “Can you hold on? My daughter is about to get in her car to leave and I need to kiss her goodbye,” one government official said as she was in the middle of describing a spreadsheet of hundreds of complaints from parents searching for their children. I listened as the mother and daughter said “I love you” back and forth to each other at least five times before the official returned and our conversation continued.

Recently, I called Nazario Jacinto-Carrillo, a 36-year-old farmer from the western highlands of Guatemala whom I first wrote about in 2018. Back then, with his field barren and the price of crops stagnant, his family had been straining to survive on the $4 a week he brought home during harvest season. Most days, he and his wife went hungry; some days, his two young children did too. They were destitute and felt unsafe in their community. So that spring, he and his 5-year-old daughter, Filomena, set off for the United States. A “coyote” guided them to the American border near San Diego. All they had to do was walk across.

Things didn’t go as planned. As six Border Patrol agents surrounded them, Filomena grabbed onto one of Nazario’s legs, as did another girl her age with whom they were traveling. The girls screamed as the agents pulled the three apart, one of them holding Nazario by the neck. Nazario eventually agreed to be deported back to Guatemala because, he said, a federal agent told him that if he did so, Filomena would be returned to him within two weeks. This false promise was made to many separated parents, who were later portrayed by the administration as having heartlessly chosen to leave their children alone in the United States. “I would never abandon my daughter,” Nazario told me when we first spoke. More than a month had passed since Nazario’s deportation, and Filomena still wasn’t home.

Nazario’s voice cracked as he interrupted my questions with his own. When will Filomena be returned to Guatemala? How many weeks? What number of days? When is the United States government going to give back the children it kidnapped? What does it want with them? They’re children.

It would take nearly three months, a team of lawyers, the sustained attention of journalists, and a federal court order for Filomena to be reunited with her family. By then she was 6; she’d celebrated a birthday in U.S. government custody.

When I called Nazario again recently, his children were still hungry and his family still felt unsafe. I told him that four years later, some parents still don’t have their children back. “I honestly don’t know what to say,” he said. When I asked him if Filomena, now 9 years old, thinks back on what she experienced in the U.S., he handed her the phone so she could answer herself. She eked out a few words that I couldn’t understand and then went silent and handed the phone back to her father.

“Sorry,” he told me. “She’s crying.”

[zvaigzdelasas]

not that i have any supporting evidence necessarily but i strongly believe that the increased war hawkishness on china from the west (especially wrt taiwan) is because china is on track to become a 'high income country' (by world bank standards) probably by next year, if not by 2025 at the latest and well. we can't have that!

Oh yeah no doubt, no high flung conspiracy theory needed abt that whatsoever lmao... 中国制造2025 ["made in china 2025"] is not only about becoming a "high income country" but specifically to fully develop a high-added-value production capacity. That's scary to the west bc thats supposed to be our part of the value chain!!! If you dont need to call on the Big Brains of the West to make your complex fancy tech products, and you can get that done in the same place that has most of the world’s actual productive capacity.....then why should anyone care about that peculiar little asian peninsula commonly known as "Europe" (or its friend across the pond)?

To quote that wiki article:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. described MIC 2025 as an "initiative to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry", which is directly inspired by Germany's proposed Industry 4.0 strategy.[1] It is a comprehensive undertaking to move China's manufacturing base higher up the value chain[25] and become a major manufacturing power in direct competition with the United States.[26][27][...]

In 2018, the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think tank, stated that MIC 2025, with its government-sponsored subsidies, is a "threat to U.S. technological leadership".[48] The Li Keqiang government maintained that MIC 2025 aligns with the country's World Trade Organization obligations.[49] On 15 June 2018, the Trump administration imposed higher tariffs on Chinese goods, escalating trade tensions between China and the U.S. The tariffs primarily apply to manufactured goods included in the Made In China 2025 plan, such as those integral to IT and robotics industries.[50][51]

The U.S. began individual investigations over Chinese companies participating in the MIC 2025 plan, such as Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, based on concerns over technology theft and national security.[37]