#trade policy satire

[kesarijournal]

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

Welcome to the latest drama that’s more tangled than your earphones in a pocket – the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ongoing saga involving a cast of nations with India and South Africa in leading roles, and a contentious plot over food, fishing, and farming subsidies. Set against the backdrop of Abu Dhabi’s Ministerial Conference, our story unfolds with India and South Africa uniting to…

[good-old-gossip]

"Last month, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called Gaza 'a graveyard for tens of thousands of people and also a graveyard for many of the most important principles of humanitarian law'. The reality may be even worse.

I fear it may become the graveyard of liberalism itself. Three decades ago, liberalism was the lead chariot in the procession of the liberal democratic project.

New democracies were emerging in Europe; the Soviet Union had crumbled, and Russia was in transition; the Berlin Wall had fallen; and South Africa's apartheid regime was collapsing.

Even China exhibited signs of change. Liberal democracy appeared invincible, both in practice and in theory.

There appeared to be no real competition as it stood out as a triumphant and principled form of governance. Ask any well-versed liberal arts student and they will recite that liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology centred on the principles of individual liberty, equality and limited government.

They will point out that it emphasises the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion and assembly, as well as the rule of law and democratic governance.

While advocating for a market-based economy with private property rights, free trade and minimal government regulation, liberalism also promotes social welfare programmes to alleviate disadvantages and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

Additionally, liberalism supports the idea of pluralism, tolerance and diversity, aiming to create societies where individuals can pursue their own interests and live according to their own beliefs without undue interference from the state.

The essence of liberalism lies in its commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Sounds amazing, so what’s the problem, you may be asking? Those observing the “plausible genocide” without a propaganda lens over the last six months have had front-row seats on a systematic erosion of liberal values and ideals.

Gaza has exposed western hypocrisy and double standards, and it has shaken liberalism to its core. Both domestic and international commitment to the rule of law, human rights and a rules-based order are being undermined by, arguably, the most powerful lobby in the world. Pro-Israeli lobbies have hijacked most western liberal democracies.

The whole world is now privy to the shameless pimping of western politicians previously documented in Congressman Paul Findley's 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out and reinforced by the 2007 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

As an anonymous commentator wrote: “People think Gaza is occupied, but in reality, Gaza is free but the whole world is occupied.” Liberal elites and leaders who joined millions in support of free speech and proclaimed “Je suis Charlie” in solidarity with the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo after terrorists killed 12 people at its Paris offices in 2015 to try to shut it down, are now calling for suppression of free speech. By a vote of 377-44-1, the US House passed a resolution that the "slogan, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' is antisemitic and its use must be condemned".

Of course, the statement is not threatening or condemnable if you substitute “Palestine'' with “Israel”, as you see being done by many Israeli supporters and in the Likud manifesto.

The University of Southern California, in an unprecedented move, cancelled its Muslim valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, who minored in genocide studies, from delivering her address because of alleged threats from pro-Israeli groups.

They cited unspecified “security concerns”. I thought the idea was to never give in to what are clearly “terrorist” demands. To make matters worse, due to the fallout, in another unprecedented move, the university subsequently cancelled all other speakers and honorary doctorate presentations during convocation. Where are the “Je suis Asna” calls from liberal elites and institutions? Hundreds of students and faculty at Columbia, Yale and New York University have been arrested peacefully (in the words of the police chief) protesting against the killings by Israel.

Another 200 mostly Jewish protesters were arrested in front of Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer’s Brooklyn residence, where they gathered for the seder, a ritual that marks the second night of the Passover holiday celebrated as a festival of freedom by Jews worldwide. No free speech mobilisation by liberal elites anywhere to be seen.

Those who championed freedom of expression are now banning the keffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian headdress, because it is making some people uncomfortable.

Last week, the Ontario legislature banned the headdress, forcing a scheduled meeting between legislators and pro-Palestinian protesters to be held outside the legislative buildings because the activists had donned their keffiyehs. Israeli military dog tags, Israeli flags and other political symbols, of course, are not political in the same way.

The situation is no different in many European countries. Who thought that liberalism was so fragile and malleable by those who seek to subvert it for their own illiberal goals, namely promoting ethnic cleansing by the ethno-nationalist and racist state of Israel.

In the wake of the mass killings of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the new liberal world order enacted human rights treaties and enacted humanitarian laws to make sure that such massacres and abuses were "never again" repeated. Rising out of the horrors of the Second World War we saw the establishment of the United Nations and the drafting of the international bill of human rights that would obligate "every state to recognise the equal right of every individual on its territory to life, liberty and property, religious freedom and the use of his own language".

The bill consisted of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We also saw the enactment of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which sought to improve the legal protection of non-combatants, medical personnel, medical facilities and equipment, and wounded and sick civilians.

Despite these advances claimed by liberals, today we are witnessing war crimes, crimes against humanity and “plausible genocide”, according to the International Court of Justice, being live-streamed to our devices.

If liberalism cannot offer a moral and ethical form of governance, then what good is it? What are the grandiose declarations, pronouncements and treaties good for? In the midst of such an unprecedented attack on a corralled civilian population by a western colonial implant and ally, if liberalism shows no will, ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security, a nation's own national interests and global order, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.

Liberal intellectuals have long claimed the moral high ground by championing justice whether it be in favour or against western interests. Why is the Israeli situation different? When blind loyalty becomes the sole or primary consideration, then what makes liberalism different from tribalism? When global security and safety can be sacrificed at the altar of friendship and similarity, then what becomes of the West’s claim to authority as a political and military custodian of a rules-based international order? Might and dominance can be mistaken for right, but let's not forget that dissenting minorities, the oppressed and colonised may conclude that their only choice is to resist by any means necessary, and revolution is always a higher likelihood.

Even domestically, history has proven that societies that combine responsiveness to the will of their people with robust protections for individuals and minority groups are in the best position to strike a flexible and sustainable balance among these competing forces. We can only hope and pray (sorry are we still allowed to do that?) that this is some sort of glitch or malfunction, and liberal elites and intellectuals will wake up from their slumber and remind liberal politicians that the very raison d’etre of the liberal democratic project is under threat of collapse. It is almost too late, but there may be a sliver of hope.

How liberal elites respond to the Gaza challenge and salvage whatever shreds of credibility remain will dictate the legacy of liberalism.

Liberals must stand up for their principles or forever hang their heads in shame. ✍️ Faisal Kutty

[mariacallous]

There’s a grim virtue in being funny and right at the same time. As the results of the Dutch elections rolled in late last Wednesday, De Speld, a Dutch satirical website much like the Onion, published a parody that “quoted” People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) leader Dilan Yesilgozreacting to the results: “We ran a terrific campaign, unfortunately just not for our own party.”

The joke struck at the heart of what many Dutch commentators and political journalists also concluded in the immediate aftermath of the elections. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s conservative VVD party opportunistically blew up its own coalition government over what should have been a relatively minor internal disagreement over how to address the recent uptick in the number of war refugees seeking asylum in the Netherlands.

Even before the disagreement over asylum seekers, Rutte’s government was plagued by a number of scandals. For example, under Rutte’s watch, the Dutch tax agency wrongfully prosecuted more than 10,000 families for alleged benefits fraud, driving them into severe financial difficulties. In the process, the Dutch Child Protective Services forcibly separated 1,675 children from their families.

That scandal shocked the Dutch population, while Rutte for a long time refused to take any responsibility for it. (The other election winner, Pieter Omtzigt, leading the new party New Social Contract [NSC], was one of the three members of parliament whose tenacity uncovered the scandal. Omtzigt has now signaled a willingness to govern with Wilders.)

On the refugee issue, Rutte’s coalition faced pressure from opposition parties, civil society and the International Red Cross over the fact that refugees were left to sleep outside without shelter at the asylum processing facility of Ter Apel, in the far northeast of the country. The Red Cross sent aid to Ter Apel as it concluded that conditions were “inhumane and unsustainable”; the VVD argued that the Netherlands had made itself too attractive for refugees and sought to reduce family reunification numbers.

The decision by the VVD leadership to blow up the coalition and force new elections has been likened by political commentators to former British Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to hold the 2016 Brexit referendum. The VVD expected to capitalize on its strong showing in the polls to get a larger mandate for its restrictive asylum policy and orchestrate a change in its leadership. Rutte announced he would not lead the VVD again, and Yesilgoz, in charge of the Department of Justice, was launched as the new face of the conservatives. Yesilgoz came to the Netherlands as a refugee herself—at age seven, when her Kurdish father, a trade unionist, claimed asylum after the 1980 coup in Turkey.

The optics of a former refugee arguing for a more restrictive refugee and asylum policy might seem strange, but the VVD has a history of politicians who were once refugees being hardliners on migration—most famously Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the early 2000s. Voters and fellow politicians alike would often appear relieved when a politician with a foreign background took a hard line on migration—providing cover for charges of racism.

Because Rutte’s government ended in crisis over the asylum issue, it inevitably became an important topic during the election. Yesilgozherself raised the issue frequently in televised debates, in part to distract from the VVD’s widely rejected record on domestic policy issues such as housing and the cost of living.

Under a previous coalition led by Rutte, the government allowed large portions of the stock of public housing to be sold off. VVD ministers attended international conferences to advertise the investment opportunities to hedge funds. It also levied a new tax on public housing providers, causing an overall reduction of 200,000 available units. As a result, the country is suffering from a severe, and still worsening, housing crisis.

Rutte was also slow to act when inflation hit. Citing the war in Ukraine as a source of high energy prices, the government argued it could do very little to alleviate the problem. When families began facing acute problems paying their bills, Rutte’s government initially signaled that everyone “would simply get a little poorer,” before providing a convoluted relief effort that subsidized energy companies.

While the VVD is not the only party responsible for the policies of Rutte’s government, it has been unique in its attempt to deflect from its failures by blaming asylum seekers and immigrants. Faced with criticism over the fact that the government’s housing policies have led to a major crisis of supply and affordability, the VVD spokesperson in parliament, Daniel Koerhuis, spent much of his time there arguing that newly admitted asylum seekers were assigned public housing with undue preference, at the expense of ordinary Dutch people who had been waiting for years.

Koerhuis’s approach—acknowledge a problem but suggest that the true cause has something to do with foreigners—was standard fare for the VVD in the Rutte era: governing center-right while rhetorically covering the far-right flank. Members of parliament often sought out media appearances, making statements burnishing the VVD’s image on migration and criminal justice in an attempt to court voters tempted to support Geert Wilders’s far-right and racist Party for Freedom (PVV) instead. Journalists and commentators referred to these instances as “being on PVV duty.”

However, as political scientist Cas Mudde aptly pointed out in the Guardian, citing French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, ultimately “people prefer the original over the copy.”

Until last week, the VVD had always succeeded in maintaining an electoral upper hand over its challengers to the right. Wilders, who defected from the VVD in 2004, has competed with his former party for votes for nearly two decades. Since the experience of a short-lived and ill-fated minority government between the VVD and the Christian Democrats, which Wilders’ party provided with conditional parliamentary support, the VVD has refused to do business with Wilders. During his long stint as leader of the VVD, Rutte quietly maintained a cordon sanitaire, a strategy (also employed in France to keep the Le Pen dynasty out of power) of categorically freezing out parties as possible governing partners.

Yesilgoz, as Rutte’s successor, broke with this policy. Under her leadership, the VVD indicated that it would no longer categorically refuse to govern with Wilders. A direct result of this change seems to have been that a large number of potential Wilders supporters who had not previously voted for him—because it was clear his party would be condemned to its perpetual role in the opposition wilderness—broke away from the VVD to cast their vote for PVV, feeling more confident Wilders would be part of the next government.

But other factors contributed to Wilders’s victory as well. During the campaign, journalists began pointing out Wilders’s appeared less extreme, repeating the quip that he had become “Geert Milders.” As is often the case, the phrase seemed less to reflect an actual change in Wilders’ politics and more to serve as a rhetorical strategy to make the idea of a Wilders-led government seem more palatable.

How palatable that government will be remains to be seen—if it indeed comes into being. During an interview with the Dutch public broadcaster NOS, Wilders urged other parties to “jump over their own shadow” and govern with him. When pressed why he had written that mosques, the Quran, and Islamic schools should be banned by law if he knew that other parties would not support such policies, Wilders cut off the interview. Soon after, Martin Bosma, the PVV’s chief ideologist, “joked” to an interviewer that the journalist would soon be out of a job—as cutting all funding for public broadcasting is another PVV hobby horse.

Wilders has been a fixture of Dutch politics for nearly two decades, and Bosma has been at his side since the very early days. Bosma’s influence is significant. He is considered responsible for introducing terms such as “head rag tax”—a tax on Muslims for aesthetically “polluting” Dutch streets—into the PVV lexicon. In 2015, Bosma published an academically dubious manuscript on the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa entitled Minority in Their Own Country: How Progressive Struggle Leads to Genocide and ANC Apartheid.

Historians skewered Bosma’s half-truths and distorted use of sources, and the publishing house that had initially acquired the rights to publish it refused the manuscript; a much smaller publisher eventually accepted it. The book recycles the Afrikaner myth that South Africa was an empty area when white settlers arrived, arguing that the white population today has been made into a second-class citizenry in what used to be its own country.

Several chapters in the manuscript are not about South Africa at all, but about the Netherlands and its Muslim population—the true purpose of the book being to argue that Muslims will bring about the end of the Netherlands in the way that Bosma imagines Black people have in a democratic South Africa. In the manuscript, Bosma consistently repeats a central theme: “Those who were called racists turned out to be right.”

The PVV is a party consisting of equal parts Wilders and Bosma. Wilders is often praised for his plain-spoken, no-nonsense style of political communication. His policies are simple and straightforwardly reactionary. Think of anything associated with progressive politics and the PVV will likely oppose it, typically phrasing its opposition to them as “exorbitant madness” while claiming that they come at the expense of ordinary people being able to afford healthcare or groceries. For example, Wilders wants to leave the European Union; reintroduce the pre-Euro currency, the guilder; close the Dutch borders; and cut funding for green energy, arts, higher education, public broadcasting, and development aid.

These elements are the surface level of PVV politics. On a deeper level, the PVV is convinced the Netherlands is ending. By this, PVV politicians mean that the white Dutch population is being actively disadvantaged or discriminated against by the policies pursued by the Dutch government. Bosma’s deceitful and bad-faith history of South Africa is instructive in this regard.

All the PVV’s proposed policies relating to non-white Dutch people generally, and Muslims in particular—banning the construction of mosques, banning the Quran, and threatening to deport dual citizens as punishment—are a response to the imagined imminent replacement of white Dutch people. The theory is a carbon copy of French author Renaud Camus’s theory of the Great Replacement. Call it a preemptive apartheid for the paranoid mind.

Some commentators have suggested that the PVV victory is a Dutch “Trump moment.” This assessment might be too flattering, however. The PVV has already been part of governing coalitions in provinces such as Limburg and Flevoland. Leaders of other right-wing parties have signaled at least openness to the idea of Wilders heading a national government, though it remains to be seen whether he manages to form and lead a government that is stable.

While it may be the case that Wilders will not be able to enact much of the PVV’s manifesto—Wilders himself acknowledged that parties might not want to join a governing coalition that subverts the constitution—a Wilders-led government would undoubtedly leave deep marks.

For two decades, Wilders has had a powerful atmospheric influence in Dutch politics, shifting political attitudes to the far right in major ways even when not in power. He has made it a rarely challenged dogma that the Netherlands is buckling under an influx of asylum seekers, a point casually repeated in a televised debate by the leader of the center-left GreenLeft/Labour coalition and former Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans.

But even if large parts of Wilders’ manifesto will not or cannot be codified in policy, the political ideology and orientation of a government signals something to society: in this case, a permissiveness and encouragement of discriminatory practices in Dutch society at large. It is a well-documented fact that people with non-Dutch sounding names are widely discriminated against by Dutch landlords and employers. Research by journalists and academics has shown that people applying to a job with the same resume are much more likely to get an interview if their name is Jan than if their name is Mohammed.

Similarly, the Dutch police force has come under criticism in the last few years for its excessively violent treatment of protesters against climate change and—darkly ironically—of groups protesting racism and police brutality against non-white people. Wilders has a history of incendiary comments about police violence, at one time encouraging police forces to end riots by Moroccan-Dutch football fans by simply “shooting them in the knee.” A Wilders government would likely add fuel to the fire of police violence, reassuring officers that their actions will be supported by the most powerful politician in government.

A PVV government will not be able to implement anything resembling actual legal apartheid in the Netherlands. But it will without a doubt embolden segments of society to treat the enemies of the PVV—Muslims, immigrants, and people with foreign-sounding names, followed by progressives—as de facto second-class citizens.

Political scientists often distinguish between different types of democratic legitimacy. One type is output legitimacy: Democracies often deliver economic prosperity and social stability. Another type is legitimacy in a more procedural way: Democracies claim legitimacy because of their institutional design, which allows for peaceful transitions of power, checks and balances, and a robust rule of law.

The progressive parties of the center and the center-left which are currently getting ready to mount a defense of Dutch democracy will likely seize onto the symbols belonging to the second strategy. Journalists and commentators, too, seem biased toward that definition. PVV Senator Gom van Strien, appointed to explore possible coalitions, was pressed at his first press conference whether he agreed with Wilders that the two houses of Dutch Parliament were a “fake parliament,” as Wilders has claimed. (Van Strien stepped down on Monday after allegations of fraud surfaced and his former employer Utrecht University filed a police report).

Wilders’s rhetorical rejection of the Eerste and Tweede Kamer (Senate and House) as a symbol of the Netherlands still live in infamy in the minds of many politicians and journalists.

But the focus on these symbols and institutions—even though they are far from meaningless—risks distracting opposition forces from the first way that democracies appear legitimate in the eyes of a population: by delivering on their promise of social and economic wellbeing.

Nearly two decades of neoliberal policy has significantly diminished that legitimacy. A progressive opposition that is coaxed into a wholesale defense of democracy in its symbolic and institutional forms risks inadvertently ignoring, or even identifying itself with, the legacy of social and economic erosion that those institutions have produced for two decades.

Interviews suggest that PVV supporters often connect their hostile dismissiveness of immigrants, “newcomers,” and Muslims to the imagined preferential treatment of those groups in the allocation of resources such as public housing and social security. “Putting the Netherlands first” to these voters appears to indicate a desire to reverse the perceived trend (regardless of whether their assessment of being disadvantaged is borne out by the facts).

But in politics, appearances matter at least as much as facts. A defense of Dutch democracy will only be successful if the progressive parties committed to it also make it unequivocally clear that they will fight to reverse the institutionally entrenched neoliberalism that continues to generate government policy that disciplines its citizens rather than helps them and cloaks the abandonment of those in need with the language of bootstraps and individual responsibility.

It is easier for Wilders to dismiss a parliament committed to austerity and deliberate government retreat as “fake” than one that is committed to helping ordinary folks.

Journalists and legacy media must also look critically at their own role in propelling Wilders to the top spot. In the run-up to the election, journalists, pundits and commentators alike latched onto a repeated talking point downplaying Wilders’ extremism, suggesting he had mellowed out. But they mistook calculated strategy for an ideological shift. In this sense, all the talk of “Geert Milders” indicates less a genuine change in Wilders’s politics, and more a willingness by influential media figures to condone and accommodate the far right.

Political journalists and commentators working for the Dutch public broadcaster in particular have come in for criticism for the part they played making Wilders more palatable and helping him rise in the polls. As Dutch poet laureate Lieke Marsman wryly noted: If the PVV actually ends up defunding the Dutch public broadcaster, and by extension the journalists who enabled Wilders’s rise, the party may have a much harder time doing as well in the elections next time around.

[ritik2]

Niche blog on political affairs, flight, gossip, humor book

Welcome to our corner of the internet, where politics isn’t just a serious game of power and policy and a playground for humor, gossip, and insightful commentary. You've come to the right place if you're looking for a fresh take on the latest political fights, entertaining gossip, and a dose of humor to make sense of it all. Our niche blog on political affairs is designed to keep you informed, entertained, and thinking critically about the political world around us. Here’s why you should dive in.

The Pulse of Political Fights: More Than Just Headlines

Politics is often seen as a dry, convoluted subject, but at its core, it’s a dynamic battleground where ideas, ideologies, and personalities clash. Niche blog on political affair Our blog delves into these political fights, going beyond the headlines to explore the underlying tensions and strategies at play. Whether it’s a heated debate in Congress, a power struggle within a political party, or a global diplomatic conflict, we break down the complexities in a way that’s engaging and accessible.

We don’t just report on these events; we analyse them, offering insights into what’s really going on behind the scenes. What motivates the key players? What are the implications of these battles for the future of policy, governance, and society? Our blog provides you with the context you need to understand the stakes and make sense of the often-chaotic political landscape.

Gossip and Scandal: The Human Side of Politics

Let’s be honest politics isn’t just about policy and governance; it’s also about people. And where there are people, there’s gossip. From behind-the-scenes whispers in the corridors of power to public scandals that make headlines, our blog covers it all. We give you the inside scoop on the personalities that shape the political world, the rivalries that drive them, and the secrets they try to keep hidden.

But we don’t just trade in salacious details for the sake of it. Our approach to political gossip is grounded in a desire to understand the human side of politics. Why do politicians behave the way they do? How do personal relationships and rivalries influence public decisions? By exploring these questions, we aim to give you a more rounded understanding of the political figures who dominate our news feeds.

Political Humor: Finding Laughter in the Chaos

In a world where political news can often be overwhelming, humor offers a much-needed relief. Our blog doesn’t shy away from the absurdities and contradictions in the political world; instead, we embrace them. Through sharp wit and clever satire, we highlight the humorous side of political events, helping you laugh at the madness rather than be consumed by it.

We believe that humor is a powerful tool for engagement. It cuts through the noise, making complex political issues more approachable and relatable. Whether it’s through funny anecdotes, satirical commentaries, or light-hearted takes on serious issues, our political humor section is designed to entertain while also provoking thought.

Dive into Political Humor Books: A Treasure Trove of Laughter and Insight

If you’re a fan of political humor, you’re in for a treat. Our blog features a curated selection of political humor books that offer a perfect blend of laughter and insight. These books are not just about making you chuckle—they also provide a unique perspective on political events, personalities, and trends.

From classic satirical works to modern-day political parodies, we cover a wide range of titles that will appeal to anyone with an interest in politics and a sense of humor. Our reviews and recommendations will guide you to books that not only entertain but also enhance your understanding of the political world. Whether you’re looking for a light-hearted read or something with a bit more bite, our blog has you covered.

Insightful Commentary: Thought-Provoking Analysis of Political Trends

Humor and gossip are just one side of the coin. Our blog is also home to serious, thoughtful commentary on the political issues that matter. We believe that to truly understand politics, you need to look beyond the surface. That’s why we offer in-depth analyses of political trends, exploring the forces that shape our world and the implications for the future.

Our commentary is not just about explaining what’s happening; it’s about asking the right questions. What does this political development mean for democracy, justice, and equality? How do global trends influence local politics, and vice versa? By engaging with these questions, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of the political landscape and encourage our readers to think critically about the issues that affect us all.

[xtruss]

Last Month, European Union Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell called Gaza 'A Graveyard For Tens of Thousands of People and Also A Graveyard For Many of The Most Important Principles of Humanitarian Law'.”

The reality may be even worse. I fear it may become the graveyard of liberalism itself. Three decades ago, liberalism was the lead chariot in the procession of the liberal democratic project. New democracies were emerging in Europe; the Soviet Union had crumbled, and Russia was in transition; the Berlin Wall had fallen; and South Africa's apartheid regime was collapsing. Even China exhibited signs of change.

Liberal democracy appeared invincible, both in practice and in theory. There appeared to be no real competition as it stood out as a triumphant and principled form of governance. Ask any well-versed liberal arts student and they will recite that liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology centred on the principles of individual liberty, equality and limited government.

They will point out that it emphasises the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion and assembly, as well as the rule of law and democratic governance.

While advocating for a market-based economy with private property rights, free trade and minimal government regulation, liberalism also promotes social welfare programmes to alleviate disadvantages and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

Additionally, liberalism supports the idea of pluralism, tolerance and diversity, aiming to create societies where individuals can pursue their own interests and live according to their own beliefs without undue interference from the state. The essence of liberalism lies in its commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Sounds amazing, so what's the problem, you may be asking?

Those observing the "plausible genocide" without a propaganda lens over the last six months have had front-row seats on a systematic erosion of liberal values and ideals. Gaza has exposed western hypocrisy and double standards, and it has shaken liberalism to its core.

Both domestic and international commitment to the rule of law, human rights and a rules-based order are being undermined by, arguably, the most powerful lobby in the world. Pro-Israeli lobbies have hijacked most western liberal democracies.

The whole world is now privy to the shameless pimping of western politicians previously documented in Congressman Paul Findley's 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out and reinforced by the 2007 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. As an anonymous commentator wrote: "People think Gaza is occupied, but in reality, Gaza is free but the whole world is occupied."

Liberal elites and leaders who joined millions in support of free speech and proclaimed "Je suis Charlie" in solidarity with the French satirical newspaper Charlie Heodo after terrorists killed 12 people at its Paris offices in 2015 to try to shut it down, are now calling for suppression of free speech.

By a vote of 377-44-1, the US House passed a resolution that the "slogan, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' is antisemitic and its use must be condemned". Of course, the statement is not threatening or condemnable if you substitute "Palestine" with "Israel", as you see being done by many Israeli supporters and in the Likud manifesto.

The University of Southern California, in an unprecedented move, cancelled its Muslim valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, who minored in genocide studies, from delivering her address because of alleged threats from pro-Israeli groups. They cited unspecified "security concerns". I thought the idea was to never give in to what are clearly "terrorist" demands.

To make matters worse, due to the fallout, in another unprecedented move, the university subsequently cancelled all other speakers and honorary doctorate presentations during convocation. Where are the "Je suis Asna" calls from liberal elites and institutions?

Hundreds of students and faculty at Columbia, Yale and New York University have been arrested peacefully (in the words of the police chief) protesting against the killings by Israel. Another 200 mostly Jewish protesters were arrested in front of Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer's Brooklyn residence, where they gathered for the seder, a ritual that marks the second night of the Passover holiday celebrated as a festival of freedom by Jews worldwide. No free speech mobilisation by liberal elites anywhere to be seen.

Those who championed freedom of expression are now banning the keffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian headdress, because it is making some people uncomfortable. Last week, the Ontario legislature banned the headdress, forcing a scheduled meeting between legislators and pro-Palestinian protesters to be held outside the legislative buildings because the activists had donned their keffiyehs.

Israeli military dog tags, Israeli flags and other political symbols, of course, are not political in the same way.

The situation is no different in many European countries.

Who thought that liberalism was so fragile and malleable by those who seek to subvert it for their own illiberal goals, namely promoting ethnic cleansing by the ethno-nationalist and racist state of Israel.

In the wake of the mass killings of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the new liberal world order enacted human rights treaties and enacted humanitarian laws to make sure that such massacres and abuses were "never again" repeated.

Rising out of the horrors of the Second World War we saw the establishment of the United Nations and the drafting of the international bill of human rights that would obligate "every state to recognise the equal right of every individual on its territory to life, liberty and property, religious freedom and the use of his own language".

The bill consisted of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We also saw the enactment of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which sought to improve the legal protection of non-combatants, medical personnel, medical facilities and equipment, and wounded and sick civilians.

Despite these advances claimed by liberals, today we are witnessing war crimes, crimes against humanity and

"plausible genocide", according to the International Court of Justice, being live-streamed to our devices.

If liberalism cannot offer a moral and ethical form of governance, then what good is it? What are the grandiose declarations, pronouncements and treaties good for?

In the midst of such an unprecedented attack on a corralled civilian population by a western colonial implant and ally, if liberalism shows no will, ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security, a nation's own national interests and global order, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.

Liberal intellectuals have long claimed the moral high ground by championing justice whether it be in favour or against western interests. Why is the Israeli situation different? When blind loyalty becomes the sole or primary consideration, then what makes liberalism different from tribalism?

When global security and safety can be sacrificed at the altar of friendship and similarity, then what becomes of the West's claim to authority as a political and military custodian of a rules-based international order?

Might and dominance can be mistaken for right, but let's not forget that dissenting minorities, the oppressed and colonised may conclude that their only choice is to resist by any means necessary, and revolution is always a higher likelihood.

Even domestically, history has proven that societies that combine responsiveness to the will of their people with robust protections for individuals and minority groups are in the best position to strike a flexible and sustainable balance among these competing forces.

We can only hope and pray (sorry are we still allowed to do that?) that this is some sort of glitch or malfunction, and liberal elites and intellectuals will wake up from their slumber and remind liberal politicians that the very raison d'etre of the liberal democratic project is under threat of collapse.

It is almost too late, but there may be a sliver of hope.

How liberal elites respond to the Gaza challenge and salvage whatever shreds of credibility remain will dictate the legacy of liberalism.

Liberals must stand up for their principles or forever hang their heads in shame.

— ✍️ Faisal Kutty

[20thcentutygeek]

Matt Bors and Ben Clarkson’s Scathing Satire of Capitalism Returns With an All-New Original Graphic Novel in JUSTICE WARRIORS: VOTE HARDER

JUSTICE WARRIORS, the scathing satire of capitalism and police in a future of severe inequality from Matt Bors — the founder of The Nib and a political cartoonist who has twice been named a Pulitzer Prize finalist — and Ben Clarkson — an acclaimed filmmaker and illustrator whose art has been featured on Adult Swim and Vice Noisey — is returning to shelves as a brand-new graphic novel entitled JUSTICE WARRIORS: VOTE HARDER. 

“JUSTICE WARRIORS: VOTE HARDER takes the feel of paranoid political thrillers of the 70s and updates it for the online age of conspiracy, partisanship, and the desire to break out of the confines of the ballot box to do something far more radical,” said Matt Bors. “Unlikable candidates. An unfair media. And a system designed to prevent real change. It's the most important election of everyone's life—and possibly their last.”

The first JUSTICE WARRIORS series followed police officers Swamp Cop and Schitt as they patrolled the crime-free metropolis of Bubble City and its surrounding mutant-packed Uninhabited Zone. Now in VOTE HARDER, Bubble City’s first ever election for mayor pulls Officer Swamp into a violent mission that will put him on a collision course with his beloved partner Schitt. Co-written by Clarkson and Bors with art by Clarkson and backup illustrations by Bors, JUSTICE WARRIORS: VOTE HARDER features colors by Felipe Sobreiro and lettering by Bors.

"JUSTICE WARRIORS: VOTE HARDER is an epic thrillride about the infiltration of civil society by law enforcement, the corrupt bickering of unaccountable elites, and unchecked military expansion which is, of course, unrelated to the regular healthy function of our corporate oligopoly — er, democracy," said Ben Clarkson. "It's bigger, badder and more justicier than the original with a thrilling dose of orbital space lasers, giraffe assassins and obscure parliamentary procedure."

In crime-free utopia Bubble City's first-ever election for mayor, feckless celebrity incumbent The Prince faces a challenge from within the Bubble's elite: his half-cousin Stuffina Vippix IX, who promises austerity and competency. Finally a choice for the people! But out in the Uninhabited Zone, which is packed with millions of mutants, the radical and armed Flauf Tanko mounts a third-party run to inspire the masses who are fed up with the entire system. Rallying to protect the votes from the people, mutant cops Swamp and Schitt are called in on special duty. Schitt must act as bodyguard to the Prince, while his poll numbers drop and assassination attempts ramp up. Meanwhile, Swamp is sent on a clandestine mission inside the mutant opposition—to infiltrate, report, and maybe fall in love with a passionate activist triggering an identity crisis. Can the two partners survive being pitted against each other in a horserace? 

“JUSTICE WARRIORS: VOTE HARDER is funny, it makes sharp points, and its artwork is so densely detailed I can only call it ‘amphetaminesque,’” said AHOY Comics Editor-in-Chief Tom Peyer. “It’s bound to cross your mind while you’re voting and it might even take some of the sting away.” 

The irreverent, dark comedy JUSTICE WARRIORS was initially published by AHOY Comics as a trade paperback in 2023 and has received widespread attention from CHAPO TRAP HOUSE, IGN, POD DAMN AMERICA, CURRENT AFFAIRS, COMIC BOOK COUPLES COUNSELING, LEDGER, SUPER NICE CLUB, GRAPHIC POLICY, QANONANON, and STRUGGLE SESSION. The title went back to press for second and third printings in the wake of its popularity.

JUSTICE WARRIORS is published by AHOY Comics, the Syracuse-based independent publisher perhaps best known for SECOND COMING, a controversial satire by Mark Russell, Richard Pace and Leonard Kirk in which Jesus Christ resumes his holy mission. The company is the brainchild of journalist and satirist Hart Seely (publisher), an award-winning reporter whose humor and satire has appeared in The New York Times and on National Public Radio, comics writer Tom Peyer (editor-in-chief), and cartoonist Frank Cammuso (chief creative officer). AHOY Comics launched five years ago with four acclaimed comic book magazine titles featuring full length comic book stories, poetry, prose fiction, and cartoons.

Here's what people are saying about JUSTICE WARRIORS:

“Filled with action, humor, and biting commentary.”—SCREENRANT

“A scathing – and often quite funny – critique of modern events and norms with a heavy focus on police practices. Though its jabs are quite pointed and purposeful, its broad encompassing of topics like formula shortages and an overemphasis on social media make it seem as though nothing's off the table when it comes to being parodied.”—COMICBOOK.COM

“Matt Bors’ comic book debut is everything you hoped for from the best political cartoonist of his generation. Teamed up with visionary storyteller Ben Clarkson, JUSTICE WARRIORS gives you searing satire, at least one hilarious moment per scene and unrestrained fury at the horrors before us. Read the scene that the NYPD literally brought to life!” — Spencer Ackerman, author of REIGN OF TERROR 

“A rich satirical tale of America's overconsumption and over-policing issues.”—CBR 

“All the glorious dystopian satire you hoped it would be.”—BOING BOING

“This is the type of comic that comes around once in a while and reminds you what the form can achieve. Both creators deserve praise for what they’ve made here. It’s hard to believe anyone that reads comics wouldn’t enjoy this.”— AIPT Comics

“Imagine a 1980s Verhoeven scifi flick, plus Judge Dredd, plus the most ruthless social commentary imaginable. Oh, and also, it's gutbustingly hilarious. Justice Warriors scratches so very many of my itches it's unbelievable. It was my most anticipated comic of the year and it's even better than I had hoped.”—Aubrey Sitterson

“Outstanding… skewers the status quo in fun, acerbic, and earnest ways…. With this kind of sassy, surgical satire, clarity makes a cleaner cut. And man, do they make themselves clear in the best ways possible”—COMICS BEAT

"Just the perfect amount of demented!" — Bill Oakley (The Simpsons)

‘If you had your developing mind warped by Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, GI Joe, Robocop and comic books, and then had it further destroyed by twitter and social media, then JUSTICE WARRIORS will fill those holes in your brain. Ben Clarkson is truly goated on the inks."— Will Menaker, co-host Chapo Trap House, author of NY Times Bestseller "The Chapo Guide to Revolution"

“I’m thrilled to see Matt Bors’ work liberate itself from its 4-panel cage. Ben Clarkson's detailed art adeptly dishes the ultra-violence in this Zootopia-meets-Robocop-like satire.” — Keith Knight (K Chronicles, (th)ink, Woke)

JUSTICE WARRIORS will be on sale bookstores and comic shops everywhere on September 11, 2024.

[mglandrey]

This week we discussed chapter 8- Still Life with Rhetoric by Gries. Specifically, we focused on the Obama Hope commodification and marketing. The iconic Obama Hope graphic was a remix to an original photo owned by AP. This quick edit blew up and soon had around 300 thousand printed and given away by the end of 2008 with a lawsuit that followed. There was no single cause for the rampant commodification, but some people really thought it was a smart campaign choice. The original picture said “progress” but was altered to “HOPE” per campaign. With this we discussed the attribution theory which is considered to be a smart campaign strategy. This was buying and donating money towards the campaign that then leads to you likely to vote. Some would say that this method was not economically motivated. There were also alternate hypothesis such as black bodies which were historical practices that started with slave trade which led to erasing human qualities. Then fetishization which was a circulation of reproduction such as people thinking that Obama would save the world and be some hero with magical qualities. My personal ah-ha moment during the lecture happened when we talked about “Obama zombie” which referred to the brainwashed people that actually believed he could save the world. Moving on from the hypothesis, we touched on the Obama construction that raised $25,000 for the Oregon food bank using the Hope campaign. Following, we discussed political art and satire and the common tropes such as the versions of Obama Hope with “failed policies” in place of HOPE on the graphic. Overall, I enjoyed this weeks lecture and getting to dive deeper into the Obama campaign that is so commonly known around America.

*image from google

[canadianabroadvery]

America First! -  International diplomacy, according to Trump

Tjeerd Royaards (Netherlands)

[kesarijournal]

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

Welcome to the latest drama that’s more tangled than your earphones in a pocket – the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ongoing saga involving a cast of nations with India and South Africa in leading roles, and a contentious plot over food, fishing, and farming subsidies. Set against the backdrop of Abu Dhabi’s Ministerial Conference, our story unfolds with India and South Africa uniting to…

[joannechocolat]

On media storms, and transphobes, and free speech, and the establishment.

(Dated 22nd August, 2022.)

Unless you were asleep last week, you’ll have noticed I made the news. I made the news a lot. The Daily Mail (twice); the Times (twice); the Telegraph; the Observer, plus radio and any number of online and international outlets, including UnHerd, where stories go to die.

The story has taken many forms. That J.K. Rowling feels “betrayed” by my “lack of support” for her: that my views on trans rights makes me ineligible for any public role; that people are calling for my removal from the Board of the SOA; that I’m a monster because I replied to a post from a satirical Twitter account with - shock, horror - a smiley.

I haven’t talked to anyone in the Press, in spite of many journalists asking, so this “story”, was taken from Twitter, where stories evolve at such a rapid rate that by the time they make the broadsheets, no-one really knows what shape the story started out at all.

But this is what it has become. I’ve been repeatedly (and wrongly) accused of a number of things, which when you unpick them, boil down to one thing. That as Chair of the Society of Authors (the authors’ trade union), I’ve abused my position to discriminate against people who don’t agree with my support of the trans community.

Full disclosure: this isn’t new. Ever since I was elected Chair in 2019, I’ve been getting increasing amounts of abuse, pressure and demands for “debate” from people with gender-critical views. Some of them are colleagues; some women I once considered friends. Some of these women now have become single-agenda tweeters, railing night and day online about what defines a woman, and spreading misinformation and fear about the trans community. Many of these women claim to be afraid, and to have suffered cancellation for their views. Some of them feel that as Chair of the SOA, I should have taken their side in Twitter debates, signed petitions, joined hashtags to validate their beliefs.

But here’s the thing. The SOA represents everyone. It has over 12,000 members. It needs to stay neutral to represent all its members equally. And it has a strict policy of non-intervention in Twitter debates between members, even when they get nasty, because Twitter can be a nasty place, and the SOA can’t be everywhere. That’s why I tweet in my personal capacity unless I specify otherwise. 

The gender critical lobby has had real difficulty understanding this. Over the past two years, I’ve been under increasing pressure to “speak out” about individual cases (I can’t); ally myself with transphobes (I won’t) and “denounce” death threats to J.K. Rowling (which I do, but apparently not often enough.) Over the past two years I’ve received countless abusive tweets, urging me to kill myself, or resign from the SOA, or hoping that I would die of cancer, all from the gender-critical lobby.

The latest eruption began last week, with the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, a man whose life has been under threat since most of us can remember. Last Friday, an Islamist fanatic managed to get close enough to stab him, leaving him with terrible injuries. The literary world was shaken. Friends of Rushdie’s spoke out in horror. But those of us who only knew him for his books were also deeply shaken and upset. Because this wasn’t just a violent attack on an author, horrific though that may be. It was an attack on free speech, a principle all creators hold dear.

Free speech is a term that has been misused a lot recently, especially by people wanting their say, but denying it to others. In fact, free speech is like oxygen: you can’t remove it from someone else without also losing it yourself, which means that, if you believe in free speech, you can’t then go around deciding who deserves it and who doesn’t. Rushdie is a great writer. But even if the victim of the stabbing had been a minor writer, a bad writer, or a writer with problematic opinions, the same attack on free speech would have happened, threatening writers everywhere. The principle of free speech matters. And it matters to all of us.

I wrote about this a bit on Twitter, where many authors were still upset, struggling how best to respond to the horrific attack. Twitter being Twitter, there were also a number of angry Islamist accounts, crowing about the Rushdie attack and targeting anyone who expressed sympathy. Some were abusive, some even threatening. Several people I follow were sent messages on the lines of: Shut up or we’ll come for you next. I got one myself. So did J.K. Rowling. But on Twitter, size matters. What J.K. Rowling, with her 14 million followers, says is instant news. So when J.K. Rowling announced that she’d had a death threat from an Islamist account saying: You’re next, her name trended for two days, and Rushdie’s all-too-real attack was overshadowed by a Twitter threat.

Now, it isn’t up to me to decide whether the death threat was credible, or whether J.K. Rowling should be afraid. I don’t know how many threats she’s received, or how many she thinks are credible. Having had them myself, I know they can be upsetting and frightening. But a threat on Twitter is not the same as being stabbed in the eye, and I didn’t see the need to comment.

 Instead I put up a poll, asking fellow-authors if they’d ever received a death threat. I wanted to use it as a way of talking about author safety. As it happened, Chuck Wendig had been posting about his latest death threat the day before Salman Rushdie was stabbed (a weirdly specific death threat, in which his correspondent expressed the hope that Chuck would be, er - raped to death by a dolphin), and the tone of my first poll reflected the jokey nature of our interchange. In the light of the Rushdie stabbing, though, I realized that wasn’t appropriate. I deleted the poll almost at once and started again with a more neutral wording, but the folk on Twitter who watch me for any ammunition they can use had already screencapped it and passed it around. It made the papers, variously as: Harris  Mocks Rushdie or Harris Mocks Rowling, but I was doing neither.  Death threats – to anyone, including J.K. Rowling – are absolutely wrong. They’re also a crime. Crimes are for the police to sort out. Free speech, however, is a legitimate principle for a union to uphold.

But free speech isn’t always the speech that you agree with. Free speech can be confrontational. It can be unfair. It can even be upsetting. I’ve upset a lot of gender-critical people with my own use of free speech; my refusal to join their hashtags, sign their petitions, enter their debates. That doesn’t mean to say I don’t believe in theirs, or that I wouldn’t fight for their rights as fiercely as for anyone else. But that has never been enough for the people who want me gone.  

Since last week, the wave of people demanding my resignation – or just my removal – from the SOA has grown. Many of those who have joined the “debate” are not members. Many are not even authors. Nearly all are transphobes, though. Because that’s what all this is about. Not all gender critical people may be transphobes, but all transphobes are gender critical. Graham Linehan has been posting about me since 2020, calling for me to be dismissed. He doesn’t know what the SOA does. He doesn’t care. He’s just one of many prominent transphobes who believe that someone who believes in the rights of trans folk doesn’t deserve a voice of their own.

I have a trans son. He came out very recently, and I haven’t discussed it online. Last week, I discovered that some of my principal detractors had found out about this. After talking to my son, and with his permission, I went public. I love my son more than words can say, and I didn’t want anyone to think that I was ashamed of him. Kathleen Stock, among others, gloated that this was proof of my bias. She (rather chillingly) denounced me for having “undeclared trans-identified offspring,” and claimed that this was the “real” reason for my support of trans folk. Kathleen Stock finds it hard to believe that someone might uphold a principle without having a personal interest. Actually, I’ve been a supporter of trans rights for much longer than this. Like I said, I believe in supporting the rights of all marginalized groups.

So, just what are they saying now? That I’m jealous of JKR? I’m not. I love my life, and I love my son, and I wouldn’t change that for anything. That because of my pro-trans beliefs, I should be cancelled or lose my job? That would be ironic, wouldn’t it, coming from people who are claiming to have been cancelled for their gender-critical beliefs. And full disclosure; it isn’t a job. It’s an elected position, as part of a Board of twelve people. It’s voluntary, time-consuming, often thankless, and unpaid, and I do it because I care about authors’ rights. All authors’ rights; whether they’re famous of not; whether I agree with their politics or not.

But this assault isn’t going to stop. Given how many people pretend to be “fearful of speaking out”, they’re certainly doing a hell of a lot of it. I’ve had open attacks this week from a certain sector of the author community – all London-based, all cis, all white, all influential people (many of them men) with lots of friends in the right-wing media – saying that they are coming for me. One person compared it to the March of the Ents, going after Saruman. The literary establishment, is seems is desperately afraid of progress.

Here’s the thing, though. I’m stubborn. I’ve never fitted into the London literary scene, so the fact that it now feels the need to mobilize against me means very little to me. This week, I’ve had death threats, attacks in the media, and countless abusive messages. I don’t care. I’m not afraid. I was elected to this role to help protect authors’ rights. That means yours, whoever you are, and those of all other authors. If you’re a member of the SOA, then we have elections yearly. You too can stand for the Board, and be elected, and add your views to the diversity of views already expressed there. Till then, I’ll do what I’ve always done. Raise awareness of authors’ rights. 

They grow us tough in Yorkshire.

[centuarettedfeu]

The figure of the petimetre first appeared in Spain shortly after the Bourbon succession to the throne following the War of the Spanish Succession (1701– 1714). United by a common dynasty, Spain and France had developed new ties, including policies that encouraged trade across the Pyrenees. The influx of French imports increased the availability of luxury goods, which became affordable for a wider sector of Spanish society.

In early May 1795, Juan Antonio de Iza Zamácola, writing under the pseudonym of Don Preciso, published a letter in the Diario de Madrid that gave birth to a new fad. The subject of the newspaper piece was a phenomenon that Preciso had observed while walking through the streets of Madrid: the enormous popularity of a group of caballeritos (little gentlemen) who, though only four feet tall, seemed to be turning the heads of all the young ladies.

As the word became common, it was often employed as a synonym for petimetre, the term used for the dandified male throughout the eighteenth century. An adaptation of the French petit-maître, the petimetre was from its beginning a Francophile, an absurd figure with which satirists reacted against Bourbon influence and fashions in Spain and against imported luxury goods that threatened national industries and values. As Joan Corominas and others have observed, the word currutaco derives from curro (a nickname for Francisco, which came to designate a majo, or stylish Andalusian peasant) and retaco (small). What I would add is that this combination is simply an inversion of the French term: petit (small) + maître (master or gentleman). The new term, it would seem, de-Gallicizes the existing convention, turning it on its head and giving it a Spanish flair.

Some later texts do pair the currutaco with the incroyable where the currutaco sports a chaleco de guillotina (guillotine waist-coat), a style worn by the jeunes gens and incroyables in solidarity with the guillotined aristocrats. Other works, however, dress the currutaco not in incroyable but in sansculotte styles such as the frac á lo sansculot (sansculotte frock coat), corbatas á la Jacobina (Jacobin cravats), pelo á la Jacobina (Jacobin haircut), and the caramañolas (carmagnole, the short jacket of the sansculottes). In the satirical poem “Judas, instructor de currutacos” (1798), a peasant asks a companion what a citoyen is and is told that it is a long cloak worn by the currutacos when their breeches are torn:

therefore, according to what we’re told by the broadsheets from France,

the currutacos would be

new sansculottes.

extrait from Dandyism in the age of revolution: The Art of The Cut, Elizabeth Amman, The university of Chicago Press (2015).

[bukatra]

To anyone who is not from America wondering how Americans got to be so fucked up, this is a song called "Dont stay in school" by Boyinaband. It is not a parody or satire or an exaggeration. These issues have been plaguing American school systems for decades.

(The school he is referring to is the years when a child is 5-18 years old. This is mandatory in America and culminates in a high school diploma. The experiences he describes are from public education. Private schools may have different experiences.)

I wasn't taught how to get a job

But I can remember dissecting a frog

I wasn't taught how to pay tax

But I know loads about Shakespeare's classics

I was never taught how to vote

They devoted that time to defining isotopes

I wasn't taught how to look after my health

But mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

Never spent a lesson on current events

Instead I studied The Old American West

I was never taught what laws there are

I WAS NEVER TAUGHT WHAT LAWS THERE ARE.

*Let me repeat, I was not taught the laws for the country I live in*

But I know how Henry the VIII killed his women

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived

Glad that's in my head instead of financial advice

I was shown the wavelengths of different hues of light

But I was never taught my human rights

Apparently, there's 30, do you know them? I don't.

Why the hell can't we both recite them by rote?

I know igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks

Yet I don't know squat about trading stocks

Or how money works at all, where does it come from?

How does the thing that motivates the world function?

Not taught how to budget and disburse my earnings

I was too busy there rehearsing cursive

Didn't learn how much it costs to raise a kid or what an affidavit is

But I spent days on what the quadratic equation is

Negative b, plus or minus, the square root of b squared

Minus 4ac, over 2a

That's insane, that's absolutely insane

They made me learn that over basic first aid

Or how to recognise the most deadly mental disorders

Or diseases with preventable causes

Or how to buy a house with a mortgage

If I could afford it

'Cause abstract maths was deemed more important

They say it's not the kids, the parents are the problem

Then if you taught the kids to parent, that's the problem solved then

All this advice about using a condom

But none for when you actually have a kid, when you want one

I'm only fluent in this language, for serious?

The rest of the world speaks two, do you think I'm an idiot?

They chose the solar over the political system

So, like a typical citizen, now, I don't know what I'm voting on

Which policies exist, or how to make them change

Mais oui, je parle un peu de française (but yeah, i speak a little bit of French)

So at 18, I was expected to elect a representative

For a system I had never, ever, ever been presented with

But I won't take it

I'll tell everyone my childhood was wasted

I'll share it everywhere how I was "educated"

And insist these pointless things

Don't stay in school

[tomsthoughtstoday]

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - what we can learn and some of the implications on a new world order

(Do you want to learn about China’s current strategy to further their economic and political goals? Read on with a short description of this enormous project.

The Belt and Road initiative is a project under development by China that is incentivising many European, Asian and African countries to accept Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) opportunities from China. Coined ‘debt financing’ by some critics of China’s BRI (debt financing is when a country coils another country into accepting deals with payments beyond the scope of the country’s ability to pay that back thereby acquiring the land, capital or patent etc.) encompasses most of the modern world but is targeting largely underdeveloped nations. Underdeveloped nations are ripe with uncertainty and politicians that are constantly seeking to improve the welfare of their citizens - many of their policies suffocated by short-term achievements lenses. These seemingly solutions in the immediate term (providing jobs and short term economic growth) can lead to significant problems in the future (debt financing). Aside from the negatives of FDI (Income repatriation, foreign ownership of land or companies, and a general disregard for the environmental/local impacts on communities) FDI is, statistically speaking, beneficial for countries which is why it has been taken up by most countries. The BRI’s main objective is to root out resource insecurity - a major barrier which is wedging the ability for China to develop. China requires large quantities of steel for the production of the many large infrastructure projects (which inherently improves productivity and the ability for an economy to produce more - improved quality of resources) which with Chinese companies backed by the government are currently infiltrating the Australian soil. Currently, it is a loss-loss situation for the Australian government. The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) is denying many Chinese companies the right to export iron ore back to China (solving their resource scarcity needs) politically with Chinese sanctions on Australian trade - and China seeking other iron ore exporters like Brazil. A major project for the BRI was a China-Pakistan economic corridor facilitating China’s access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing tension in the South China Sea and gaining greater access to quicker and cheaper trade. Ultimately, the BRI, from a United States perspective, is observed as a threat to the current world order - one which the USA might not dominate through the rise of Asia (its attempt to have an improved relationship with Korea, Japan, India, and Taiwan to maintain its foothold in the region is evident) but will ultimately bring about beneficial development for countries that need it the most - even if it means the loss of liberal democratic values for some of these countries influenced largely by the CCP. 

The QUAD (USA, Australia, Japan, India) have instigated the Blue Dot Network to combat and rival the BRI, however, nowhere near to the scale of the BRI. Australia is concerned about the rapid growth of China, and its threat to invade Taiwan as part of its ‘One China’ Policy. Moreover, Australia is recent years has been relatively unsubmissive to China and is generally backed by the Australian people so as not to be the victim of economic and political bullying by China. However, I personally don’t think that the Australian people are willing to suffer lower standards of living if we are willing to combat Chinese trade restrictions and a possible total social and economic exclusion. Nonetheless, there is most definitely a shifting rhetoric in our dealings with China - even with us ordinary citizens, not just the politicians - that is shifting the way China is dealing with us Australians. We have called out the human rights violations of their ‘re-education camps’, the stealing of intellectual data, called for an independent investigation into the origin of COVID-19 ultimately seeking more transparency (ironic I know - Witness K and many closed tribunals, attempting to pass laws to ban satirical media against Commonwealth officials, covering the real truth behind a ‘gas lead recovery’ through GISERA, Timor Leste, Indigenous peoples, Religious freedoms Bill, no independent corruption investigation committee - the list goes on however it is a subject for another post here down the line) it is evident that Australia is standing up to China. 

[xtruss]

US' Domestication of Diplomacy Compels allies To Plan For Alternative Scenarios

— Shen Yi | August 14, 2023

One Man Show. Illustration: Chen Xia/Global Times

Since the end of the Cold War, observers of the US' foreign strategy would acknowledge this trend - US' foreign policy is increasingly influenced by its domestic politics.

The main characteristic of this trend is that the formulation and implementation of the US' foreign strategy are no longer guided by rational considerations of the overall national interest or a rational analysis of global issues. Instead, they are noticeably more subject to the influence of US' domestic bipartisanship. The criteria prioritized for formulating and implementing foreign strategy revolve around whether it benefits each party, and how to avoid becoming a target of the opposition during election campaigns and how to provide materials for their political campaigns at minimal cost.

One consequence of this trend is that US' allies will find themselves in an awkward situation. The US, the leader of Western alliance and the sole global superpower, no longer has the will, and possibly even the capability, to continue providing the necessary public goods to fulfill its responsible leadership role. On the one hand, the US demands allies to maintain unwavering alignment and unconditional support for Washington's policies. On the other hand, it explicitly signals allies that it will no longer provide corresponding incentives or rewards.

In his article "India's Tryst with the Asian Century," (originally published in 2020, and included in his new book The Asian 21st Century) former Singaporean diplomat, Kishore Mahbubani, points out, "History teaches us that great powers recede when their domestic problems take priority, just as the British retreated from East of Suez. So, even though Japan and Australia remain staunch allies of the US today, they might be secretly planning for alternative scenarios."

Since former US president Donald Trump took office in 2017, the question of the alternative scenarios has become increasingly delicate and crucial for US allies. Because since then, the domestication of diplomacy is accelerating and spreading comprehensively.

The term "accelerating" refers to relentless strategic planning and policy implementation by the US, driven by domestic political considerations, to reinforce actions against China with significant containment features. These actions include tariffs, sanctions, interventions, disruptions, and even highly symbolic and explicitly targeted military maneuvers.

The term "spreading comprehensively" implies that relevant agendas are constantly extending from traditional political, military and diplomatic domains to trade, finance, society, and culture. In August, a US Congressional select committee has been investigating BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, and MSCI, one of the biggest providers of index funds, to determine whether they are investing Americans' savings in Chinese companies blacklisted by the US government for security reasons. Earlier August, rating agency Fitch downgraded the US government's top credit rating, due to concerns about the continuous deterioration of the US domestic political environment. This was almost inconceivable five to 10 years ago. Considering the current trends in the evolution of the US domestic political landscape and the absence of a corresponding capability in the political arena, perhaps the timing does come to contemplate Kishore Mahbubani's proposal for alternative scenarios (Plan B).

For the US' allies, regardless of whether they are steadfast allies, making a Plan B is not as daunting as it may seem. It simply requires these countries to approach the evolution of the US foreign strategy with a clear mind, assess the changing global trends and make decisions that are not contradictory to their own national interests. One has probably seen it on the internet: The TV show Utopia satirizes Australian defense policy by saying that increased military spending is intended to protect its shipping routes against China, while noting that China is Australia's major trading partner. So it was basically saying - Australia should be protecting trade with China from China.

However, the reality is even more ironic: Japan and Australia, the allies of the US in the Asia-Pacific region, follow the US foreign strategy in a way that leaves onlookers highly doubtful about their rationality. They stand unwaveringly and inexplicably next to the US, treating China, which clearly has direct and mutually beneficial interests with them, as a rival and enemy.

Undoubtedly, complex reasons and influencing factors are behind the formation of this bizarre situation. But it is believed, and hoped, that all parties can adopt a rational attitude. There's no need to stick to a single path, nor is there a need to get ready for sacrificing oneself even when knowing that the transportation they are on is at risk of derailment and the driver lacks the ability to steer properly.

Regardless of what the possible alternative scenarios may be, it is essential to return to the domain of rational diplomatic strategic decision-making, formulate clear-headed approaches and better pursue one's national interests. Holding onto the olive branch that China has never withdrawn, and responding with equal goodwill and constructive actions should be the shared understanding of all rational decision-makers.

The author is a director of the International Research Institute of Global Cyberspace Governance at Fudan University.

[glenthamert]

Australia's Defence Policy Explained

The USA protects trade routes with China .. $400 Billion yearly .. WATCH this Satire .. Is China really the threat some think .. Likely, NOT !

[mostlysignssomeportents]

{THIS IS SATIRE FROM THE ONION} ‘So Should I Invoice You Later?’ Says Janet Yellen Trying To Secure Speaking Fee After Meeting With Regulators

WASHINGTON—After she discussed the recent volatility of popular shorted stocks such as GameStop and AMC with a group of government regulators Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen reportedly tried to secure a speaking fee, asking officials if she should just invoice them later. “You can pay now, or you can wait until you receive a bill in the next few days,” Yellen said to the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, explaining that they would be charged her usual $250,000 minimum for the speech on why they should conduct a regulatory review of trading patterns. “Just send the check to my agent, Celebrity Talent International, and they’ll take care of the rest. Also, it’s no big deal, but I requested a veggie platter in my rider, and there wasn’t one here, so if you could just be aware of that for next time, that’d be great.” Yellen later stated that she would have to charge an additional consulting fee after the regulators held her over for an unanticipated Q&A session about the administration’s fiscal policy.

https://www.theonion.com/so-should-i-invoice-you-later-says-janet-yellen-tryi-1846190349